cluded . ▁( And ▁thus , ▁since ▁ ▁is ▁necessary ▁for ▁this ▁dedu ction , ▁it ▁could ▁not ▁have ▁been ▁meant ▁for ▁the ▁proposition ▁that ▁the ▁law ▁applies ▁to ▁the ▁first ▁f ruits ▁of ▁the ▁father ' s ▁strength ▁and ▁not ▁of ▁the ▁mother ' s ▁strength .) ▁But ▁then ▁the ▁Gem ara ▁reason ed ▁that ▁if ▁ ▁is ▁necessary ▁for ▁ex cluding ▁mis car ri ages , ▁then ▁ ▁should ▁have ▁read , ▁" for ▁he ▁is ▁the ▁first - f ruits ▁of ▁strength ," ▁but ▁ ▁in ▁fact ▁says , ▁" his ▁strength ." ▁Thus ▁one ▁may ▁dedu ce ▁two ▁laws ▁from ▁ ▁But ▁the ▁Gem ara ▁object ed ▁further ▁that ▁still ▁that ▁the ▁words ▁of ▁ ▁" the ▁first - f ruits ▁of ▁his ▁[ the ▁father ’ s ] ▁strength ," ▁not ▁her ▁strength , ▁might ▁apply ▁only ▁to ▁the ▁case ▁of ▁a ▁wid ower ▁( who ▁had ▁children ▁from ▁his ▁first ▁wife ) ▁who ▁married ▁a ▁vir gin ▁( since ▁the ▁first ▁son ▁from ▁the ▁second ▁marriage ▁would ▁be ▁only ▁the ▁wife ' s ▁first born , ▁not ▁the ▁husband ' s ). ▁But ▁where ▁a ▁b ach elor ▁married ▁a ▁vir gin ▁( and ▁thus ▁the ▁son ▁would ▁be ▁the ▁first born ▁of ▁both ▁the ▁father ▁and ▁the ▁mother ), ▁the ▁first born ▁son ▁might ▁take ▁a ▁double ▁portion ▁also ▁in ▁his ▁mother ' s ▁estate . ▁But ▁R ava ▁concluded ▁that ▁ ▁states , ▁" the ▁right ▁of ▁the ▁first born ▁is ▁his ▁[ the ▁father