Previous Folio /
Baba Bathra Contents /
Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Baba Bathraso [in the case of] one rented out or given on hire, the appreciation [must be] such as comes naturally and they do not lose thereby [the cost of its] food.1 In accordance with [whose view is the law2 quoted]? — It is [in accordance with that of] Rabbi. For it was taught: a firstborn son is not [entitled] to take a double portion in the appreciation of the estate, which accrued after the death of their father. Rabbi said: I say, A firstborn son does take a double portion in the [natural] appreciation of an estate which accrued after the death of their father,3 but not in the appreciation which the orphans produced after the death of their father. If they inherited a bond of indebtedness the firstborn takes a double portion [in the collected debt].4 If a bond of indebtedness [for a debt incurred by the father] was produced against them, the firstborn must pay a double portion [of the debt]. If, however, he said, 'I neither give, nor take [the double portion]',5 he is allowed [to do so].6 What is the reason [for the opinion] of the Rabbis?7 Scripture says, Giving him a double portion,8 the [All] merciful has, thus, called it a gift;9 as a gift [does not become his]10 until it comes into his possession,11 so the portion of the birthright [does not become his] until it comes into his [father's] possession.12 But Rabbi maintains, [since] Scripture says, a double portion,13 the portion of the birthright [is to be] compared to the ordinary portion; as the ordinary portion [is his] although it has not yet come into his [father's] possession,14 so [is] the portion of the birthright although it has not yet come into his possession. But [as to] the Rabbis also, surely it is written, a double portion? — That [expression indicates that the two portions] to be given to him are to adjoin one another.15 But [as to] Rabbi also, surely it is written, Giving him? — That [expression is to indicate] that if he said, 'I neither take, nor give [the double portions],'16 he is permitted to do so. R. Papa said: [In the case where] a [young] palm-tree [was bequeathed] and it became stronger, [or a plot of] and and it produced alluvial soil, all17 agree that [the firstborn] takes [a double portion].18 The dispute only relates to [the case] where hafurah19 turned into [well developed] ears of corn, [or where] undeveloped dates turned into [fully developed] dates. [One] Master20 is of the opinion that this is regarded as natural appreciation,21 and the [other] Master[s]22 hold the opinion [that this is a case of complete] transformation.23 Rabbah b. Hana said in the name of R. Hiyya, 'He who acts24 in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi is acting correctly,25 [and] he who acts24 in accordance with the opinion of the Sages26 is acting correctly.'25 —
Baba Bathra 124b[For] he1 was in doubt as to whether the halachah is in accordance [with the decision of] Rabbi [when it is in opposition to that] of his colleague,2 but not [when it is opposed to that] of his colleagues,3 or is the halachah in accordance [with] Rabbi [when in opposition to] his colleague and even [when he is opposed to] his colleagues.4 R. Nahman said in the name of Rab, 'It is forbidden to act in accordance with the decision of Rabbi,5 for he holds the opinion [that] the halachah is in accordance [with] Rabbi, [when in opposition to] his colleague, but not [when he is opposed to] his colleagues.' R. Nahman in his own name,6 however, said, 'It is permitted to act in accordance with the decision of Rabbi'; for he holds the opinion [that] the halachah is in accordance [with] Rabbi [when in opposition to] his colleague and even [when opposed to] his colleagues. Raba said, 'It is forbidden to act in accordance with the decision of Rabbi, but if one did act [accordingly], his action is legally valid;'7 for he is of the opinion [that at the college] it was said [that they were only] inclined8 [in favour of the opinion of the Rabbis]. R. Nahman learned9 in the 'other books of the School of Rab':10 Of all that he hath,11 excludes the appreciation [of an estate] which the heirs have produced after the death of their father; but [in] the [natural] appreciation of the estate [that accrued] after the death of their father he [does] take [a double portion]. And who is [the author of this statement]? — It is Rabbi. Rami b. Hama learned in the 'other books of the School of Rab':10 Of all that he hath,11 excludes12 the [natural] appreciation of an estate [that accrued] after the death of their father, and much less is he [entitled] to take [a double portion in] the appreciation which the heirs produced after the death of their father. And who is [the author of this statement]? — The Rabbis. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: A firstborn son does not take a double portion in a loan.13 [According] to whom [was this statement required]?14 If it is suggested, [according] to the Rabbis, [it may be retorted] if the Rabbis maintain that an appreciation which accrues to his possession15 [the firstborn] takes no [double portion], is there any need [to state that he takes no double portion in] a loan?16 — But [the statement was required according] to Rabbi. Who, then, was the author of] what has been taught. 'If they inherited a bond of indebtedness, the firstborn takes a double portion both in the loan and in the interest'? Neither Rabbi nor the Rabbis!17 This statement18 may, indeed, be required [according] to [the view of] the Rabbis,19 [for] it might have been assumed [that, in the matter of] a loan, since he is in possession20 of the bond, [the debt] is regarded as collected, hence [the law] had to be stated.21 [A message] was sent from Palestine:22 a firstborn takes a double portion in a loan, but not in [its] interest.23 [According] to whom [is this law]?24 If it is suggested [that it is according] to the Rabbis, [it may be retorted:] If the Rabbis maintain that [in] an appreciation which accrues to his possession [the firstborn is] not to take [a double portion], is there any question as to [whether he takes a double portion in] a loan?25 — But [the statement is according] to Rabbi. [Does] not [the firstborn, however, according] to Rabbi [take a double portion] in the interest [also]? Surely it was taught: Rabbi said: A firstborn takes a double portion both in a loan and in [its] interest! — This is really [in accordance with] the Rabbis, but a loan [is regarded] as collected.26 R. Aha b. Rab said to Rabina: Amemar [once] happened to come to our place, and gave the following exposition: A firstborn takes a double portion in a loan but not in [its] interest. He said to him: The [scholars] of Nehardea follow their [own] view;27 for R. Nahman said:28 [If] land was collected [for the debt, the firstborn] has no [double portion],29 [if] money was collected he has [it],30 but Rabbah said: [If] money was collected he has no [double portion],31 [if] land was collected, he has.32 Abaye said to Rabbah: Following33 you there is a difficulty; following33 R. Nahman there is a difficulty. Following you there is [this] difficulty: - To Next Folio -
|
||||||