In the current Beraisa, which discusses the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan, the Tana states 'Yarshu Sh'tar Chov, B'chor Notel Pi Shenayim'. The author of this statement is Rebbi (See Maharsha).

Rebbi confines this ruling to a Sh'tar Chov - because it is based on the fact that the heirs are Muchzak in the Sh'tar. An oral debt is certainly considered Ra'uy, even according to him, and the B'chor will not receive a double portion.

In a case where someone produces a Sh'tar Chov against them - the Tana obligates the B'chor to pay extra, in proportion to what he received.

This statement - which is unconnected to the previous one, goes even according to the Chachamim.

When the Tana adds 've'Im Amar Eini Nosen ve'Eini Notel Rashai', he means that - if the B'chor wants to withdraw from his rights to the extra portion and not have to pay extra, then he is entitled to do so.

The practical difference that the B'chor's withdrawal makes will be - there where the creditor is, for some reason or other, unable to claim it from his brothers or if, when he comes to claim it from them, they are overseas.

An heir cannot withdraw from his inheritance, nor a B'chor from his Chelek Pashut - because it is not possible to withdraw from something that one owns (and a Yoresh automatically becomes the owner with the death of his relative).

The Rabbanan learn from the words "Laseis lo" (in the Pasuk "Laseis lo Pi Shenayim") that - the Cheilek B'chorah is a Matanah, and that consequently (besides the fact that he is able to withdraw from it), he will not receive anything that is Ra'uy (as we just learned).

Rebbi agrees with this D'rashah in principle only - he confines it to the fact that the B'chor is able to withdraw from the Cheilek B'chorah.

The reason that he does not extend it to preclude inheriting 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim le'Achar Misah' (like the Rabbanan) is - because "Laseis lo Pi Shenayim", implies that the Torah is comparing the Cheilek B'chorah to the Chelek Pashut in this regard.

The Rabbanan learn from "Pi Shenayim" that - the B'chor is entitled to receive his two portions next to each other ...

... which means for example that - in a case where there are only two brothers and three adjoining fields, they draw lots in a way that the B'chor will receive the middle field together with one of the two outer ones).

Rav Papa states that if a date-palm grew thicker or land threw up a layer of slime after the heirs inherited it, thereby fertilizing and improving the quality of the soil - even the Rabbanan will concede that the B'chor will receive an extra portion.

The Chachamim argue with Rebbi, he says, in a case of ...

... 'Chafurah va'Havah Shuvli' - Shachas (crops that had only grown to the stage that they were fit for animals), which then ripened into wheat and ...

... 'Sheluf'fi va'Havah Tamri' - dates in their early stages of growth that ripened afterwards.

What makes this worse than the previous case, according to the Chachamim, is the fact that - here, the original Yerushah does not only improve, but changes its name too, thereby rendering it 'Ra'uy'.

Rebbi argues on the grounds that - since, when all's said and done, it is the original Yerushah that changed, the B'chor inherits it.

'Rabah bar bar Chanah citing Rebbi Chiya rules that "Asah ke'Divrei Rebbi Asah, Asah ke'Divrei Chachamim Asah" '. He is uncertainas to - whether the principle 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero' extends to 'Chaverav' (even when he argues against a majority) or not.

Rav Nachman citing Rav rules 'Asur La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi' - because he holds 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero, ve'Lo me'Chaverav'; whereas Rav Nachman himself says 'Mutar La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi, because he holds 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero, va'Afilu me'Chaverav'.

Rav said 'Asur La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi' (and not 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi') - to counter Rebbi Chiya, who said 'Asah ke'Divrei Rebbi, Asuy'.

Rava holds like Rav, only he adds 've'Im Asah, Asuy' - because, according to him, the ruling in the Beis-HaMidrash was 'Matin Acharei Chachamim' (which means Lechatchilah, but that Bedi'eved, if one ruled like Rebbi, the ruling is valid).

'Tani Rav Nachman be'Sha'ar Sifrei d'Vei Rav ... '. 'Sifra (d'Vei Rav)' is the Midrash on Sefer Vayikra, whereas 'Sha'ar Sifri (d'Vei Rav)' is the Midrash on the Halachic section of Bamidbar and Devarim as well as the Mechilta on Sh'mos (from "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh lachem" and onwards).

'S'tam Mishnah is Rebbi Meir', 'S'tam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah', whereas the author of ...

... the Sifri is - Rebbi Shimon.

