When we say that a B'chor receives a double portion in his father's property, we mean - one extra portion corresponding to one son.

The logic behind this is the fact that when there five other brothers, he inherits one extra portion just like he does when there is one brother. The counter argument to this is that - he takes half the property, just like he does when there is only one other brother.

The Beraisa quotes several Pesukim to prove the above ruling. He will ultimately learn it from a Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim from the B'nei Yosef, as we shall see) - from a so-called 'Binyan-Av', which is really no more than a 'Giluy Milsa' (an indication). Granted, we cannot learn Divrei Torah from Divrei Kabalah [Nevi'im and Kesuvim]) in the form of a Limud but this is merely a revelation to clarify the meaning of 'B'chorah'.

The Tana queries theproof from the Pasuk ...

... in Ki Setzei "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav" (which we quote as an indication that the Torah grants the B'chor only one portion extra) in that - we need this Pasuk to teach us the Din of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (whom we quoted on the previous Daf).

... in Divrei Hayamim "u'Venei Reuven B'chor Yisrael ... u've'Chilelo Yetzu'ei Aviv Nitnah B'choraso li'Venei Yosef" (which we try to learn by means of a 'Giluy Milsa' from the beginning of the Pasuk) that - "B'choraso" is not quite the same as "B'chorah".

... (ibid.) "Ki Yehudah ... ve'ha'B'chorah le'Yosef" that - this Pasuk gives no indication as to how much the extra portion of a B'chor entails.

... (Vayechi) "va'Ani Nasati l'cha Sh'chem Echad al Achecha" that - "Sh'chem Echad" itself might be as little as a date-palm.

Rav Papa asked Abaye how we know that "Sh'chem Echad" does not mean something extra (such as a date-palm), rather than whether the B'nei Yosef did not inherit double of all the property, like we thought at first- because had the B'nei Menasheh (who were really only half a tribe) received so much (an entire portion extra), they would not have complained.

Abaye replied - by quoting the Pasuk ''Efrayim u'Menasheh ki'Reuven ve'Shimon Yih'yu li", a definite proof that the B'nei Yosef received two portions (instead of the one that was due to their father).

The Beraisa did not bother to quote Abaye's Pasuk - because the Tana took for granted that this is what the Torah meant by "Sh'chem Echad".

We cannot say that, when Ya'akov gave the double portion to Yosef, he was appointing him the B'chor in Reuven's place - because the Pasuk specifically writes "ve'Lo Le'hisyaches li'B'chorah" ('not for the B'chorah to be considered his').

When Ya'akov said "asher Lakachti mi'Yad ha'Emori be'Charbi u've'Kashti" he meant - the land that he took with his prayers and request (see Rashi on the Torah and Agados Maharsha).

The Pasuk cannot be taken literally - because David ha'Melech said in Tehilim (with reference to Ya'akov) "Ki Lo be'Kashti Evtach ve'Charbi Lo Soshi'eni (for I will not trust in my sword, nor will my bow save me!').

Rebbi Chelbo asked Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani what Ya'akov Avinu saw to take away the B'chorah from Reuven and give it to Yosef. The latter did not like the question - because the Torah specifically writes that Reuven lost his rights because he desecrated Ya'akov's bed (when he switched the beds of Bilhah and his mother Le'ah).

So Rebbi Chelbo amended the question to why Ya'akov gave the B'chorah specifically to Yosef. To which Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni replied that - it was in payment for Yosef having fed him in Egypt for seventeen years.

And he illustrated this with a parable of - a Balabos (Yosef) who brought up an orphan (Ya'akov, a stranger in Egypt). Eventually, when the orphan succeeded in life, he made a point of paying back the Balabos for his kindness.

Rebbi Chelbo rejected this answer however - because Ya'akov ought to have paid Yosef out of his own pocket, not with the property of one of the brother's (and what would he have done if Reuven had not sinned?)

So he quoted Rebbi Yonasan - (Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmani's Rebbe) who explained that it was because strictly speaking, the B'chor should have been born from Rachel, as the Torah specifically writes "Eileh Toldos Ya'akov, Yosef", and it was only because of Le'ah's tears that she gave birth before Rachel (see Agados Maharsha).

