Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

July 8, 2024 | 讘壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet聽Bava Batra is sponsored by聽Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z"l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Bava Batra 13

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 2023.聽

Today’s daf is sponsored聽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?

讞讚 讙讬住讗 谞讙专讗 讜讞讚 讙讬住讗 谞讛专讗 驻诇讙讬谉 诇讛 讘拽专谞讗 讝讜诇:


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.


讜诇讗 讗转 讛讟专拽诇讬谉 讻讜壮: 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 诪讛讜 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚


搂 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 Na岣an said: There is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price; rather, the partnership continues.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 讘讻讜专 讜驻砖讜讟 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 注讘讚 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 注讜讘讚 诇讝讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讗 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18)?


讗诇讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 注诇 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


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.


砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讙讜讚 讗讬讻讗 讙讜讚 诇讬讻讗


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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讘讚 注砖讗谉 诇砖讻专 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注 注砖讗谉 诇注爪诪讜 讛专讬 注砖讬专 讗讜诪专 诇注谞讬


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鈥檚 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:


拽讞 诇讱 注讘讚讬诐 讜讬专讞爪讜 讘诪专讞抓 拽讞 诇讱 讝讬转讬诐 讜讘讗 讜注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讛讘讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讙讜讚 讗讬讻讗 讗讙讜讚 诇讬讻讗


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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬讞诇拽 讜砖诪讜 注诇讬讜 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗诐 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讚诪讬诐 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诇 讗转讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗谞讬 驻讞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜


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鈥檌m, 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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚转谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讟讜诇 讗转讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗谞讬 驻讞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 谞诪讬 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜


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鈥檚 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.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜讚拽讗诪专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讚诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬 讚诪讬 诇诪讬转谉 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讜谞讗 诪转谞转 讬讞讬讛


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鈥檚 reasoning? Why can鈥檛 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: 鈥淏ut he who hates gifts shall live鈥 (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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讜讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讜转 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讬谉 谞诪讬


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.


转专讙诪讗 专讘 砖诇诪谉 讘砖砖谞讬讛谉 专讜爪讬谉


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.


讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬谉 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讜专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 砖讘拽 诇讛讜 讗讘讜讛 转专转讬 讗诪讛转讗 讞讚讗 讬讚注讗 讗驻讬讗 讜讘砖讜诇讬 讜讞讚讗 讬讚注讗 驻讬诇讻讗 讜谞讜讜诇讗 讜讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚


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 Na岣an, 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 Na岣an? But it happened that the father of Ravin bar 岣nnana and Rav Dimi bar 岣nnana 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.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇诪专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜诇诪专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 讗转 讞讚讗 讜讗谞讗 讞讚讗 诇讗讜 讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讛讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 砖诇诪谉 讘砖专爪讜


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讚讘讬拽 讗讚诐 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讜专讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜


搂 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖诪谞讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 诪讚讜讘拽讬谉 讻讗讞讚 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪注砖讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬谞讜 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 诪讚讜讘拽讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讛讻砖专谞讜诐


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.


讘讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诇讞讜诪砖 砖诇 转讜专讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讬讟讬谉 讜讻谉 讘讬谉 讻诇 谞讘讬讗 诇谞讘讬讗 讜讘谞讘讬讗 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖诇砖 砖讬讟讬谉 讜诪住讬讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讜诪转讞讬诇 诪诇诪注诇讛


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜爪讛 诇讚讘拽 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪讚讘拽 讜注讜砖讛 讘专讗砖讜 讻讚讬 诇讙讜诇 注诪讜讚 讜讘住讜驻讜 讻讚讬 诇讙讜诇 讛讬拽祝 讜诪住讬讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讜诪转讞讬诇 诪诇诪注诇讛


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.


  • Masechet聽Bava Batra is sponsored by聽Lori Stark in loving memory of her mother in law, Sara Shapiro z"l and her father Nehemiah Sosewitz z"l.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Batra 鈥 9-15 鈥 Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the greatness of giving charity, how to give it properly and what rewards it...
Thumbnail On Second Thought Delving into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer

Neighbors and The Divine Presence- On Second Thought

On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer Masechet Bava Batra On the topic of neighbors, a...
talking talmud_square

Bava Batra 13: A Bathhouse, an Olive Press, and Sacred Scrolls

Cases of dividing property in inequitable ways - for example, when a father leaves a bath house or an olive...

Bava Batra 13

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 13

讞讚 讙讬住讗 谞讙专讗 讜讞讚 讙讬住讗 谞讛专讗 驻诇讙讬谉 诇讛 讘拽专谞讗 讝讜诇:


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.


