Komentarz do Bechorot 8:9
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:
Pierworodny bierze podwójną część majątku swojego ojca, ale nie bierze podwójnej części majątku matki. I nie bierze podwójnego udziału w [jego wzroście] wartości [po jego śmierci], ani w tym, co jest odpowiednie [do wejścia w posiadanie jego majątku, ale raczej] z tego, co posiada teraz. Ani kobieta [nie zbiera] za swoją ketubę, ani córki na utrzymanie, ani yavam , żaden z nich nie bierze podwójnej części [jej wzrostu] wartości [po jego śmierci] ani w tym, co jest odpowiednie [w posiadaniu] jego majątku, ale raczej w tym, co posiada teraz.
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא בנכסי האם – the usufruct property (i.e., the wife’s personal property from which her husband is entitled to benefit – brought into the marriage from her father’s home and that is not included in her marriage contract, and property that she inherits or receives as a gift after her marriage) of the mother, as it is written (Deuteronomy 21:17): “since he is the first fruit of his vigor, the birthright is his due,” implying that it refers to that which is his (i.e., the father’s), that is to say, with his property, “the birthright is his due,” but not the property of his wife.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
Introduction
The first-born takes a double share in the inheritance. Our mishnah mentions several limitations on this halakhah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ואינו נוטל פי שים בשבח – if the property [of the father] grew in value after the death of the father prior to their dividing it, the first born does not take a double portion of the increased value/amelioration. But rather, they assess the property, what it was worth at the time of the death of the father and the first-born [son] takes a double portion of them alone, as it states (Deuteronomy 21:17): “and allot to him a double portion of all he possesses,” of what belonged to the father at the time of [his] death.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
The first-born takes a double share of the father's estate but he does not take a double share of the mother’s estate. The first born takes a double share in his father’s estate, but not in his mother’s, should the sons inherit from their mother.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא בראוי (what is coming due to the estate [as he does of what is held in possession]) – in the property, for their father did not hold in possession at the time of his death, but other than what was appropriate to fall to him in inheritance, but what fell to them after a time, the first-born does not take from them a double portion.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
He also does not take a double share of the improvement in the value of the estate. If the value of the father’s estate has gone up from the time of the father’s death before the division of the estate, the first born takes his double share only from the value of the estate at the time of death. For instance, if there are three sons, the first born will take half of the estate. If the estate is worth 1,000 at death, he takes 500 and the other sons take 250 each. But if the estate goes up 300 in value from death to division, he only takes 100 of the added value.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא האשה בכתובתה – in the growth that accrued . But if the property [value] is not equivalent at the time of the death of her husband in order to the measure [of what is written] in her Ketubah, but afterwards it increased [in value], she does not take for her Ketubah settlement other than what they were worth [at the time of his death], and even though in general, the creditor collects the increase in value, this is one of the leniencies of the Ketubah that they taught here. And she does not take what is coming due to the estate as she does of what is held in possession.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
Nor from what will fall due [to the estate] as he does of what is held in possession. If there is money or property that will eventually belong to his father but does not belong to the father at the time of his death, the first born son does not take a double share of it. For instance, let’s say the father dies before his own father dies. When the grandfather dies, the grandsons will inherit the part of the estate that their father would have inherited. Out of this part the first born grandson does not take a double portion.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא הבנות – [the daughters do not] take maintenance/alimentation after the death of their father according to the conditions of her (i.e., the wife’s) Ketubah (see Tractate Ketubot, Chapter 4, Mishnah 11), but the female children, they will be yours, but from me they may dwell in my house and are supported from my property. Not from the increase in value of the property nor from that which is appropriate to come after death. Since the maintenance of the daughters is from the conditions of the Ketubah, they are like the Ketubah itself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bekhorot
Nor can a woman claim with her ketubah [from these], Nor can daughters claim their support. Nor can a yavam make a claim [from these]. None of these take from the improvement in the value of the estate, nor of what will fall to the estate as they do of what is now held in possession. There are three other instances where collection is limited in the same way that the first born’s collection is limited. 1: A woman collecting her ketubah payment from her husband’s estate. 2: Girls being maintained by the money left over from their father’s estate. 3: A man (yavam) who has performed yibbum (levirate marriage) with his dead brother’s wife. The yavam inherits all of his brother’s property. He would also inherit his brother’s portion of his father’s estate, but he would only take from his father’s estate and not his mother’s. Similarly, he would not take his brother’s share from the improvement. Finally, he would only take his brother’s share of his father’s estate if his father dies first, and they don’t have time to divide up the property before his brother dies and he does yibbum.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא היבם – [the levir] who takes a portion of the [property] of the dead when he performs levirate marriage with his wife, he does not take the portion of his brother, neither from the increase [in value] nor form that which is coming due to the estate [over time]. What is the reason? The All-Merciful calls him “the first born (Deuteronomy 25:6): “The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother,” like the first-born son; just as the first-born does not take from the increase nor that which is appropriate to come [to him], so too the levir does not take neither the increase in value nor what is appropriate to come (i.e., what is expected to accrue to the estate).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
וכולן אינן נוטלין בשבח – He teaches this again [in the Mishnah] to include increase that comes of its own accord/automatically, as for example, grain that was ruined when his father died and now it made ears of corn, or dates in the budding stage and they now became large dates. For if the Mishnah had only taught the first clause, I would think that the firstborn does not take a double-portion of the increase in value, that they words refer to the increase that his brother was busy with as for example the manuring of the fields and the crushing of the earth and the hoeing.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bekhorot
ולא בראוי כבמוחזק – to include [as well] if the father of their father was alive at the time of the death of their father, that the property would be appropriate to them [via inheritance] when he would die, even though that certainly, it would eventually fall to them, and even if he has another son, these would take the portion of their father, for I might think that it is like what is held in possession. Hence, this is not the case. For if only from the first clause of the Mishnah, I might think that what is appropriate according to what is taught in the first clause, the first born does not take, as for example, when the property of the brother of their father who did not have children fell to them at the time of the death of their father, it is not appropriate other than from doubt, for perhaps he will not have issue.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy