Q&A: On the Topic of Prospective vs. Possessed Inheritance
On the Topic of Prospective vs. Possessed Inheritance
Question
Please see the Talmud in Bava Batra 123, where there is a dispute there between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis whether a firstborn receives a double portion. The Rashbam explains there at the beginning of the passage that the reason according to the Rabbis that a firstborn receives a double portion is that it is considered as though their father had already taken possession of it. On the other hand, at the end of the passage it seems that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it does not need to have actually come into his possession, and this requires explanation. Also, on 124 the Rashbam says that in the case of fully prospective property, such as when the orphans themselves improved it, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees. This requires explanation: why does the Rashbam need to come to the case where the orphans improved it? It should apply to any prospective property, for example where the father inherits while in the grave. It seems that in that case too Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would disagree, and only in the case where the orphans improved it does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree, and this requires explanation as well. In addition, later in the passage it says there that according to Rav Pappa, in the case of a palm tree that grew stronger, or land that rose up and formed a silt deposit, everyone agrees that he takes it, and the whole dispute is in a case of unripe dates that became dates. This also requires explanation, because according to the Rabbis it is explained that automatic improvement is not considered to have come into his possession. If so, what is better about land that rose and formed a silt deposit than automatic improvement, such that it is considered to have come into his possession? And it seems that here the implication is that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what helps is that this is considered automatic improvement, and then the question returns: why do we need that, if according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it does not need to have come into his possession? And the Rabbis disagree because they hold that this is not considered to have come into his possession. But if one needs it to have been in the father’s possession even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, then what is the additional level of “having come into his possession” in the case of land that rose, where even the Rabbis agree?
Answer
Do you want a whole lesson here on the passage? The wording is garbled and unclear, with long and unclear quotations. The commentators there address all these points. They distinguish between something that already bears his legal designation and is therefore considered possessed, and something that does not bear his designation and is therefore only prospective. There is also a distinction between fully prospective property (such as improvement made by the orphans) and not-fully-prospective property (such as the foreleg, cheeks, and maw from an animal slaughtered during the father’s lifetime), and more. This is not the place for it.