Ya'akov certainly repaid Yosef for having fed him all those years - with the special B'rachos that he gave Efrayim and Menasheh (including "ve'Yidgu la'Rov be'Kerev ha'Aretz", placing them outside the jurisdiction of the Ayin ha'Ra, as we learned earlier).

Rebbi Elazar explains the Pasuk "ve'Einei Le'ah Rakos" to mean that - she would receive many gifts (she'Matnosehah Aruchos'), with reference to the Matanos that the tribe of Levi would later receive, and the Kingship that was given to Yehudah.

He does not accept the literal interpretation of these words - because if the Torah refrains from speaking detrimentally about an animal (which it does in Parshas Noach, by writing "Beheimah asher Einenah Tehorah" instead of "Beheimah Teme'ah"), it will certainly not speak detrimentally about a Tzadik.

Rav explains that her eyes were soft from crying - sparked off by hearing people predict that Eisav (Rivkah's older son) would marry her (as she was Lavan's older daughter) and Ya'akov, Rachel, and then discovering that Eisav was a robber, and Ya'akov a Talmid-Chacham.

She got to know about the characteristics of Ya'akov and Eisav - by sitting at the crossroads and inquiring from passing travelers.

We therefore interpret the phrase "va'Yar Hash-m ki Senu'ah Le'ah" to mean that - the deeds of Eisav were detestable in her eyes.

Leah ...

... wrested the B'chorah away from Rachel by means of her tears and prayers (that Hash-m should spare her from Esav), and ...

... Rachel regained it (at least in part) through her Tzeni'us (modesty), as we shall now see.

When Ya'akov told Rachel that he was her father's brother (even though, he was really her father's sister's son - he meant that, if, as Rachel had informed him, Lavan was a master trickster, he would meet his match in himself.

Ya'akov justified his willingness to swindle when dealing with Lavan - based on the Pasuk in Tehilim "Im Ikesh Titapal" (permitting one to fight a swindler, using his own methods).

Ya'akov and Rachel guarded against Lavan's anticipated swindle - by implementing signs of recognition (which Chazal interpret as 'Nidah, Chalah and Hadlakas ha'Ner' by which Rachel would identify herself on the night of her wedding).

All their plans came to naught however, when - Rachel, who could not bear to see her sister put to shame in this way, divulged those signs to Le'ah (an act of piety for which she regained the B'chorah, as we just saw).

In this way, we can understand the Pasuk "Vayehi ba'Boker ve'Hineh hi Leah" - implying that the whole night, she was Rachel and not Le'ah (which is what she had tricked Ya'akov into believing).

When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba suggested that the seventieth (unspecified) person who went down to Egypt (and the thirty-third member of the tribe of Levi) was a twin sister whom Le'ah bore together with Dinah, Aba Chalifa the Chumash expert retorted that - if that were so, we may as well count the extra twin who was born with Binyamin, making the number seventy-one (see Agados Maharsha).

When the former replied 'Margalis Tovah Haysah be'Yadi ve'Atah Mevakesh le'Abdah mimeni' he meant that - he wanted to guard the real answer like a precious pearl, which Aba Chalifa had now forced him to reveal ...

... though in reality, he was merely sharpening Aba Chalifa's wits.

The pearl was in the form of a statement by Rebbi Chama bar Chanina (whom we quoted above) - who named the seventieth person as Yocheved bas Levi.

Rebbi Chelbo asked Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni why Ya'akov waited for the birth of Yosef before taking leave of Lavan, to which he replied (based on a Pasuk in Ovadyah) that - Ya'akov foresaw that Eisav would eventually fall into the hands of Yosef.

The Navi there compares "the House of Ya'akov to fire, the House of Yosef to a spark" and the House of Eisav - to stubble".

Rebbi Chelbo queried him however, from the Pasuk in Shmuel, which describes the defeat of Amalek at the hand of David after the former had attacked his camp and taken captive David's wives as well as the wives of his men - seeing as David was from the tribe of Yehudah, and not Yosef.

