Bava Batra 124 - October 27, 25 Tishrei

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of their friend and co-learner Debbie Weber Schreiber on the birth of a granddaughter. "May the new addition be a source of pride to the entire family and to Am Yisrael, and be a harbinger of simcha and shalom for us all.  תזכו לגדלה לתורה ולחופה ולמעשים טובים" A braita ruled that the firstborn gets a double portion of the enhancement of their father's property that happened on its own, without the orphans' intervention. However, the Gemara points out that this is Rabbi Yehuda haNasi's opinion as the rabbis disagree and hold that the firstborn does not get a double portion of any enhancement. Rabbi Yehuda haNasi brings an example of this - a promissory note that was paid back after the father's death. If the father's estate owed a debt, the firstborn would need to pay a double portion, but if he agreed to pass up on receiving a double portion of the inheritance, he would not have to pay double for the loan. The Gemara brings the verse in the Torah where the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda haNasi derive their positions. Rav Papa limits the debate to a situation where the enhanced item is different from the original item, i.e. date flowers that became dates. There are four opinions about whether it is clear with whom the halakha accords or whether it is unclear and what we do with a case where a judge rules against the accepted opinion. Rav Nachman and Rami bar Hama each quote a Midrash Halakha (Sifrei) that accords with a different opinion on this issue. Rav Yehuda quoted Shmuel's ruling that a firstborn does not get a double portion on a loan. The Gemara tries to assess whether this ruling follows the opinion of the rabbis or Rabbi Yehuda haNasi, and concludes that it follows the rabbis' position. A ruling was sent from Israel to Babylonia that if a loan was paid back from a non-Jew, the firstborn would collect a double portion from the principal but not from the interest. This is understood to be the rabbis' opinion. Why would they distinguish between the principal and the interest? The principal is considered as if it is already collected, but the interest is not. The conclusion of this ruling seems to contradict Shmuel's ruling. Ameimar rules like the Israeli ruling and Rav Acha points out that he followed Rav Nachman's position as they were both from the same city, Nehardea. Raba and Rav Nachman each distinguish, in an opposite manner, between a loan that is paid back in land and one that is paid back in cash.