(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 13

BAVA BASRA 13 (20 Nisan) - Today's Daf has been sponsored by Martin Fogel of Carlsbad, California in memory of his father, Yaakov ben Shlomo Fogel, on the day of his Yahrzeit.



(a) According to Rav Yehudah, if a shared Chatzer or room ... is not large enough to divide (as we learned in our Mishnah) - the Din of 'Gud O Agud' comes into effect - permitting Reuven to say to Shimon (or vice-versa) 'Either you buy me out or I buy you out. The choice is yours'.

(b) Rav Nachman does not hold of 'Gud O Agud'. In his opinion, neither can force the other to divide the Chatzer.

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman what a Bechor and a Pashut will do, according to him, if their father left them an Eved or a non-Kasher animal. He answered - that they serve the Bechor two days and the Pashut, one.

(a) According to Beis-Hillel in the Mishnah in Iduyos, a half-Eved, half ben-Chorin, serves his master one day, and is free, the next. Beis-Shamai disagree with this on the grounds - that if his master is well-served, *he* is not, since he can marry neither a Shifchah nor a bas-Chorin, and the Pasuk says "Lo Tohu Bera'ah, La'sheves Yetzarah'', attaching great importance to the Mitzvah of 'Sheves' (having children, even when the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'Revu" does not apply).

(b) So according to Beis Shamai - we force the master to set the half-Eved, half free-man completely free (and the Eved owes his master half his value).

(c) Beis Hillel - conceded that Beis Shamai was right.

(d) Rav Yehudah reconciles his opinion (of 'Gud O Agud') with this Mishnah - by pointing out that the possibility of both 'Gud' and 'Agud' must exist, and in the case of Eved, there is no possibility of 'Gud', seeing as the master cannot acquire the half of the Eved that is free (since one cannot acquire a Jew for more than six years).

(a) Another Mishnah in Iduyos rules that if two brothers, one rich and one poor, inherit a bathhouse or an oil-press, if they are ...
1. ... for renting out - they share the profits.
2. ... for personal use, the rich brother can say to the poor one - 'Purchase Avadim and let them bathe in the bathhouse. Buy olives and come and work in the olive-press (even though he knows that he cannot afford to do so).
(b) Here too, Rav Yehudah explains that the Tana cannot advocate 'Gud O Agud' - because the poor man, who does not have the means, cannot say 'Agud'.



(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if, after dividing 'a dining-room' ... 'a dove-cot' ... , each half retains its identity, they divide it; otherwise, they assess it monetarily' - which is another way of saying 'Gud O Agud', posing a Kashya on Rav Nachman.

(b) We answer that this is in fact a Machlokes Tana'im. In a case where Reuven says to Shimon 'You take the Shiur Chatzer (or whatever) and I will take the rest' - the Tana Kama in the Beraisa rules 'Shom'in Lo'.

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'Ein Shom'in Lo'. We object to the text of the Beraisa as it stands - because there seems to be no logical reason for Raban Shimon ben Gamliel to dispute the ruling of the Tana Kama.

(d) So we attempt to amend it - by adding 've'Gud O Agud Nami Shom'in Lo. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Omer, Ein Shom'in Lo', a proof that 'Gud O Agud' is a Machlokes Tana'im.

(a) We reinstate the original version of the Beraisa (leaving the proof for Rav Yehudah from our Mishnah intact). Shimon might well refuse Reuven's offer to take the Shiur, leaving himself with the remainder, on the grounds - that he cannot afford to pay the difference, and if Reuven intends to give it to him as a Matanah, he subscribes to the advice given by the Pasuk in Mishlei "Sonei Matanos Yichyeh".

(b) Our Mishnah concludes 've'Kisvei ha'Kodesh, Af-al-Pi she'Sheneihem Rotzim, Lo Yachloku' - which Shmuel confines to Sefarim that are contained in one volume (but when they are in two volumes, the Din will be 'Yachloku').

(c) We try and prove from here that Shmuel holds like Rav Yehudah (his Talmid) - based on the assumption that only one of them wants to divide the Sefarim (in which case it would be illogical to allow him to force his partner to pay the difference, as we just explained, so it must be through 'Gud O Agud').

(d) We refute this proof however - by establishing Shmuel when they *both* want to divide the Sefarim (and the Chidush then is [not that they *have* to divide the Sefarim, but] that they are permitted to do so, and it is not considered degrading to divide Sefarim in this way).

(a) Ameimar ruled that we do say 'Gud O Agud'. When Rav Ashi, following the latter's query what he will do with Rav Nachman, he replied 'Lo Shemi'a Li', replied 'Lo Shemi'a Li', he meant - that he did not hold like him.

(b) We know - that one of the two Shefachos that Rav Chinena left his two sons Rava and Rav Dimi was a good cook and baker, whilst the other one was good at sewing and weaving (or tapestry).

(c) When they came before Rava (and one of them wanted to make use of 'Gud O Agud'), he replied - 'Leis Dina de'Gud O Agud'.

(a) This does not mean that Rava holds like Rav Nachman (a Kashya on Ameimar) but - that 'Gud O Agud' does not apply here, because both brothers wanted both Shefachos, and the one was offering the other to choose only one of them [whereas 'Gud O Agud' entails one partner buying out the other in full, not in part]).

(b) Nevertheless, in the case of Kisvei Kodesh, Shmuel ruled 'Yachloku', even though there too, they both initially wanted both Sefarim - because eventually, they agreed to split up the two Shefachos, and settle the difference.

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa permits writing Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim in one volume. Rebbi Yehudah - requires each one to be written independently (see Rabeinu Gershom and Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Yehudah').

(b) The Chachamim are the most stringent of all. According to them - each Seifer of Nevi'im and Kesuvim must be written separately.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav related that Bitus ben Zonin had owned one volume containing all eight Nevi'im (though the Chachamim claim that they were all separate volumes) - under the auspices of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.

(d) Rebbi related - how they brought before him and his colleagues Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim in one volume, which they subsequently declared Kasher.

(a) The Beraisa requires a space of four rows between each Chumash of Torah. Between each Navi ...
1. ... in Nevi'im, the Sofer must leave - four rows, too.
2. ... of T'rei-Asar (the twelve minor prophets), he must leave - three rows.
(b) When he adds 'u'Mesayem mi'Lematah u'Maschil mi'Lema'alah', he means - that in the event that he concludes any of the above at the foot of the page, he continues immediately on top of the next column (without leaving any blank space).

(c) Another Beraisa permits writing Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim together in one volume - all rolled round one Eitz Chayim' (wooden pole [as opposed to our Sifrei-Torah, which are rolled round two).

(d) The Sofer then leaves blank sufficient space ...

1. ... at the beginning of the Sefer - to scroll round the Eitz Chayim.
2. ... at the end - to scroll round the entire Sefer.
(a) The Beraisa concludes 'u'Mesayem mi'Lematah u'Maschil mi'Lema'alah, ve'Im Ba La'chtoch, Chotech'. The problem with the final statement is - that, having already learned that it is preferable to separate the Sefarim, this seems obvious.

(b) So we amend it to read - '*she*'Im Ba La'chtoch, Chotech', turning it into a reason for the previous statement ('u'Mesayem mi'Lematah u'Maschil mi'Lema'alah' [which is only possible if the previous Sefer terminated at the foot of the page]).

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,