Bava Batra 124

As we’ve learned, a first-born son inherits a double portion of his father’s estate. This is the general rule, but of course there are almost always exceptions. On today’s daf, the Gemara investigates whether the general rule applies to enhancements made after a father’s death that add to the value of his property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the first born receives a double portion even of this enhanced estate and the rabbis say he does not. So whom do we follow? The Gemara gives us four options.

The first comes from Rabbi Hiyya:

(A judge who) acted in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has acted legally, and in accordance with the statement of the rabbis has acted legally. 

It appears that Rabbi Hiyya accepts both opinions, even though they are diametrically opposed. How can this be? The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Hiyya is uncertain that the law follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (when he has a dispute) with his colleagues but not with multiple colleagues, or whether the law follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (when he has a dispute) with his colleague, even with multiple colleagues.

We have an established principle that when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and a colleague disagree, we follow Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. We also have an established principle that in a dispute between an individual and a majority, we follow the majority. But what happens if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi has a dispute with a majority of his colleagues? If this were any other rabbi, this wouldn’t even be a question: No one would suggest that their minority opinion should take precedence over a plurality of rabbis. But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is not just any rabbi. He was the leader of the Sanhedrin and the editor of the Mishnah. So the question on the table is, when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is in dispute with multiple colleagues, does his opinion also carry the day? Given that Rabbi Hiyya is unsure of the answer to this question, he has no choice but to uphold the decisions of judges regardless of whether they rule according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or according to the rabbis. 

The second option comes from Rav, who prohibits judges from acting in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi because he holds that the law follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi only in disputes with a single colleague, but not in disputes with several. Rav Nachman disagrees (option three), holding that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion outweighs even a majority. And finally, the fourth option:

Rava says: It is prohibited to act in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, but if (a judge) did, it is done. 

Rava holds that we should follow the rabbis. But given that there’s some uncertainty here, if a judge did rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is not overturned.

Disputes between rabbis are often settled based upon the strength of the arguments they bring. But in this case, settling the debate has nothing to do with the merits of the respective opinions, but rather with the agreed-upon principles that govern disputes between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis. But alas, there is disagreement about those principles too. 

If you’re curious about the ruling in this particular case, well, it depends. According to Maimonides, there are instances where the first born gets a double portion and some where he does not, depending on the nature of the enhancement. But the broader issue raised by today’s discussion has no such neat resolution. Disputes between Yehuda HaNasi and the rabbis are numerous and appear throughout the Talmud. If the sages can’t agree on a principle by which we can resolve all of them, we might just have to resolve them one at a time.

Read all of Bava Batra 124 on Sefaria.

This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 27, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.