Take Ten for Talmud
1647BabaBasra13- Partner wants to dissolve with a financial settlement
A very good morning, on behalf of page 613, we welcome you to take 10-15 Talmud, Babasra Wd. Yimob, Babasra 13a, paginations 25 starting from the second line on the page where the Gomorrah makes reference to the Mishnah describing different cases that could or could not be divided very simply. There's a concept in the Mishnah, Dafyud, Alif, Amat, Alif, Zaha Khallal, this is the general rule, kalshaykh, alayk, Ushimaw, Allah of Khulkin. If two people own something in partnership, perhaps they inherited it from their father and they're sitting on it together. If dividing it would allow them each to get something that has the same name as the original product, let's say the father left them a bunch of apartment buildings. So if you divide the different apartment buildings, each one still has an apartment building and he'll get rent from it. So then Hulkin, then you could force a division, Vimalav in Hulkin, but if forcing a division would lose its identity, it's not big enough to be divided, then you can't force a division. It says the Gomorrah, 'Aimba'am-Kideh-La-Zehu-Kideh-La-Zeh-Mahu. Let's consider a case where indeed there isn't enough for the both of them. If they were to divide it, it would not be called whatever it is. Mahu, what's the Haulahu? Is there any recourse for the partner who wants a division? He doesn't want to continue using the item in conjunction with the other person. Raviyud-Aamar is Dina de Gaud, O al-Gaud. Raviyud-A says there is a rule that he can say to the other partner, 'Either you buy me out, or I will buy you out, but I want out of this partnership, and I'm willing to pay you, or you pay me, but I want out.' Ravnachmanamar, Ravnachman says, 'less Dina de Gaud, O al-Gaud, there is no such rule. If it does not have a Dimchaluka where they can walk away with part of the property, then there's no recourse. They're just going to have to get along together, because the product is what it is, and only serves as the product to the extent that they use it together. So the left to form a rotation, whatever the left to form, but they can't force out on an item that does not have enough for a Dimchaluka, a division.' Amolei Ravala Ravnachman, Rava said to Ravnachman, 'Ledidak, according to you, that says that there's no Dina of Gaud, O al-Gaud, that the partner who wants out cannot say, 'Either buy me out, or I'll buy you out.' Bukharu Poshut, if you have two brothers who are partners, because they inherited from the father, Eved Ubehema, Tameya, a slave or a non-coacher animal, Kate said, 'Ocid, what are they supposed to do?' The rotation between the two of them and the example that the Gomare gives is a Bukharu Poshut, where the Bukharu, the first one, gets double portion and the Poshut only gets a single portion. So you have a two to three ratio here. And continuing like this is not quite even. Amolei Ravnachman said, 'Nevertheless, he cannot force a financial division.' Sha'ani Omer, 'I will tell them, Ovid Lazayom, Echadulazeshna, Yomim. Let him serve one. One day, let him serve the other. Two days,' and the Maforsham explained there's something unfair here, but the point is that Ravnachman said that you can't force a division if dividing it would no longer have its identity or its impractical. In the case of a worker, it's not going to work to divide him. The case of an animal that's non-coacher, it's not like you could shed it and divide the meat. It's intended to be a work animal and they're going to have to get along with each other according to Ravnachman. Rav Yihuda, however, and this is the Gamar's continuation, holds that there is a rule of God that the partner who wants out can demand a financial settlement. Either he'll pay or he'll get, but he wants an equitable division on this item that cannot directly be divided, because it's too small to have each one get a substantial portion. That's indeed how we passkin in Chuchonarach, Simenkuf, Ayan alif, Sif, Vov, that in a place where it doesn't have a natural way to divide it, the claim could be made, either I'll buy or I'll sell, but I want a financial settlement. On that position of Rav Yihuda, the following question is asked. Maysvay. Mishah katsia eva'ad vah katsia ben hudin. A person is part, slave, part, free. Consider this interesting case that the Gamarah presents where apparently this slave was owned by two people, one of them freed him, and he remains a slave on the other portion, because that partner did not free him. Ovid israba yom echod, ves atsma yom echod divri bizhillah. Bizhillah, the starting position, says he's going to serve his master one day, and he'll be able to work for himself the other day, and it'll be a rotation one day on, one day off, because that's the fact he's owned by