When Rav Huna Amar Rav Asi says 'B'chor she'Michah Michah', he means that - even though the B'chor does not receive an extra portion from the property that his brothers improved, this will not apply in a case where the B'chor specifically asked them to desist from improving it until he has taken his Cheilek Bechorah. If he did, and they chose to ignore his request, then he may claim an extra portion of what they improved.

The underlying reason behind this ruling is the fact that - the B'chor's Cheilek Bechorah is a Matanah (as we explained earlier) which he has the right to claim at any time (even before the brothers have distributed the property, as we shall see later).

Rabah qualifies Rav Huna's ruling, confining it to where the brothers picked the grapes or the olives, in which case - the B'chor takes an extra portion of grapes without having to pay for his brothers' work.

He will not however, receive an extra portion in this way - if his brothers had pressed them and manufactured wine or oil, because then, they would acquire the finished product with 'Shinuy' (having changed the grapes into wine, or the olives into grapes).

The B'chor will then receive - the Cheilek B'chorah from what the grapes or olives were worth when they were picked (to conform to the principle 'Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah').

The problem with Rav Yosef, who says 'Afilu Darchum' is - how he can argue with the accepted ruling that Shinuy acquires?

To explain Rav Yosef, we cite a statement of Rav Ukva bar Chama - who establishes a similar case with regard to the other brothers having to pay for damages, should the wine or the oil subsequently spill or go off (and become worth less than the grapes or the olives had been worth when they were picked).

In that case, Rav Yosef does not in fact argue with Rav Huna, since each one is issuing a different ruling.

Rav Asi rules 'B'chor she'Natal Cheilek Pashut, Viter' - If a B'chor accepts the Cheilek Pashut only in his father's property, it indications that he is Mochel the Cheilek B'chor.

This ruling is based on the principle (that we learned earlier, that) - the Cheilek Bechorah is a Matanah, which, unlike the Cheilek Yerushah (as we shall see shortly), he has the right to be Mochel.

Rav Papa and Rav Papi argue over what Rava said in this regard. According to Rav Papa, Rava said 'Vitro be'Osah Sadeh'; whereas according to Rav Papi, he said - 'Vitro be'Chol ha'Nechasim'.

The basis of their Machlokes is whether the Cheilek Bechorah belongs to the B'chor even before the brothers divide it (Rav Papi) or not (Rav Papa).

The basic reason for the ruling of ...

... Rav Papa is - because, before the division, it is 'a Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam', in which case he can neither sell it nor be Mochel it.

... Rav Papi is - because seeing as the entire Cheilek Bechorah is considered his whenever he decides to take it, 'Anan Sahadi' (we assume) that taking the Cheilek Pashut is an indication that he is Mochel the Cheilek Bechorah of that section, and once he does that, we assume that he is Mochel the entire Cheilek B'chorah (as we just learned).

The Cheilek Pashut - is not subject to Mechilah.

Rav Papa and Rav Papi did not issue their respective rulings directly, but via an episode regarding a B'chor and a Pashut who came before Rava, after the B'chor had sold property - belonging to himself and his brother (not just his own Cheilek Bechorah and Cheilek Pashut, as some commentaries explain).

When his brother's children went to eat some of the fruit - the purchasers beat them up ...

... at which the relatives commented that - not satisfied with purchasing the Yesomim's property without their permission, they also had to beat them up!

Rava ruled 'Lo Asah ve'Lo K'lum' - which Rav Papi confined to the Cheilek Pashut (both his and that of the Yesomim), but not of the Cheilek Bechorah, which was his to sell at any time, but Rav Papa extended it to the Cheilek B'chorah as well, as we explained above).

'Shalchu mi'Tam, B'chor she'Machar Kodem Chalukah, Lo Asah K'lum', because they hold 'Ein Lo li'B'chor Kodem Chalukah'. The Halachah however, is - 'Yesh li'Bechor Kodem Chalukah' (like Rav Papi).

When Mar Zutra from Darishba, who was a B'chor, divided equally a basket of peppers between himself and his brothers, Rav Ashi told him that - since he had given up his rights to the Cheilek Bechorah in the basket of peppers, he had also given up his rights to it in the remainder of his property.

Our Mishnah invalidates a father's statement ...

... 'Ish P'loni B'ni B'chor' - because maybe he means that he is the B'chor of his mother (who requires Pidyon ha'Ben), but not of himself.

