The current chapter of Bava Batra has explored the laws governing how a first-born son inherits property. In exploring this topic, the Gemara has also explored the question of how we determine a first born’s status to begin with. Continuing in this vein, today’s daf references an inquiry:
The residents of Akra De’Agma sent to Shmuel: Teach us, our master: (If the court) had a presumption concerning this, that he is a first born. And his father says concerning another: He is first born. What is the law?
Who do we trust in determining first-born status? Do we give preference to the belief of the court, based off of general knowledge? Or do we always listen to the father, even if his information contradicts the assumed state of affairs?
Shmuel sent to them: They write an authorization, each to the other.
Shmuel’s solution is to have each brother authorize the other to collect their first-born portion. The two brothers then jointly collect the first-born portion and split it between them, since it surely belongs to at least one of them. Shmuel treats this scenario as one of uncertainty: Rather than assuming either son is the first born, he treats each one as a possible first born. As in other cases where we’re not sure about the status of a first born, Shmuel rules that each possible first born should write an authorization to the other to collect land on their behalf.
The Gemara then raises a difficulty with Shmuel’s answer:
If he holds in accordance with the rabbis, he should have sent them in accordance with the rabbis, and if he holds in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, he should have sent them in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.
The question before Shmuel maps onto a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis that the Gemara is about to lay out. Rabbi Yehuda believes that a father is always trusted to state who his first-born son is, even when that contradicts an existing presumption, whereas the rabbis believe that we follow a presumption over a father’s word. Either way, one son is treated as a first-born. It’s not considered a case of uncertainty. Why then does Shmuel treat it like one?
The Gemara continues:
He is uncertain whether (the law is) in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda or in accordance with the rabbis.
Since Shmuel is uncertain about whether the law follows Rabbi Yehuda or the rabbis, rather than definitively stating that one of the sons is the first born, he says that we treat the matter as a case of uncertainty — or in rabbinic parlance, a safek.
There are two types of safek at play here: uncertainty about reality and uncertainty about the law. Everyone agrees that there’s a basic uncertainty about the reality — we don’t have definitive proof as to which son is the first born. However, the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda believe there is a definitive way to rule in this particular matter of uncertainty: We either go by the father’s word or the presumptive status and treat one son as the first born.
Shmuel adds another layer of uncertainty: He isn’t sure which opinion we follow in dealing with the uncertain reality, and therefore we also end up with an uncertainty of law. This, the Gemara explains, is how we get Shmuel’s answer: Both sons are treated as possible first borns and split the inheritance.
Read all of Bava Batra 127 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 30, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
