בבא בתרא דף יג

חד גיסא נגרא וחד גיסא נהרא – פלגין לה בקרנא זול.

If there is a water channel on one side of the field and a river on the other side, the field is divided diagonally [bekarna zol] between the two brothers, so that they each receive land adjoining both the river and the water channel.

ולא את הטרקלין כו׳. אין בהן כדי לזה וכדי לזה, מהו? רב יהודה אמר: אית דינא ד״גוד, או אגוד״. רב נחמן אמר: לית דינא ד״גוד, או אגוד״.

§ The mishna teaches that a hall, a drawing room, and the like should not be divided unless the two parties will be able to use their respective portions in the same manner that they had previously used them. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if there is not enough for this one and that one? What is to be done if one of the parties wishes to dissolve the partnership? Rav Yehuda said: There is a halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price. That is to say, one party can say to the other: Set a price you are willing to pay for my share, and I will sell my share to you or purchase your share from you at that price. Rav Naḥman said: There is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price; rather, the partnership continues.

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן: לדידך דאמרת לית דינא ד״גוד או אגוד״, בכור ופשוט שהניח להן אביהן עבד ובהמה טמאה, כיצד עושין? אמר ליה, שאני אומר:

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: According to you who say that there is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price, what should they do if there was a firstborn son and an ordinary brother whose father left them a slave and a non-kosher animal as an inheritance? How are they to be divided? Rav Naḥman said to him: I say that they work for this one, the ordinary brother, one day, and for the other one, the firstborn, two days.

עובד לזה יום אחד, ולזה שני ימים.

מיתיבי: מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין – עובד את רבו יום אחד, ואת עצמו יום אחד; דברי בית הלל. בית שמאי אומרים:

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda’s approach from what is taught in a mishna (Gittin 41a): One who is half-slave half-freeman, e.g., a slave who had been jointly owned by two people, one of whom emancipated him, serves his master one day and himself one day; this is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: You have remedied the situation of his master, who benefits fully from all his rights to the slave, but you have not remedied his own situation. He cannot marry a maidservant, since half of him is free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is also not able to marry a free woman, since half of him is a slave, and a Jewish woman may not marry a Canaanite slave. And if you say he should be idle and not marry, but is it not true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)?

תקנתם את רבו; את עצמו לא תקנתם! לישא שפחה – אינו יכול, לישא בת חורין – אינו יכול; יבטל?! והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה, שנאמר:

״לא תהו בראה, לשבת יצרה״!

אלא כופין את רבו – ועושין אותו בן חורין, וכותבין שטר על חצי דמיו. וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי!

Rather, the court forces his master to make him a freeman by emancipating the half that he owns, and the court writes a bill in which the slave accepts responsibility to pay half his value to his master. This was the original version of the mishna. The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its opinion and ruled in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai. This indicates that it is only in this case, where there is the particular consideration of procreation, that the court compels one of the parties to forfeit his portion and dissolve the partnership. But in other cases there is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price.

שאני הכא, ד״אגוד״ איכא, ״גוד״ ליכא.

The Gemara answers: It is different here, because the slave can say: I will set a price, but he is not able to say: You set a price. In other words, the slave cannot offer to sell himself, because his Jewish side precludes him from selling himself as a Canaanite slave. Therefore, the court would not be able force the master to sell his share, were it not for the consideration of procreation. By contrast, in a situation where either side can buy or sell, one partner can compel the other to either buy his portion or sell his portion to him.

תא שמע: שני אחין – אחד עני ואחד עשיר, והניח להן אביהן מרחץ ובית הבד; עשאן לשכר – השכר לאמצע; עשאן לעצמו – הרי עשיר אומר לעני:

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in a mishna (172a): In a case where there are two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bathhouse or an olive press as an inheritance, if the father had built these facilities for profit, i.e., to charge others for using them, the profit that accrues after the father’s death is shared equally by the two brothers. If the father had built them for himself and for the members of his household to use, the poor brother, who has little use for these amenities, cannot force the rich brother to convert the facilities to commercial use; rather, the rich brother can say to the poor brother:

״קח לך עבדים וירחצו במרחץ״, ״קח לך זיתים, ובא ועשה בבית הבד״! התם נמי, ״גוד״ איכא, ״אגוד״ ליכא.

