Bava Batra

and [in the case of] a loan that is with him  [the portion of the birthright] is to be divided [between him and the other heirs]. R. Huna said in the name of R. Assi: [If] the firstborn son had protested [against the proposed improvements in the bequeathed estate]  his protest is valid. Rabbah said: [The law] of R. Assi stands to reason in [the case] where grapes were cut  [or] where olives were plucked;  but where these were pressed  [the firstborn does] not [receive a double portion].  But R. Joseph said: Even if they were pressed. 'If,' [you said], 'they were pressed', [surely] at first [they were] grapes; now [they turned into] wine!  — As R. 'Ukba b. Hama said [elsewhere]. 'Compensation is to be paid to him for any damaged grapes',  [so] here, also, compensation is paid to him for any damaged grapes. In what connection  was [the statement] of R. 'Ukba b. Mama made?  [In connection] with what Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Where a father bequeathed to a firstborn, and to an ordinary son grapes which they cut  [or] olives which they plucked, the firstborn receives a double portion even if they pressed [the grapes]. '[If] they pressed [the grapes]', it was asked, '[were these not] first grapes [and] now [they are turned into] wine?'  [To this] R. 'Ukba b. Mama replied. 'Compensation is paid to him for any damaged grapes.' R. Assi said: If a firstborn son accepted a share [of a field]  equal [to that of] any other [brother], he has renounced [the claims of his birthright]. What [is meant by] 'renounced'? — R. Papa said in the name of Raba: He renounced his claim upon that field only.  R. Papi in the name of Raba said: He renounced [thereby] his claims upon the entire estate. R. Papa had said in the name of Raba [that] he renounced his claim upon that field only, [for] he is of the opinion [that] the firstborn is not regarded as legal possessor of [his share] before the division [between the heirs takes place];  and R. Papi had said in the name of Raba that he renounced. [thereby]. his claim upon the entire estate, [because] he is of the opinion [that] the firstborn is considered [legal] possessor of [his share] before the division takes place, and [it is assumed that], since he has renounced his claim over that [one field] he has [also] renounced his claim upon all the others. And the [statements reported by] R. Papi and R. Papa [in the name of Raba] were not made  explicitly [by him], but inferred [by them]. For there was a certain firstborn son who went [and] sold his own property  and [that] of his other [brother].  [When] the orphans, the sons of the other [brother], went to eat [of] the dates of the buyers, the latter beat them. 'Is it not enough', said the [orphans'] relatives to them, 'that you bought up their property, but you must also beat them?' They came before Raba, [and] he said to them: 'The sale is invalid'.