In yesterday’s daf, Bava Batra 124a:
מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁשָּׁבְחוּ נְכָסִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן, אֲבָל לֹא בְּשֶׁבַח שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיחוּ יְתוֹמִים לְאַחַר מִיתַת אֲבִיהֶן.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the baraita. In accordance with whose opinion is the baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:4): A firstborn does not take a double portion of the enhancement of the property that occurred after the death of the sons’ father. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that a firstborn does take a double portion of the enhancement of the property that occurred by itself after their father’s death, e.g., the birth of a calf, but not of the enhancement that the orphans caused after their father’s death.
יָרְשׁוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹטֵל פִּי שְׁנַיִם. יָצָא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב – בְּכוֹר נוֹתֵן פִּי שְׁנַיִם. וְאִם אָמַר: ״אֵינִי נוֹתֵן, וְאֵינִי נוֹטֵל״ – רַשַּׁאי.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: Therefore, if they inherited a promissory note indicating a debt owed to their father, the firstborn takes a double portion of the money when it is collected, as this is an enhancement to the estate that came by itself. The Gemara adds: In a case where a promissory note emerged against them for their father’s debt, the firstborn gives, i.e., repays, a double portion of the debt. But if he says: I am not giving a double portion of the debt and I am not taking a double portion of the estate, he is permitted to do so, and he is exempt from paying a double portion.
Two thoughts for now.
(1) When we say ״אֵינִי נוֹתֵן, וְאֵינִי נוֹטֵל״ – רַשַּׁאי, what is that trade off? If you asked me, I would have said that it is limited to incoming / outgoing loan documents. After all, that is what the two opposing statements were given - יָרְשׁוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב and יָצָא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר חוֹב. However, the meforshim make this about abdicating the bechora entirely.
Perhaps this is by force of the meaning of the ensuing derashot, though some of those derashot at least belong to the derasha chain, where each Biblical phrase used by one party must be explained by the Stamma for the other party, and might not reflect Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi or the Sages.
Also, maybe it ties into the nature of shetarot going out against all of them, and how it should be binding regardless of anything Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says. (To see how this is so, note that there is the Ktav Ashuri footnote on the יָצָא עֲלֵיהֶן שְׁטַר paying double but not on the יָרְשׁוּ שְׁטַר חוֹב aspect.)
I think this give-and-take income-outgo of the ra’uy is something that deserved further exploration.
(2) Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says Omer Ani. אוֹמֵר אֲנִי. This is his signature phrase. Much later, people say that his (maternal line) descendant Rashi also uses אוֹמֵר אֲנִי in his Biblical commentary. Though other Rashi scholars say that אוֹמֵר אֲנִי actually indicates that the author is NOT Rashi, but one of his students, and we can see manuscripts where it is written in another hand. The point is to distinguish this comment from Rashi proper. Still, for Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi, it is indeed indicating that he said it.
I am not entirely convinced that a Tanna Kamma must reflect a plural number of Sages. Or even that something attributed to Chachamim must reflect a plural number of Sages. Indeed, sometimes we try to figure out the Tanna Kamma or the Chachamim, going against (say) Rabbi Meir, and we go through the small circle of named contemporaries, students of Rabbi Akiva, and cast them out one by one, until it is “Who are the Chachamim? Rabbi Yehuda, in this brayta.” Maybe there are an unnamed multitude of the same or subsequent generation, but I’m not convinced this is the case. It might just be a rhetorical device.
Here, it is “Rabbi” against the Tanna Kamma, rather than an explicit plural. And the ensuing gemara is going to analyze who wins in such cases, Rabbi against plural colleagues. But I might distinguish it further. In a typical case, it is, say, Rabbi or Rabbi Yossi, and the preceding Tanna Kamma. We might imagine that the invisible author of the Mishna or brayta is endorsing the position not associated with a named Tanna.
However, with Omer Ani, I would read it as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi speaking up as author / redactor. He is saying: here is what other or others say, but I say this. Maybe when the brayta’s author speaks up in this reactive manner, we should rule like him. This would be akin to saying we should rule like Bavli over Yerushalmi because the Babylonians already encountered and reacted to the full redacted Yerushalmi. See Rif at the end of Eruvin.) Or that a batra, a later Amora (after Rava’s generation) wins when arguing with an earlier generation because he considered their position and still said what he said. Here, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi presents the other people’s arguments, and nevertheless confidently wants you to know his own position. This would be different from, say, Rabbi Chiyya teaching a brayta in which Rabbi and Rabbi Natan disagree about something.