Bava Batra 13 - July 8, 2 Tamuz

Today's daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her grandson, Ephraim Yachman, z'l who sacrificed his life in Gaza, December 2024. 

Today's daf is sponsored by David Kahan in honor of Professor Paul Gompers and Dr. Jody Dushay. "Thank you for your magnificent hospitality."

If two people share a hall or other item that cannot be divided, can one insist that the other either buy the other half or sell their share? Rav Yehuda rules that the one who wants to split it gives the choice to the other to decide whether to buy or sell (gud o' agud). Rav Nachman rules that one cannot force the other to buy/sell and the item remains under joint ownership. Rava questions Rav Nachman in a case where a father left his firstborn and another son an animal and a slave, how can they be divided if the firstborn gets two portions? Rav Nachman responds that for two days the firstborn uses them and the next day the other son uses them. Two difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda. The first is from the debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel about a slave that is freed by one master and not the other (half slave-half free). In the end, they both agree that because of tikun olam, to allow the slave to marry, the owner is forced to free the slave and gets paid for it. But were it not for that, the owner would not be forced, thus raising a difficulty with Rav Yehuda's position. Another difficulty is raised regarding a rich and poor brother who inherited a bathhouse. The rich one does not need to offer the poor one to buy him out. Both difficulties are resolved in the same manner - since in both cases, there is no possibility to offer both options - the slave can buy his freedom but cannot sell himself completely to be a slave (once freed a slave cannot go back to being a slave), and the poor brother can be bought out buy doesn't have the funds to buy his brother's share - therefore Rav Yehuda's solution can't be used. A final source is brought to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman as it clearly states that if an item cannot be divided, one buys the whole item from the other. They attempt to suggest that the issue is a tannaitic debate, but that explanation is rejected and the difficulty on Rav Nachman remains. Abaye explained to Rav Yosef that Rav Yehuda's position was based on Shmuel's opinion as explained by dividing sifrei kodesh as Shmuel ruled that even though one volume cannot be divided, two volumes (for ex. Torah and the Prophets) could be, thus showing that forcing the other to buy/sell is possible as how else would the two volumes be divided (since each is worth a different amount). However, this suggestion is rejected as Shmuel's ruling regards a case where both agree to divide, not when one forces the other. Ameimar ruled like Rav Yehuda. However, they question this ruling from a case where two brothers inherited two maidservants (each knowing how to do something different - one cooked and one weaved) and Rava ruled that the brothers not divide them by each taking one and compensating the other for the difference in value. However, this case is different as the ruling of Rav Yehuda is only in a case where one receives the complete item and the other the money. In this case, each needed both maidservants and if they were to split them neither would receive something complete. Can one bind books of Torah with those of the Prophets and the Writings, as perhaps people will think that it is all one book? How much space must one leave between books of the Torah or the Prophets in a scroll?