Before answering, Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni reprimanded him in that - whoever taught him Nevi'im, had not taught him Kesuvim.

He then answered ...

... his Kashya by pointing to a Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim - which specifically states that on his way to Tziklag, a string of men, heads of the thousands of Menasheh (who was indeed from Yosef), joined his troop.

... Rav Yosef, when he queried him from the Pasuk which refers to five hundred men from the B'nei Shimon, who also defeated Amalek, led by sons of Yish'i, before taking over their territory - by pointing to another Pasuk, which describes Yish'i too, as a member of the tribe of Menasheh.

The Beraisa includes the Zero'a, the Lechayayim and the Keivah, as well as Hekdesh (both of which will be explained shortly), among the father's property of which a B'chor receives double. When the Tana includes 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim le'Achar Miysas Avihen', he means (besides a 'Parah Muchkeres u'Muskeres be'Yad Acherim') - a cow grazing in a public meadow that gives birth.

A 'Parah ...

... Muchkeres be'Yad Acherim' is - a cow that their father gave to someone as an investment, to share the profits.

... Muskeres... ' is - a cow that he rented to him for a fixed amount.

The B'chor does not however, receive double of houses or vineyards that were built or planted by the heirs themselves - because it is a profit that came about through the work of the heirs themselves, unlike the Reisha, which constitutes an automatic profit.

If the Zero'a, the Lechayayim and the Keivah (the right foreleg, the cheeks and the stomach of any Chulin animal, which the owner gives to a Kohen) were already given to the father (who is a Kohen), then it is obvious that his heirs will receive double. If, on the other hand, they were not - then it is Ra'uy, and we have already learned that a B'chor does not receive an extra portion in whatever is Ra'uy.

We therefore establish the case by 'Makirei Kehunah' - where relatives or close friends always give their Matanos to a specific Kohen ...

... and the case here is where the animal was already Shechted whilst the father was still alive, even though the Matanos were not yet separated ...

... which their father nevertheless acquired - because this Tana holds 'Matanos she'Lo Hurmu ke'Mi she'Hurmu Damyan (even though the Matanos have not yet been separated, it is considered as if they have).

The problem with the fact that the Beraisa also includes Hekdesh in the list of things that the B'chor receives double is that - Hekdesh belongs to Hash-m, and not to any individual owner.

And we answer by establishing the Beraisa by Kodshim Kalim, according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili who learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with Reuven who denies under oath, having an article belonging to Shimon, in his possession) "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem" that - Kodshim Kalim are considered the personal property of the owner, even to be Mekadesh a woman with them.

He learns it from there - because "ba'Hashem" implies that the animal over which Reuven swore basically belongs to Hash-m, yet it is considered his (to implicate the person who stole it from him).

This D'rashah is confined to Kodshim Kalim - because Kodshim Kalim are not subject to Me'ilah. It is obvious that Kodshei Kodshim, which are, can in no way be considered the property of the 'owner'.

Chata'os and Ashamos, which are Kodshei Kodshim, are not included in Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili's Chidush, (as we already explained). Even Kodshim Kalim are not considered 'the owner's' either - once they have been Shechted, because then, the owner receives the flesh from the Table of Hash-m.

Having taught us that a B'chor inherits a Muchkeres and Muskeres, which are not under their father's jurisdiction, the Tana nevertheless needs to add a cow that is grazing in the public meadow and which gave birth, which is - to teach us that the former, like the latter (which by definition, means that it does not need feeding) are not being fed by the heirs. Because the B'chor will not receive a double portion of any animal that the heirs feed (as we already explaned).

Still, the Tana did not just insert the latter, and omit the former which then seems to be obvious - because we would then have thought that, since the profit in this case is not automatic, but by virtue of the Choker and the Socher (who are Sheluchim of the heirs), feeding it, it is considered as if the heirs had fed it themselves.

The author of this Beraisa is - Rebbi.

According to the Chachamim - a B'chor never receives a double portion of profits that accrue after his father's death.