הַבְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם. וְאֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בַּשֶּׁבַח, וְלֹא בָרָאוּי כְּבַמֻּחְזָק. וְלֹא הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ, וְלֹא הַבָּנוֹת בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הַיָּבָם. וְכֻלָּן אֵין נוֹטְלִין בַּשֶּׁבַח, וְלֹא בָרָאוּי כְּבַמֻּחְזָק:
Der Erstgeborene nimmt eine doppelte Portion im Eigentum seines Vaters ein, aber keine doppelte Portion im Eigentum der Mutter. Und er nimmt weder einen doppelten Anteil an [seiner Wertsteigerung] [nach seinem Tod] noch an dem, was geeignet ist, [in den Besitz seines Nachlasses zu gelangen, sondern vielmehr] an dem, was er jetzt hält. Weder eine Frau [sammelt] für ihre Ketuba noch Töchter für ihren Lebensunterhalt, noch das Yavam , keiner von ihnen nimmt eine doppelte Portion an [seiner Wertsteigerung] [nach seinem Tod] noch an dem, was geeignet ist, in Besitz zu kommen von seinem Nachlass, sondern] in dem, was er jetzt hält.
Gray Matter III
There are several important exceptions to this seemingly simple Halachah. First, a son born by Caesarean section does not qualify for the double portion (Bechorot 8:9). In addition, the Mishnah (ibid.) teaches that the bechor is entitled to receive a double share only from assets held by the decedent at the time of his death (muchzak). The bechor does not receive a double portion from the contingent assets (ra’ui) – the assets to which the decedent had a right at the time of death but which he did not actually have in hand (e.g. unpaid debts). There is considerable debate concerning the implementation of this rule. For example, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Teshuvot Yabia Omer 8 C.M. 8) and Rav Yaakov Blau (Pitchei Choshen 8:2:26) rule that money deposited in a bank is considered ra’ui. On the other hand, Rav Hershel Schachter records (Sha’arei Tzedek 7:110) that Rav Moshe Feinstein believed that money deposited in a bank, including the interest accumulated before death, is considered muchzak. A similar dispute exists between Rav Yechezkel Landau (Teshuvot Noda Biy’huda C.M. 1:34) and the Aruch Hashulchan (C.M. 278:13) as to whether government bonds are considered ra’ui or muchzak.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
