(Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): If he steals (twice) from his parents to buy meat and wine, he is not killed. "Ki Yihyeh l'Ish Ben Sorer u'Moreh" - he must be (recognizably) a son from his birth.

(Ameimar): (If he was not the firstborn,) he does not count like a son to diminish the extra portion of the firstborn. (E.g. if there are three normal sons, the firstborn gets an added quarter, and all the sons divide the remaining property equally. "V'Yoldu Lo Banim" - we consider sons recognizable from birth.

(Rav Shizbi): He is not circumcised on the eighth day (if it falls on Shabbos). "V'Yoldah Zachar... uva'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol" applies only if he was (recognizably) male from birth.

(Rav Sharbiya): His mother is not Temei'ah like one who gave birth to a male. "V'Yoldah Zachar v'Tam'ah Shiv'as Yomim..." applies only if he was (recognizably) male from birth.

Question (against Rav Sharbiya - Mishnah): If a woman miscarried a Tumtum or Androginus (one with male and female genitals), she is doubtfully Temei'ah like one who is unsure if she gave birth to a male or female.

This refutes Rav Sharbiya.

Suggestion: This also refutes Rav Shizbi! (He expounded just like Rav Sharbiya.)

Rejection: No, the Tana is unsure whether we require a male recognizable from birth regarding circumcision and Tum'ah. He is stringent about both (therefore, we do not circumcise the baby on Shabbos).

Question: If so, (perhaps the special laws of Tum'ah of childbirth (that for 33 or 66 days after her Tum'ah, any blood she sees is Tahor) do not apply, so) she should be is doubtfully Temei'ah like one who is unsure if she gave birth to a male or female, or a regular Nidah (due to the blood that came out during the birth)!

This is left difficult.

Support (for R. Ami - Beraisa): (Bechorah applies to a normal) "Ben", but not to a Tumtum. It applies to "Bechor", but not to a Safek (this will be explained).

Question: Granted, '"Ben", but not a Tumtum' teaches about R. Ami's case;

What is the case of '"Bechor", but not a Safek? (Obviously, a Safek firstborn does not receive a double portion!)

Answer: It teaches about Rava's case.

(Rava): If Reuven's two wives gave birth, and it was not known who gave birth first (one of the sons is the firstborn) one writes a Harsha'ah (power of attorney) to the other. ('If I am the firstborn, you may take my extra portion.' This enables the other to take the extra portion (and they split it).

Question (Rav Papa): R. Yanai taught that if it was once known which was the firstborn, and then it was forgotten, one writes a Harsha'ah to the other. If it was never known which the firstborn was, Harsha'ah does not help.

Rava publicized his mistake and taught like R. Yanai.

Question (people of Akra): If the Chazakah was that Shimon was Levi's firstborn, and Levi said that Yehudah is his firstborn, what is the law?

Answer (Shmuel): One writes a Harsha'ah to the other, and they divide the extra portion.

Question: No matter how he holds, this is difficult!

If he holds like Chachamim (in the coming Beraisa), Shimon gets the extra portion. If he holds like R. Yehudah, Yehudah gets it!

Answer: Shmuel is unsure if the Halachah follows Chachamim or R. Yehudah.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Yakir" - he will inform others (who is his firstborn). This teaches that a man is believed to say who his firstborn is;

(If he is a Kohen,) just like he is believed to say who is his firstborn, he is believed to say that a certain son was born to a divorcee or Chalutzah (and is disqualified from Kehunah).

Chachamim say, he is not believed (about either of these).

Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): According to Chachamim, what do we learn from "Yakir"?

Answer (Rava): It teaches about when we need the father to identify the firstborn (we have no Chazakah).

Question: Is this needed in order to give to him an extra portion? A man can give his money to whomever he wants!

Answer: He must establish him to be the firstborn in order that the son will receive an extra portion in money that the father will receive (after his declaration).

Question: According to R. Meir, one can transfer ownership of something that is not yet in the world. He can give now an extra portion in money he will get later. Why do we need the verse?

Answer: It enables him to give an extra portion in property that the father will receive when he is Goses (close to death, and unable to transfer ownership, therefore he cannot give now what he will receive then).

(Beraisa): If the Chazakah was that Shimon was Levi's firstborn, and Levi said that Yehudah is his firstborn, he is believed;

If the Chazakah was that Shimon is not Levi's firstborn, and Levi said that he is, he is not believed.

The Reisha is like R. Yehudah, and the Seifa is like Chachamim.

(R. Yochanan): If one said 'this is my son', and later said 'he is my slave', he is not believed (to retract. One would not call a slave 'my son');

If he said 'he is my slave', and retracted and said 'he is my son', he is believed.

(The first time) he meant 'he serves me like a slave.'

The law is the opposite in the place where they collect taxes from slave owners. If he said 'he is my son', and (later, where they do not collect taxes) said 'he is my slave', he is believed;

If he said 'he is my slave', and later said 'he is my son', he is not believed (he would lie to evade the tax, but not to falsely obligate himself).

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven was serving Shimon like a son, and Shimon said 'he is my son', and later said 'he is my slave', he is not believed;

If he was serving him like a slave, and Shimon said 'he is my slave', and retracted and said 'he is my son', he is not believed.

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The case is, he called him a '100 Metzar slave'.

Question: What does this mean?

Answer: He is like land worth 100 Dinarim. (One would not say this about his son.)