... 'Ish P'loni B'ni Lo Yirash Im Echav' - because the Torah declares his son to be a Yoresh (and how can anyone negate what the Torah says ['Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'])

Rav Yosef teaches us that, if a father wants to declare his son the B'chor to inherit a double portion, he must say - 'Ish P'loni B'ni Bechori' (leaving us in no doubt that he is his B'chor, and not [just] the B'chor of his mother).

It is possible to deprive one's son or sons of their inheritance - by giving his property as a Matanah to his other sons, or to anybody else, during his lifetime.

Such a procedure would normally require a Kinyan - unless hs (the father) is a Sh'chiv-Mera (on his death-bed) giving away all his property.

The Tana permits a father to give even the Cheilek Bechorah to one of his sons, provided he uses a Lashon Matanah (like the Rabbanan). The author of our Mishnah, which permits even using a Lashon Yerushah - is Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (provided he gives it to another heir on the same level, as we learned earlier).

The Tana presents specifically a case of brothers and not strangers (not to preclude strangers who are not heirs, but) - in order to stress that, even if the father is giving the Bechorah to other heirs, his words are only valid if he uses a Lashon of Matanah and not Yerushah.

The Rabbanan concede that even if the father uses a Lashon Yerushah, his words are valid - provided he inserts a Lashon Matanah either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end.

We cite a Beraisa where Rebbi Meir invalidates any condition that absolves a husband from providing his betrothed wife with food, clothes or marital rights. Rebbi Yehudah - validates the first two, because they concern money, and he holds that 'be'Davar she'be'Mamon, Tena'o Kayam'.

We therefore suggest that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Yehudah - since it negates any stipulation that discounts an heir from inheriting (a Davar she'be'Mamon).

The problem with establishing our Mishnah not like Rebbi Yehudah is - that it will not then conform to the principle 'Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yehudah, Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah (so why did Rebbi then present a S'tam Mishnah [which is not followed by a Machlokes] like Rebbi Meir?).

We reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah however - by differentiating between Kidushin (where the woman knows about the condition, and is Mochel because she considers it worth her while) and Yerushah, where the B'chor stands to gain nothing by Beng Mochel, and only remains silent in deference to his father.

In a case where witnesses testified that someone was a B'chor (regarding inheritance), on the basis of the fact that his father referred to him as 'a foolish B'chor', Rabah bar bar Chanah ruled that - he was probably the B'chor of his mother, but not of his father (since that is what people tended to call a B'chor of one's mother).

Shichechas father advised people who complained to him that he had a pain in the eye - to go and see Shichechas his son, since he was a B'chor, and his spit was an acknowledged cure for sore eyes.

Rebbi Chanina accepting their testimony, declared Shichechas a B'chor. He knew that Shichechas must have been the B'chor of his father and not [just] of his mother - because it is the B'chor of a father whose spit is good for sore eyes, and not the B'chor of a mother.

Rebbi Ami discusses a Tumtum she'Nikra. A 'Tumtum' is - a person whose sexual organs are covered, and whose sex is therefore unknown.

A 'Tumtum she'Nikra' is - someone whose skin is torn open, and whose sex has therefore been clarified.

In connection with a Tumtum she'Nikra ...

... Rebbi Ami learns from the words " ve'Hayah" and "ha'Bechor" (in the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Hayah ha'Ben ha'Bechor la'Seni'ah") that - a Tumtum she'Nikra veNimtza Zachar (whose sex was not known at the time of birth [the reason in all three cases]), does not inherit a double portion.

... Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from the word "Yih'yeh" (in the Pasuk there "Ki Yih'yeh le'Ish ben Sorer u'Moreh") that a Tumtum she'Nikra ve'Nimtza Zachar cannot become a ben Sorer u'Moreh.

... Ameimar learns from the word there "ve'Yaldah" (in the Pasuk "ve'Yaldah lo Banim ... ve'Hayah ha'Ben ha'Bechor ... ") that a Tumtum she'Nikra ve'Nimtza Zachar does not detract from the Cheilek Bechorah.

The case with regard to the latter Halachah is for example - where a father died, leaving nine portions and three sons, a B'chor, a Pashut and a Tumtum, they divide the nine portions into three, of which the B'chor takes one (the three that constitute the Cheilek Bechorah) as if there was no Tumtum). Then all three sons divide the remaining six portions between them, each one receiving two portions.

We learn this from the above Pasuk - which implies that the B'chor only divides his Cheilek Bechorah against children who are known to be sons at the time of birth.