... Seder Olam is - Rebbi Yossi.

... Tosefta is - Rebbi Nechemyah.

The Rebbe of them all was - Rebbi Akiva.

Rav Nachman be'Sha'ar Sifrei d'Vei Rav learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "be'Chol asher Yimatzei lo" that a B'chor does not receive a double portion from what the heirs improve ('Sh'vach she'Hishbichu Nechasim'). According to Rami bar Chama. According to Rami bar Chama quoting the Sifri - the Pasuk comes to preclude even 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim ... ', and certainly 'Sh'vach she'Hishbichu Yorshin ...' ...

... and the author of the Beraisa is - the Rabbanan of Rebbi.

But according to Rav Nachman - the B'chor does inherit 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim ... ' ...

... in which case the author of the Beraisa is - Rebbi.

Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel states 'Ein B'chor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Milveh'. We initially think that Shmuel must follow the opinion of Rebbi and not the Rabbanan - because, since according to the latter, the B'chor does not even receive the Cheilek Bechorah from property that is in the heir's possession, it is obvious that he will not receive property that isn't.

Rav Yehudah is talking - even about a Milveh bi'Shtar, since in effect, it is no more than a piece of worthless paper.

The problem this creates with the Beraisa 'Yarshu Shtar-Chov, B'chor Notel pi Shenayim, bein be'Milveh bein be'Ribis' is that - if, as we just established, Rebbi denies the B'chor the right to claim the Cheilek Bechorah from a Milveh, then who is the author of this Beraisa?

We therefore establish Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement according to the Rabbanan and the Chidush is that - since the heirs are holding a Sh'tar-Chov, we do not consider them Muchzak, as if they had already claimed the debt and had it in their possession.

When the Tana refers to a Sh'tar with Ribis - he is referring to a debtor who is a Nochri (from whom one is permitted to take Ribis).

They sent from Eretz Yisrael (Shalchu mi'Tam) 'B'chor Notel pi Sh'nayim be'Milveh Aval Lo be'Ribis'. They cannot hold like Rebbi - because in another Beraisa, Rebbi specifically rules that the B'chor takes from the Ribis as well.

We therefore conclude that they hold like the Rabbanan. In spite of their earlier ruling (that the B'chor does not even receive 'Sh'vach she'Shavchu Nechasim', such as Shachas that grew into wheat), he receives double from the actual loan - because they consider the loan itself, as if it was already claimed (despite the fact that the heirs initially own nothing but a piece of paper).

This S'vara works for the loan itself - which is money that their father already owned (and the Sh'tar takes the place of a security, which renders the creditor Muchzak on the loan), but not for the Ribis - which is a new acquisition.

We cannot reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel however - who definitely argues with Shalchu mi'Tam on this point (and who holds that, according to the Rabbanan, he is not even Muchzak in the Milveh either).

Rav Acha bar Rava told Ravina that Ameimar had arrived town and that he ruled like Shalchu mi'Tam. Based on the fact that Ameimar was from Neharda'a, Ravina commented - 'Neharda'a le'Ta'amaihu' (the Neherda'i follow their own reasoning).

When Rav Nachman said 'Gavu Karka Ein lo, Gavu Ma'os Yesh lo', he meant that - the B'chor receives an extra portion only if the heirs claimed money, but not if they claimed land.

The reason for this is - because it is money that the debtor borrowed from their father and not land. Consequently, it is his money in which their father is Muchzak and not his land.

And the reasoning of Rabah, who holds the reverse is - because, due to the principle 'Milveh le'Hotza'ah Nitnah' (a loan is meant to be spent) the money that a creditor claims from a debtor is not the same money that he borrowed. His Karka, on the other hand, is Meshubad to him from the outset, and so he is considered Muchzak in it.

Despite the fact that Ameimar does not appear in the previous Machlokes, Ravina said 'Neharda'a le'Ta'amaihu' - because Rav Nachman too, came from Neharda'a, and it is logical to say that Ameimar holds like him.

Nevertheless it does not follow that Ameimar holds like Rav Nachman and not like Rabah, since he too, holds like Shalchu mi'Tam. And he Ameimar, did not differentiate between Gavu Ma'os or Gavu Karka (see also Tosfos DH 'Neharda'a').

Wand what Ravina meant was that - Ameimar holds like Rav Nachman and not like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who explained that, according to the Rabbanan, the B'chor does not receive double from a Milveh at all (not like the Shalchu mi'Tam).