Bava Batra 249

מאי שנא מעות דלא דלאו הני מעות שבק אבוהון קרקע נמי לאו הא קרקע שבק אבוהון

What is the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is the difference?' ');">¹</span>

ועוד (הא את הוא דאמרת) מסתבר טעמא דבני מערבא דאי קדים סבתא וזבנא זבינה זביני

[why he] does not [take a double portion if] money [was collected]? [Is it not] because their father did not bequeath that particular money? [In the case of] land also, their father, [surely], did not bequeath that land! Furthermore, you, O Master, have said, [that] the reason of the Palestinians is logical, for if the grandmother had sold [her estate] before [her death], her sale would have been valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 125b. This shows that land, though regarded as pledged, is not considered to be in possession of the creditor since the debtor can dispose of it and meet his liability in another manner; how, then, could Rabbah state that the firstborn if land was collected, receives a double portion? ');">²</span>

לרב נחמן קשיא מאי שנא קרקע דלא דלאו הא קרקע שבק אבוהון מעות נמי לאו הני מעות שבק אבוהון

Following R. Nahman there is [this] difficulty: What is the reason<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what is the difference?' ');">¹</span>

ועוד הא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה יתומים שגבו קרקע בחובת אביהן בעל חוב חוזר וגובה מהן

why he does not [take a double portion when] land [was collected]? [Is it not] because their father did not bequeath that land? [In the case of] money also, their father did not bequeath that money! Furthermore, surely, R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: [If] orphans collected [a plot of] land for their father's debt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That was owing to him. ');">³</span>

אמר ליה לא לדידי קשיא ולא לרב נחמן קשיא טעמא דבני מערבא קאמרינן ולן לא סבירא לן

the creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom their father owed money. ');">⁴</span>

מאי סבתא דההוא דאמר להו

may re-collect it from them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although they received that land after the death of their father, it is regarded as having itself been 'in the father's possession, since it had been obtained through the money (debt) bequeathed to them by their father. In the case of the birthright also, since the land was obtained through the debt that was bequeathed by their father, it should be regarded as having been in his possession, and the first-born should take a double portion; how, then, could R. Nahman say that if land was collected for a debt, the firstborn does not receive a double portion? ');">⁵</span> — He replied to him: There is no difficulty according to me, nor is there any difficulty according to R. Nahman. We were stating the reason of the Palestinians,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who hold that a firstborn takes a double portion in a loan, and this gave rise to the differences of opinion between Rabbah and R. Nahman. ');">⁶</span> but we ourselves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and to us'. ');">⁷</span> do not hold [this] opinion.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But share the opinion of Rab and Samuel that the right of primogeniture does not apply to a loan and the whole question, whether the payment was made in money or land, does not arise. ');">⁸</span> What [was the story of the] grandmother? [Once] a certain [person] said to them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His executors. ');">⁹</span>