Bava Batra 13b (יג:) — the Talmud in English

But if their father

made them for himself

for his own use,

then

the brothers use the bathhouse and the olive press jointly. And although the poor brother has no money to operate the bathhouse, and likewise has no olives to press in the olive press, nevertheless the poor brother cannot compel the wealthy brother to buy his share in the bathhouse. Rather,

the wealthy brother says to the poor brother:

Take slaves for yourself

to heat the bathhouse

and bathe in the bathhouse and bathe in the bathhouse. Likewise, if their father left them an olive press, the wealthy brother can say to the poor brother:

vozmi

Take

olives for yourself, and come and work in the olive press!

This is difficult according to the view of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains the law of gud o agud: Why can the poor brother not say to the wealthy brother, “I do not want to remain partners; rather, buy my share”?

And we answer:

There, too

even in this case, although

there is gud

as the poor brother says to the wealthy brother, “Buy my share,” nevertheless

there is no agud: he cannot offer the wealthy brother to buy his share, since he is poor and has no money. And in such a case, where he cannot say “gud o agud,” even Rav Yehuda concedes that he cannot dissolve the partnership.

he cannot offer the rich brother that the latter purchase his share from him, since he is poor and has no money. And in such a case, in which he cannot say ‘gud o agud,’ Rabbi Yehuda too concedes that he cannot dissolve the partnership.

Come and hear

from what we learned in the Mishna:

Any

property

that, if divided, would retain its name

meaning that even if we divide it into two, each part will retain the name that it had before the division, [and its name will not change because of its small size]

they divide it! But if not,

if after the division the name of the portion held by each of them would change,

they appraise it monetarily: They assess the value of the property, and one of the partners buys the other’s share. This ruling is in fact the ruling of “Rabbi Yehuda,” who maintains gud o agud. And we ask: How will Rav Naḥman, who disagrees with this ruling, interpret the words of the Mishna?

the value of the property is assessed, and one of the partners purchases his fellow’s share. This law is in fact the law of Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains ‘gud o agud’; and we raise a difficulty: How will Rav Naḥman, who disagrees with this law, interpret the words of the Mishna?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tanna’im!

Their dispute—Rabbi Yehuda and Rav Naḥman—over whether a partner may say to his partner, “Gud o agud,” is a dispute between tanna’im. And the tanna of the Mishna maintains the law of gud o agud, and therefore it states: “They appraise it monetarily.”

The Gemara now explains where we find a dispute between tanna’im concerning this matter:

As it was taught:

Reuven and Shimon were partners in property, and the property was not large enough to permit division. For example, a courtyard that contains less than eight cubits , [for we learned: A courtyard is not divided unless it contains four cubits for this one and four cubits for that one]. And Reuven says to Shimon: “I wish to divide the courtyard, and since I cannot compel you to take a portion of less than four cubits, therefore

you take

land measuring

the amount

of four cubits

, and I

will take the remaining portion, which is

less

than four cubits.”

We heed him

Reuven, since Shimon has received a portion of the required size.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: We do not heed him!

Even in this case, where his fellow’s portion is four cubits, he cannot divide the courtyard. The reason for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s ruling will be explained later in the words of the Gemara.

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

What is the intention of the beraita when it says that he says to him, “You take the required measure, and I [take] less”?

If you say

that the intention is

as it is taught

as it is written in the words of the beraita, that he says to him, “You take four cubits, and I will take the remaining portion,” then

what is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagree and maintain that even in this case they cannot divide, when, in the end, Shimon has received a portion containing four cubits?

Rather, is it not

necessarily the case that the intention of the beraita is not as its plain meaning indicates, but rather

something is missing

from the wording of the beraita,

and this is what it teaches

and this is how it should be read: If Reuven says to Shimon,

“You take the required measure, and I will take less, we heed him!”

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel also concedes this ruling.

The beraita adds:

And

likewise, if Reuven says to Shimon,

“Gud o agud,” also

in this case

we heed him. And

with regard to this ruling

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say—

if he said, “Gud o agud,”

we do not heed him!

It follows that the tanna’im disagree concerning this law of gud o agud: The first tanna maintains that a partner may say to his fellow, “Gud o agud,” whereas according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he cannot compel him to engage in gud o agud.

And we reject this:

No! In fact,

the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel do not disagree concerning this law of gud o agud. Rather, the intention of the beraita is

as it is taught

as it is written in its wording, and their dispute is whether a partner may say to his fellow, “You take the required measure, and I will take less.”

And as for your saying

and your difficulty,

“What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel?”

why Reuven cannot compel Shimon to divide the property when Shimon receives a portion of the required size:

Your answer is:

Because

Shimon can object to taking a portion containing four cubits,

for he can say to him

“I do not wish to take a portion larger than what is due to me from the division of the partnership.

If it is for money,

if you want payment in return for the additional portion that you added to my share,

I have no money to give you

I have no money to give you. [

And if

you want to give me that addition

as a gift, I do not want it,

I do not desire it, because

it is written: ‘One who hates gifts will live.’