one partner and freed by the other. Beishamai omerim, beishamai objected and said, tikantem israba. You've worked it out for the master, meaning the master who has a financial claim here, you've worked it out for him. He gets exactly what he needs to get one day on and one day's off, just like he would if he was partnering with somebody in this slave. As atsma lo tikantem, but you didn't fix it for him, for the slave himself, who's half free, he's in a quandary. Lisa sivra in a yachal to marry a slave woman he can't. Lisa Basquaran in a yachal to marry a free woman he can't. Yivato, so maybe he can't get married. Valolo nivra, olam elo le perio verivia, a fundamental part of creation is to be able to get married and try to have children, shena emar, as the pusic says, in yachaya lo sahu vera. Hashem did not create this world for nothing, la shavas yudsara, he wants it populated. Ella mipneitikun haolam. In order to fix things, kofen esraba vosen oso ben haolen, we force that master that remains to set him free, because mistara kazi domov, and we write up a document that he'll indeed owe that amount of money to free himself. When he gets that money, he can pay up the debt, but we do force the separation with the financial settlement. Vikazu basil, le horis que divri bashemai, em basilal, which was the starting position, let them just switch off days, change their mind, and they accepted the position of bashemai that you force a division. But, as Rashi explains, if not for the fact of period of arivia, the fact that this situation is not supportable, you can't leave a person stuck in between the two worlds. If not for that, you would not force a division, even if this party wants the division. And the gomorrah answers shiny hachah. This case of the slave person was very different and cannot prove anything to a regular case of a request for a financial settlement, because over here the ugud eco that he's offering to buy himself out that works. He'll come up with the money eventually, he'll buy himself out, but Godleka, he's not simultaneously offering the other partner to buy both the second share, because as Rashi explains on the last line, she ain't dumb in the ben horen, because the part that's already freed, there is no price. You can't create a slave out of a free person. And therefore, there is no god o ugud, a choice being given to the other partner, and therefore it will not be relevant. So they had to force a division, but if you would have a situation where the offer of god o ugud is being made, sort of Naqman holds that that would be something we support, and we offer them the choice, but if one of them wants out, a financial settlement would be relevant. Tasha mah, the gmorrah asks another question. Shnei Aqin, two brothers, ekhar ani vekhar asher one's poor one's rich, vin ekhlaam avi america tsebe sabad, and the father left them a bath house or a pressing house. Asa on the scar, if it's normal use, is to rent it out, that's easy. Asrala emsa, you just rent it out, and the money that's generated gets divided. Money is the easiest thing to divide. Asa on la atzma, but if these things were used for personal use, so they're inheriting that, with that type of usage. Harei Asher, Omar Lawani, the rich man, will say to the poor brother, if you want, you could buy slaves, and they could use the bath house. Abad, by olives, and press them over here. But since it's personal usage, the problem is, that the poor person is saying, "I would like a financial settlement because he has no use for such a big bath house, and a pressing house. He has no use for it. He uses the bath house for his own family once in a while. He doesn't need a personal bath house, so he's vying for a settlement, and you see from this statement here that he doesn't get offered a settlement, the rich man says, if you figure out a way to use it according to its normal usage, then you could use it too. But meanwhile, it's mine alone because I'm the only one who is that affluent to need this product. What you see is that you cannot force a settlement, which is against the ruling of Ravi Yhuda, which, as we mentioned, is the way we pass in. The Gomara answers, "Hasanami, Godika, Ogoodleka," similar to the first case that we brought with the slave. This is similar, but for a different reason. In the case of the slave, he was not able to say, "Goad, you could buy me out." He can't because now that he's free, he can't make himself a slave. Over here also, both sides of the equation do not exist. In this case, he's claiming, "Goad, buy me out, but Ogoodle, I'll buy you out if you want." He's not able to do because he's an unease, poor, and he can't afford this asset. And the concept of "Goad or Ogoodle" is only if the partner that once out is able to make the offer in both directions. Yashikohah, thank you for