Bava Batra 251:1

ומלוה שעמו פלגי

and [in the case of] a loan that is with him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the firstborn. I.e., when he himself owes money to his father. ');">¹</span> [the portion of the birthright] is to be divided [between him and the other heirs].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He takes one half, and the others take the other half. The portion of the birthright is, in this case, of 'doubtful ownership'. If the loan in question were to be regarded as an ordinary debt, the firstborn would have had no claim at all to the double portion of the birthright. Since, however, the loan is in his own possession, it might he argued that he is entitled to the full share of his birthright. Hence the compromise. ');">²</span>

אמר רב הונא אמר רב אסי בכור שמיחה מיחה

R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: [If] the firstborn son had protested [against the proposed improvements in the bequeathed estate]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Demanding the distribution of the property prior to the introduction of the improvements; and the other heirs effected them against his wish. ');">³</span> his protest is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he protested'. He is entitled to a double portion even in the appreciation that was produced by their efforts. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבה מסתבר טעמיה דרב אסי בענבים ובצרום זיתים ומסקום אבל דרכום לא ורב יוסף אמר אפילו דרכום

Rabbah said: [The law] of R. Assi stands to reason in [the case] where grapes were cut<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the heirs. ');">⁵</span> [or] where olives were plucked;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the appreciation in these cases has not produced any radical change in the fruit. ');">⁶</span>

דרכום מעיקרא עינבי השתא חמרא

but where these were pressed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Into wine or oil. ');">⁷</span> [the firstborn does] not [receive a double portion].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though he protested; because, in this case, there was complete transformation of the original bequest. The wine or oil was never in the possession of the deceased. ');">⁸</span>

כדאמר רב עוקבא בר חמא ליתן לו דמי היזק ענביו ה"נ נותן לו דמי היזק ענביו

But R. Joseph said: Even if they were pressed. 'If,' [you said], 'they were pressed', [surely] at first [they were] grapes; now [they turned into] wine!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wine has never been in the possession of the deceased, why then should the firstborn be entitled to a double portion in the wine? ');">⁹</span> — As R. 'Ukba b. Hama said [elsewhere]. 'Compensation is to be paid to him for any damaged grapes',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to give him the value (money) of the damage of his grapes'. ');">¹⁰</span>

היכא איתמר דרב עוקבא בר חמא אהא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בכור ופשוט שהניח להן אביהן ענבים ובצרום זיתים ומסקום בכור נוטל פי שנים אפילו דרכום דרכום מעיקרא עינבי השתא חמרא אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא ליתן לו דמי היזק ענביו:

[so] here, also, compensation is paid to him for any damaged grapes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstborn receives a double portion. not in the wine, but in value of the grapes that were lost or damaged in the process of the manufacturing of the wine. The heirs, who made the change in disregard of his protest, must hear the loss. ');">¹¹</span> In what connection<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit.,'where'. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רב אסי בכור שנטל חלק כפשוט ויתר מאי ויתר רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר באותה שדה רב פפי משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר בכל הנכסים כולן

was [the statement] of R. 'Ukba b. Mama made?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'said'. ');">¹³</span> [In connection] with what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Where a father bequeathed to a firstborn, and to an ordinary son grapes which they cut<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Despite the protest of the firstborn. ');">¹⁴</span>

רב פפא משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר באותה שדה קא סבר אין לו לבכור קודם חלוקה (ומה דאתא לידיה אחיל אידך לא אחיל)

[or] olives which they plucked, the firstborn receives a double portion even if they pressed [the grapes]. '[If] they pressed [the grapes]', it was asked, '[were these not] first grapes [and] now [they are turned into] wine?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since this is a case of complete transformation. why should he receive a double portion? v. p. 522. n. 9. and n. 10. ');">¹⁵</span> [To this] R. 'Ukba b. Mama replied. 'Compensation is paid to him for any damaged grapes.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstborn receives a double portion. not in the wine, but in value of the grapes that were lost or damaged in the process of the manufacturing of the wine. The heirs, who made the change in disregard of his protest, must hear the loss. ');">¹¹</span>

ורב פפי משמיה דרבא אמר ויתר בכל הנכסים כולן קא סבר יש לו לבכור קודם חלוקה ומדאחיל בהא אחיל בכולהו

R. Assi said: If a firstborn son accepted a share [of a field]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bequeathed by his father. ');">¹⁶</span> equal [to that of] any other [brother], he has renounced [the claims of his birthright]. What [is meant by] 'renounced'? — R. Papa said in the name of Raba: He renounced his claim upon that field only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He may, however, still claim his rights in any of the other parts of the estate. ');">¹⁷</span>

והא דרב פפי ורב פפא לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דההוא בכור דאזיל זבין נכסי דידיה ודפשוט אזול יתמי בני פשוט למיכל תמרי [מהנהו לקוחות מחונהו] אמרי להו קרובים לא מיסתייא דזבנתינהו לנכסייהו אלא מימחא נמי מחיתו להו אתו לקמיה דרבא אמר להו לא עשה ולא כלום

R. Papi in the name of Raba said: He renounced [thereby] his claims upon the entire estate. R. Papa had said in the name of Raba [that] he renounced his claim upon that field only, [for] he is of the opinion [that] the firstborn is not regarded as legal possessor of [his share] before the division [between the heirs takes place];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, he can only renounce his share in that field which has been divided, but not in those parts of the estate which have not yet been divided, since no man can renounce or confer possession of a thing which is not his. (Rashb.) ');">¹⁸</span> and R. Papi had said in the name of Raba that he renounced. [thereby]. his claim upon the entire estate, [because] he is of the opinion [that] the firstborn is considered [legal] possessor of [his share] before the division takes place, and [it is assumed that], since he has renounced his claim over that [one field] he has [also] renounced his claim upon all the others. And the [statements reported by] R. Papi and R. Papa [in the name of Raba] were not made<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'said'. ');">¹⁹</span> explicitly [by him], but inferred [by them]. For there was a certain firstborn son who went [and] sold his own property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His double portion in the bequeathed stare of his father. ');">²⁰</span> and [that] of his other [brother].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he sold the entire estate, before It had been divided between him and his brother, without the consent of the latter. ');">²¹</span> [When] the orphans, the sons of the other [brother], went to eat [of] the dates of the buyers, the latter beat them. 'Is it not enough', said the [orphans'] relatives to them, 'that you bought up their property, but you must also beat them?' They came before Raba, [and] he said to them: 'The sale is invalid'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he (the firstborn) has not done anything'. ');">²²</span>