讜诇讗 讗转 讛讟专拽诇讬谉 讻讜壮: 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 诪讛讜 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讗讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚


搂 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 Na岣an said: There is no halakha of: Either you set a price or I will set a price; rather, the partnership continues.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 讘讻讜专 讜驻砖讜讟 砖讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 注讘讚 讜讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讻讬爪讚 注讜砖讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 注讜讘讚 诇讝讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讝讛 砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐


Rava said to Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讬砖讗 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛


The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 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: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18)?


讗诇讗 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讟专 注诇 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


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.


砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讙讜讚 讗讬讻讗 讙讜讚 诇讬讻讗


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.


转讗 砖诪注 砖谞讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讞讚 注谞讬 讜讗讞讚 注砖讬专 讜讛谞讬讞 诇讛谉 讗讘讬讛谉 诪专讞抓 讜讘讬转 讛讘讚 注砖讗谉 诇砖讻专 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注 注砖讗谉 诇注爪诪讜 讛专讬 注砖讬专 讗讜诪专 诇注谞讬


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鈥檚 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:


拽讞 诇讱 注讘讚讬诐 讜讬专讞爪讜 讘诪专讞抓 拽讞 诇讱 讝讬转讬诐 讜讘讗 讜注砖讛 讘讘讬转 讛讘讚 讛转诐 谞诪讬 讙讜讚 讗讬讻讗 讗讙讜讚 诇讬讻讗


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鈥檚 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.


转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 砖讗讬诇讜 讬讞诇拽 讜砖诪讜 注诇讬讜 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讗诐 诇讗讜 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讚诪讬诐 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讟讜诇 讗转讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗谞讬 驻讞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜


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鈥檌m, 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.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讻讚转谞讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讞住讜专讬 诪讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讟讜诇 讗转讛 砖讬注讜专 讜讗谞讬 驻讞讜转 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 谞诪讬 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜


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鈥檚 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.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚拽转谞讬 讜讚拽讗诪专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讘讚诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬 讚诪讬 诇诪讬转谉 诇讱 讘诪转谞讛 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讜谞讗 诪转谞转 讬讞讬讛


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鈥檚 reasoning? Why can鈥檛 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: 鈥淏ut he who hates gifts shall live鈥 (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.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讜讻转讘讬 讛拽讜讚砖 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖砖谞讬讛诐 专讜爪讬诐 诇讗 讬讞诇讜拽讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讜转 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讬谉 谞诪讬


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.


转专讙诪讗 专讘 砖诇诪谉 讘砖砖谞讬讛谉 专讜爪讬谉


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.


讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讛讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬 讻诇讜诪专 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬谉 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讜专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 砖讘拽 诇讛讜 讗讘讜讛 转专转讬 讗诪讛转讗 讞讚讗 讬讚注讗 讗驻讬讗 讜讘砖讜诇讬 讜讞讚讗 讬讚注讗 驻讬诇讻讗 讜谞讜讜诇讗 讜讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转 讚讬谞讗 讚讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚


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 Na岣an, 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 Na岣an? But it happened that the father of Ravin bar 岣nnana and Rav Dimi bar 岣nnana 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.


砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇诪专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜诇诪专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 讗转 讞讚讗 讜讗谞讗 讞讚讗 诇讗讜 讙讜讚 讗讜 讗讙讜讚 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讻转讘讬 讛拽讚砖 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻专讱 讗讞讚 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讻专讬讻讬谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讛讗 转专讙诪讗 专讘 砖诇诪谉 讘砖专爪讜


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讚讘讬拽 讗讚诐 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 转讜专讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜


搂 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 砖诪谞讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 诪讚讜讘拽讬谉 讻讗讞讚 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讛讬讜 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪注砖讛 讜讛讘讬讗讜 诇驻谞讬谞讜 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 诪讚讜讘拽讬诐 讻讗讞讚 讜讛讻砖专谞讜诐


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.


讘讬谉 讞讜诪砖 诇讞讜诪砖 砖诇 转讜专讛 讗专讘注讛 砖讬讟讬谉 讜讻谉 讘讬谉 讻诇 谞讘讬讗 诇谞讘讬讗 讜讘谞讘讬讗 砖诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 砖诇砖 砖讬讟讬谉 讜诪住讬讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讜诪转讞讬诇 诪诇诪注诇讛


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛专讜爪讛 诇讚讘拽 转讜专讛 谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜讻转讜讘讬诐 讻讗讞讚 诪讚讘拽 讜注讜砖讛 讘专讗砖讜 讻讚讬 诇讙讜诇 注诪讜讚 讜讘住讜驻讜 讻讚讬 诇讙讜诇 讛讬拽祝 讜诪住讬讬诐 诪诇诪讟讛 讜诪转讞讬诇 诪诇诪注诇讛


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.


Scroll To Top