Go take servants for yourself, and they will bathe in the bathhouse. Or he can say: Go take olives for yourself and come and transform them into oil in the olive press. Evidently, the poor brother cannot say to him: Buy my share. The Gemara rejects this proof: There too the poor brother can say: You set a price and buy my share, as the rich brother has the means to buy his poor brother’s portion; but he is not able to say: Or else I will set a price and buy your share, as the poor brother does not have the money to buy his brother out.

תא שמע: כל שאילו יחלק ושמו עליו – חולקין, אם לאו – מעלין אותו בדמים! תנאי היא – דתניא: ״טול אתה שיעור, ואני פחות״ – שומעין לו.

The Gemara further proposes: Come and hear a proof from what is taught in a baraita: Anything which, even after it is divided, each of the parts retains the name of the original item, may be divided. And if the parts will not retain the original name, the item should not be divided, but rather its monetary value is assessed, because one of the joint owners can say to the other: Either you set a price and buy it from me, or I will set a price and buy it from you. The Gemara explains: Actually, this matter is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: If a courtyard or the like was not large enough to warrant division into two, and one of the co-owners said to the other: You take a minimum measure of the courtyard, e.g., four cubits, and I will take less, the court listens to him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They do not listen to him.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: אין שומעין לו.

היכי דמי? אילימא כדתני – מאי טעמא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל? אלא לאו חסורי מחסרא, והכי קאמר: ״טול אתה שיעור ואני פחות״ – שומעין לו.

The Gemara clarifies the baraita: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If we say it is exactly as it is taught, what is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s reasoning? Why does he rule that the court ignores the party who is prepared to settle for less? Rather, is it not that the baraita is incomplete and this is what it is saying: If one of the co-owners said to the other: You take a minimum measure of the courtyard, and I will take less, all agree that the court listens to him. And the tanna of the baraita adds: And if one says: Either you set a price and buy it from me, or I will set a price and buy it from you, they also listen to him. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel comes to say: In the first case the court does listen to him, but they do not listen to him when he says: Either you set a price or I will set a price. Accordingly, this issue is the subject of a tannaitic dispute.

ו״גוד או אגוד״ – נמי שומעין לו. ואתא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל למימר: אין שומעין לו?

לא, לעולם כדקתני; ודקאמרת: מאי טעמא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל? משום דאמר ליה: אי בדמי – לית לי דמי למיתן לך; במתנה – לא ניחא לי, דכתיב:

The Gemara rejects this interpretation of the baraita: No, the baraita should actually be understood exactly as it is taught. And with regard to what you said: What is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s reasoning? Why can’t one of the parties say that they should divide the property and he will settle for less? It is because the second one can say to him: If you want me to compensate you with money for the difference between my share and your share, I have no money to give you. And if you wish to give it to me as a gift, I am not at ease with that, as it is written: “But he who hates gifts shall live” (Proverbs 15:27). The baraita indicates that there is a halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda.

״ושונא מתנת יחיה״.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף: הא דרב יהודה – דשמואל היא, דתנן: וכתבי הקודש, אף על פי ששניהם רוצים – לא יחלוקו. ואמר שמואל:

As a continuation of this discussion, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: That statement of Rav Yehuda is actually the opinion of Shmuel, his teacher, as we learned in the mishna (11a): But in the case of sacred writings, i.e., a scroll of any of the twenty-four books of the Bible, that were inherited by two people, they may not divide them, even if both of them wish to do so, because it would be a show of disrespect to cut the scroll in half. And Shmuel said: They taught that sacred writings should not be divided only if they are contained in one scroll; but when they are contained in two scrolls, they may be divided. And if it should enter your mind to say that there is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price, why does the halakha apply specifically to one scroll? Even if the sacred writings were contained in two scrolls, they should also not divide them, since the respective parts will not be even and one of the recipients will have to compensate the other.

לא שנו אלא בכרך אחד, אבל בשני כריכות – חולקין. ואי סלקא דעתך לית דינא ד״גוד״ או ״אגוד״, מאי איריא בכרך אחד? אפילו בשני כריכין נמי!

תרגמא רב שלמן – בששניהן רוצין.

Rav Shalman interpreted the mishna: It is referring to a case where they both want to divide the sacred writings; therefore, Shmuel said that they may do so when they are contained in two scrolls. But if just one of them wishes to divide them, there is no proof that he can compel the other one to accept the division.

אמר אמימר, הלכתא: אית דינא ד״גוד״ או ״אגוד״. אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר: הא דרב נחמן, מאי? אמר ליה: לא שמיעא לי; כלומר, לא סבירא לי. ולא?!