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Yehuda

that a partner may say to his partner, “Gud o agud,”

is that of Shmuel

he received this ruling from Shmuel —

As we learned: And sacred writings,

partners who wish to divide the sacred writings in their possession,

even though both of them wish to do so, they may not divide them!

because it is disgraceful to cut them in order to divide them .

And Shmuel said: This was taught

this ruling was stated only when those sacred writings were

in a single volume,

written on one sheet [similar to our Torah scroll]. But if they were

in two volumes, they divide them!

Each one takes one volume, for in this case the sacred writings are not cut, and there is no disgrace to the book.

The Gemara now understood that both of them do not wish to divide them, but that one compels the other to divide them.

And if it would enter your mind that there is no law of gud o agud,

and if you maintain that one cannot compel the other to engage in gud o agud, then

why particularly

did Shmuel explain the intention of the Mishna as being that they may not divide the sacred writings when they are

in a single volume

when

even when they are in two volumes as well

one cannot compel the other to divide the volumes with him, one volume in exchange for the other. For there are two different books before us , and their prices are not equal. Therefore, one cannot compel the other to divide them, since the other can say to him: “If you wish, I will take the more expensive book and you will take the less expensive book, and I do not wish to pay you the difference between the two books.”

Granted, if we maintain the law of gud o agud, the other can compel him and say to him: “You take the more expensive book and give me money for it, or I will take it and pay you.” But if there is no law of gud o agud, how can one compel the other to divide them equally?

Rather, necessarily, Shmuel, who said that one can compel the other to divide the sacred writings that are in two volumes, maintains the law of gud o agud. From this Abaye concluded that the source of Rav Yehuda’s ruling concerning gud o agud is the statement of Shmuel.

And we reject this:

Rav Shalman explained

Shmuel’s statement that when they are in two volumes they divide them as referring to a case

where both of them wish

to divide them, and they agreed between themselves who would take the more expensive book and pay the other the difference. Thus, there is no proof from here for the law of gud o agud.

Ameimar said: The halakha

is that

there is the law

of

“gud o agud.” Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: “What of Rav Naḥman’s ruling?”

Did Rav Naḥman not maintain that there is no law of gud o agud?

He said to him:

Rav Naḥman’s ruling

has not reached me; that is to say, I do not hold by it,

and I maintain the law of gud o agud.

And we ask:

Is that so?

Is the halakha not in accordance with Rav Naḥman?

But

there was an incident involving

Rabba bar Ḥinana and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinana,

for

their father left them

as an inheritance

two maidservants,

of whom

one

of them

knew baking and cooking,

and

one

of them

knew spinning

wool

and weaving —

and to weave —

And one of the brothers wished to divide the maidservants with his brother, so that each of them would take one maidservant. Although the maidservants were necessarily unequal in value, nevertheless, if we maintain the law of gud o agud, he can compel his brother to divide them and say to him: “You take the more valuable maidservant and pay me the difference in money, or I will take the more valuable maidservant and pay you the difference.”

And they came before Rava,

and they came to court before Rava,

and he said to them: There is no law of gud o agud!

One brother cannot compel the other to divide them, since his brother can say to him: “If you wish, I will take the more valuable maidservant, but I do not wish to pay you the difference.” This is difficult: Surely the halakha follows Rav Naḥman, who maintains the law of gud o agud.

And we answer:

That case is different,

that case differs from the other cases, because

one needs both of them, and the other needs both of them,

as each of them needs both maidservants, since each maidservant knows how to perform a different task. Therefore,

when he says to him,

when one brother says to the other,

“Take one of them, and I will take one,”

you take one maidservant and I will take one,

that is not gud o agud!

For he is not saying to him: “You take everything and give me money,” or “I will take everything and give you money,” since one maidservant is insufficient. It is considered gud o agud only if he says to him: “You take both maidservants and give me money for my share,” or “I will take both of them and give you money for your share.”

And we ask:

But

with regard to partners who possess

sacred writings, both of them need them,

as both of them need all the books,

and Shmuel said

with regard to what we learned in the Mishna, that sacred writings are not divided, that

this was taught

in the Mishna—that they may not divide them

only

when those books were

in a single volume,

on one sheet [similar to our Torah scroll],

but

if those books were

in two volumes, they divide them,

and each one takes one portion; even if one book is worth more, the one who takes it pays the difference to the other. This is difficult: It was established that when each of them needs both items, one cannot compel the other to divide them.

And we answer:

Rav Shalman explained this

as meaning that Shmuel’s statement applies

when both of them wish

to divide them; but if both do not wish to do so, one cannot compel the other to divide them.

Our sugya discusses whether it is permitted to join together and attach the Torah, Prophets, and Writings on a single sheet, as well as matters concerning the writing of Torah and Prophets, and the form of the scroll.

The Sages taught: A person may attach the Torah, Prophets, and Writings together

even though, when he rolls the scroll , a situation may arise in which the Prophets and Writings will lie above the Torah; there is no concern on account of this. And although they said that it is disgraceful to the Torah for the Prophets to lie upon it, that applies only when the Torah and the Prophets are in separate books; but when they are attached together in one book, this is not a disgrace

the words of Rabbi Meir.