Study Bava Batra folio 111B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אמר ליה לשמעיה: גוד, לית דין צבי למילף. וטעמא מאי? אמר אביי, אמר קרא: ״בכל אשר ימצא לו״; ״לו״ – ולא לה.
He said to his attendant: Take me away from here, as this man, R' Yehuda Nesia, does not desire to learn but is instead raising difficulties that are easily resolved. And what is the reason he does not receive a double portion? Abaye said: The verse concerning the double portion received by a firstborn son states: “By giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17), indicating that he receives a double portion in all that he has, but not in all that she has.
ואימא: הני מילי בחור שנשא אלמנה, אבל בחור שנשא בתולה – הכי נמי דשקיל!
The Talmud asks: And why not say that this statement applies in the case of a bachelor who married a widow, i.e., a man who marries a woman who already has children from another man, so that the firstborn son is his firstborn but not hers, but in the case of a bachelor who married a virgin, so too the halakha will be that their firstborn son will take a double portion of his mother’s inheritance?
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, אמר קרא: ״ראשית אנו״; ״אונו״ – ולא אונה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There is a different derivation teaching that halakha, as the same verse states: “For he is the first fruits of his strength [ono]” (Deuteronomy 21:17), indicating that the halakha of the double portion is stated with regard to his strength, but not her strength, thereby excluding a son who is the firstborn of his mother alone.
ההוא מבעיא ליה לבא אחר נפלים, דלהוי בכור לנחלה – מי שלבו דווה עליו, יצא זה שאין לבו דווה עליו!
The Talmud challenges: But that verse is required to derive the halakha of a child who came into the world after his mother gave birth to non-viable newborns who did not reach the full term of 9 months. This verse teaches that such a firstborn son should be a firstborn with regard to inheritance, even though he is not a firstborn with regard to the mitzva to redeem one’s firstborn son. How is this halakha derived from the verse? The term “his strength [ono]” is understood as referring to acute mourning [aninut], in the following manner: A firstborn son for the purpose of inheritance of land is only one whose father’s heart is pained about him when he dies, i.e., a son who lives beyond birth, excluding this non-viable newborn whose father’s heart is not pained about him when he dies. Therefore, the next viable son to be born after a non-viable newborn is considered the firstborn.