Ameimar said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda that there is a halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What about that statement of Rav Naḥman, who disagrees with Rav Yehuda and says that there is no such halakha? Ameimar said to him: I do not know of it, that is to say, I do not maintain this opinion. The Gemara asks: And is the halakha not in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman? But it happened that the father of Ravin bar Ḥinnana and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana died and left them two maidservants, one of whom knew how to bake and to cook, and the other of whom knew how to spin and to weave. One of the brothers suggested that each of them take one of the maidservants entirely for himself and forfeit his rights to the other maidservant. They came before Rava and he said to them: There is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price.

והא רבין בר חיננא ורב דימי בר חיננא שבק להו אבוה תרתי אמהתא, חדא ידעא אפיא ובשולי, וחדא ידעא פילכא ונוולא; ואתו לקמיה דרבא, ואמר להו:

לית דינא ד״גוד״ או ״אגוד״!

שאני התם – דלמר מיבעי ליה תרוייהו, ולמר מיבעי ליה תרוייהו; כי קאמר ליה: שקול את חדא ואנא חדא – לאו ״גוד״ או ״אגוד״ הוא.

The Gemara answers: It is different there, since this master wanted both of them and the other master wanted both of them. Therefore, when one of the brothers said to the other: You take one and I will take the other one, it is not a case of: Either you set a price or I will set a price. The Gemara asks: And can we not say so? But there is the case of sacred writings, which both of them presumably want, and Shmuel said: They taught that sacred writings should not be divided only if they are contained in one scroll; but when they are contained in two scrolls, they may be divided. The Gemara answers: Rav Shalman interpreted the mishna: It is referring to a case where they both want to divide the sacred writings, and in such a case they may divide them, provided that they are in two scrolls.

וכי לא מצי למימר הכי?! והא כתבי הקדש, דתרוייהו מיבעי להו, ואמר שמואל: לא שנו אלא בכרך אחד, אבל בשני כריכין – חולקין! הא תרגמא רב שלמן בשרצו.

תנו רבנן: מדביק אדם תורה נביאים וכתובים כאחד, דברי רבי מאיר. רבי יהודה אומר: תורה בפני עצמה, נביאים בפני עצמן, וכתובים בפני עצמן. וחכמים אומרים:

§ The Gemara now begins a general discussion about sacred writings. The Sages taught: A person may attach the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings together as one scroll; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The Torah should be a scroll by itself, the books of the Prophets a scroll by themselves, and the books of the Writings a scroll by themselves. And the Sages say: Each one of the books of the Prophets and the Writings should be a scroll by itself.

כל אחד ואחד בפני עצמו.

ואמר רבי יהודה: מעשה בביתוס בן זונין, שהיו לו שמנה נביאים מדובקין כאחד, על פי רבי אלעזר בן עזריה. ויש אומרים:

And Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who had eight books of the Prophets attached together as one scroll, and he did this with the approval of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. And others say that each and every one of the books was a scroll by itself, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: There was an incident where they brought before us the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings attached together as one scroll and we ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir and deemed them fit.

לא היו לו אלא אחד אחד בפני עצמו. אמר רבי: מעשה והביאו לפנינו תורה נביאים וכתובים מדובקים כאחד, והכשרנום.

בין חומש לחומש של תורה – ארבעה שיטין; וכן בין כל נביא לנביא. ובנביא של שנים עשר – שלש שיטין. ומסיים מלמטה, ומתחיל מלמעלה.

The Gemara states: When different books are included in the same scroll, four empty lines of space should be left between each book of the Torah, and similarly between one book of the Prophets and another. But between each of the books of the Twelve Prophets only three empty lines should be left, because they are considered one book. And the scribe may finish a book at the bottom of one column and begin the next book at the top of the next column without leaving any empty space in between.

תנו רבנן: הרוצה לדבק תורה נביאים וכתובים כאחד – מדבק; ועושה בראשו כדי לגול עמוד, ובסופו כדי לגול היקף; ומסיים מלמטה ומתחיל מלמעלה;

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who wishes to attach the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings together as one scroll may attach them. He should leave enough empty parchment at the beginning of the scroll for winding around the pole to which the beginning of the scroll is fastened. And at the end of the scroll he should leave enough empty parchment for winding around the entire circumference of the rolled-up scroll. And he may finish a book at the bottom of one column and begin the next book at the top of the next column without leaving any empty space between them.