Bava Batra 13b — 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 in partnership. And even though the poor brother has no money to operate the bathhouse, and likewise he has no olives to press in the olive press, nevertheless the poor brother cannot compel the rich brother to purchase his share in the bathhouse; rather,

the rich man says to the poor man: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact column location")

Take servants for yourself

who will heat the bathhouse

and bathe in the bathhouse

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

Take

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

And 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 rich brother, “I do not want the partnership; rather, purchase my share from me”?

And we answer:

There too,

also in this case, although

‘gud’ exists,

for the poor brother says to the rich brother, “Purchase my share from me,” nevertheless

‘agud does not exist:

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

such that, if it were divided, its name would remain upon it,

even if we divide it into two, the name of each part will be like the name that it had before the division, [and its name will not change on account of its smallness]

they divide it! And if not,

if after the division the name of the part held by each of them will change,

its value is raised in money,

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 among tannaim!

This dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rav Naḥman, whether a partner can say to his partner, ‘gud o agud,’ is a dispute among tannaim. And the tanna of the Mishna maintains the law of ‘gud o agud,’ and therefore he wrote, ‘its value is raised in money.’

The Gemara now explains where we find a dispute among tannaim concerning this matter:

For it was taught in a beraita:

Reuben and Simeon who were partners in property, and the property did not contain the measure that permits it to be divided, such as a courtyard that contains less than eight cubits , for we learned: A courtyard is not divided until it contains four cubits for this one and four cubits for that one. And Reuben says to Simeon, “I wish to divide the courtyard, and since I cannot compel you to take a portion smaller than four cubits, therefore

you take

land of

the measure of

four cubits

, and I

will take the remaining portion, which is

less

than four cubits.

We heed him,

Reuben, since Simeon received a portion of the requisite measure.

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

Even in this case, in which his fellow’s portion is four cubits, he cannot divide the courtyard. And the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel will be explained further in the words of the Gemara.

And we wonder:

What are the circumstances?

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

If you say

that the intention is

as it teaches,

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, Simeon received a portion containing four cubits?

Rather, is it not

necessarily that the intention of the beraita is not according to its straightforward meaning, but

it is deficient,

there is a deficiency in the words of the beraita,

and this is what it teaches:

and this is how it should be learned: If Reuben said to Simeon,

“You take the measure, and I [take] less,” we heed him!

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel also concedes to this law.

The beraita adds:

And

likewise, if Reuben said to Simeon,

“‘Gud o agud’” also,

also in this case

we heed him. And

concerning this law

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say—

that if he said, “‘Gud o agud,’”

we do not heed him!

It follows that the tannaim disputed this law of ‘gud o agud’: The view of the first tanna is that a partner can 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! Actually,

the first tanna and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel did not dispute this law of ‘gud o agud, and the intention of the beraita is

as it teaches,

as it is written in its wording; and their dispute is whether a partner can say to his fellow, “You take the requisite measure and I [take] less.”

And as for what you said

and what you raised as a difficulty,

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

why can Reuben not compel Simeon to divide the property when Simeon receives a portion of the requisite measure?

Your answer is:

Because

Simeon can object to taking a portion containing four cubits,

for he says to him,

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

If [you want it] for money,

if you want money in exchange for the additional portion that you added to my share,

I do not have money to give you

I have no money to give you. [

And if]

and if you wish to give me that addition

as a gift, I am not agreeable to it,

I do not want it because

it is written, “And one who hates gifts will live.”

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This statement of Rav Yehuda

what Rav Yehuda said, that a partner can say to his partner, “‘Gud o agud,’”

is [a teaching] of Shmuel,

he received this law from Shmuel —

For we learned: And sacred writings

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

even though both of them wish [to do so], they shall not divide them!

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

And Shmuel said: They taught

this law only when those sacred writings were

in one volume,

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

in two volumes, they divide them!

And each one takes one volume, for in this manner they do not cut the sacred writings, and there is no degradation of the book.

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

And if it enters your mind that there is no law of ‘gud o agud,

and if you maintain that one cannot compel his fellow to engage in ‘gud o agud,’ then

why specifically

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

in one volume,

when

even when they are in two volumes as well

one cannot compel his fellow to divide with him, one volume against one volume. For two different books are before us , and their prices are not equal. If so, one cannot compel his fellow to divide, for his fellow can say to him: “If you wish, I will take the more expensive book of the two and you will take the cheaper book, and I do not wish to pay you the difference between the two books.”

And it is understandable if we maintain the law of ‘gud o agud: His fellow 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 his fellow to an equal division?

Rather, necessarily, Shmuel, who said that one can compel his fellow to divide with him the sacred writings that are in two volumes, maintains the law of ‘gud o agud.’ And from this Abaye concluded that the source of Rav Yehuda’s law of ‘gud o agud’ is the words of Shmuel.

And we reject this:

Rav Shalman explained it:

the words of Shmuel, who said that when they are in two volumes they divide them, refer to a case

in which both of them wish

to divide, and they agreed between themselves who would take the more expensive book and pay his fellow the difference; and there is no longer a proof from here for the law of ‘gud o agud.’

Ameimar said: The halakha

the halakha is that

there is a law

there is the law of

‘gud o agud.’ Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: What of this statement of Rav Naḥman?

For Rav Naḥman maintains that there is no law of ‘gud o agud.’

He said to him:

Rav Naḥman’s ruling is

I have not heard it; that is, I do not hold by it,

I do not follow him, and I maintain the law of ‘gud o agud.’

And we raise a difficulty:

Is that so?

Is the halakha not in accordance with Rav Naḥman?

But

there was an incident involving

Rabba bar Ḥinnana and Rav Dimi bar Ḥinnana,

that

their father left them

their father bequeathed to them,

two maidservants,

two maidservants, of whom

one

of them

knew baking and cooking,

she knew how to bake and cook, and

one

of them

knew spinning

to spin 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. And although necessarily the value of the maidservants was not equal, nevertheless, if we maintain the law of ‘gud o agud,’ he can compel his brother to divide and say to him: “You take the more expensive maidservant and pay me the difference in money, or I will take the more expensive maidservant and pay you the difference.”

And they came before Rava,

and they came before Rava for judgment,

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

And one brother cannot compel his brother to divide, for his brother can say to him: “If you wish, I will take the more expensive maidservant, and I do not wish to pay you the difference.” But this is difficult: Is not the halakha in accordance with Rav Naḥman, who maintains the law of ‘gud o agud’?

And we answer:

That case is different,

this case differs from the other cases because

this one requires both of them, and that one requires both of them,

for each of them needs both maidservants, since each maidservant knows how to do a different thing; and therefore

when he says to him,

when one of the brothers says to his brother,

“Take one, and I [will take] one”

you take one maidservant and I will take one,

this 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. And 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 raise a difficulty:

But

concerning partners in

sacred writings, both of them require them,

for both of them need all the books,

and Shmuel said

concerning what we learned in the Mishna, that they do not divide sacred writings, that

they taught

in the Mishna that they do not divide

only

if those books were

in one volume

on one sheet [like our Torah scroll]

but

if those books were

in two volumes, they divide them

and each of them takes one portion; and even if one book is worth more, the one who takes it pays his fellow the difference. But this is difficult: Was it not explained that when each of them needs both of them, one cannot compel his fellow to divide?

And we answer:

This was explained by Rav Shalman

that the words of Shmuel refer to a case

when both of them wish

but if both of them do not wish, one cannot compel his fellow to divide.

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

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

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

These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says,

the

Torah should be bound separately,

and

the Prophets separately,

because if the Prophets are bound together with the Torah, it will appear that the entire book is Torah, even though part of it is only the Prophets,

and

the

Writings should likewise be bound separately,

and they should not be bound together with the Prophets, because if they are bound together, it will appear as though the entire book is the Prophets.

And the Sages say:

Even the Prophets themselves should not be bound together; rather,

each one separately,

so that all the books of the Prophets will not appear to be one prophetic book.

And Rav Yehuda said:

There is proof for his view that all the Prophets may be bound together:

There was an incident involving Beitوس ben Zunin, who had eight prophetic books bound together as one,

and he did so

on the authority of Rabbi Elazar ben

Azarya. [

And the Sages say: ]

He did not have

all the prophetic books bound together;

rather, one by one,

each prophetic book was in a volume

of its own.

Rabbi said: An incident occurred in which they brought before us a Torah scroll, Prophets, and Writings bound together as one,

and we deemed them fit

according to the view of Rabbi Meir.

The beraita now proceeds to discuss the amount of space that the scribe must leave in the margin, between one Torah section and another and between one prophetic book and another.

Between one Torah section and another

one must leave

four lines

of blank space, and then begin writing the next Torah section.

Likewise,

one who writes the Prophets must leave four blank lines

between every prophetic book and another.

But in the book of the Twelve [

the book of the Twelve Minor Prophets; it is explained below that the twelve prophetic books are written in a single volume, and in this volume one leaves only

three lines

between one prophetic book and another.

The Gemara adds that this requirement to leave space between one book and another applies only when the previous book was completed in the middle of a column. But

if he completes it at the bottom and begins at the top,

if he completes a book at the end of a column, he begins the next book at the top of the next column, and he does not leave space between the books. [ The reason for this rule—that no space need be left at the top of a column—will be explained later in the Gemara’s discussion.]

The Sages taught: One who wishes to bind the Torah, Prophets, and Writings together as one volume may bind them!

And at its beginning

of the volume, he makes an uninscribed piece of parchment. The size of this parchment must be

sufficient

so that it will be possible

to roll

it around

the shaft

of wood around which the volume is rolled.

And at its end

of the volume, he must place an uninscribed piece of parchment

sufficient to wrap around

the entire volume when it is rolled. This volume of the Torah, Prophets, and Writings bound together is not rolled like a Torah scroll from both sides. Rather, the entire volume is rolled in one direction, as we roll the scrolls, from its beginning to its end. Since this is the manner in which it is rolled, when the volume is rolled, the parchment at its end wraps around the entire volume.

One must leave four blank lines between one book and another,

and he completes it at the bottom and begins at the top.

But if he completes a book at the end of a column, he begins the next book at the top of the following column, and he need not leave space between the books.