Gemara Markings Daf Yomi
Bava Basra 13
Dafyud Gimmel, I'm at Oliph on the second line, Valesha Tracklin. The mission had said that if you have, say, two partners who own a number of different things, the case here was a large hall and they want to split. If they both want to split, it doesn't make a difference, whatever size it is, they can split. But if one of them wants and the other one doesn't, you have to make sure that each one will still retain a significant enough size. Let's say if the split is done only that there won't be a significant enough size, can one partner force dissolving the partnership or not? So aim behind cadet la zeokudet la semah, let's say if you split, is that enough for each one of them to get something of significance? Can the one who wants to split force the other one? Mahlokas Ravya Huda and Ravnachman, Ravya Huda who I circled and Ravnachman I circled the line later. Ravya Huda Ammar is Dina de Gudu al-Gud, that we do apply the principle of where one party who wants to split can say, listen, either I buy you out or you buy me out, whereas Ravnachman says, "Lace Dina, we do not apply that principle of Gudu al-Gud." I'm only a reveler of nachman. "Lit dit la according to Yudu Ammar is that says in this scenario, Lace Dina de Gudu al-Gud, that we do not employ the principle of Gudu al-Gud, in other words, I'll buy you out or you buy me out." Then what do you do in this case? A bejour and a posh, let's say you have two children, a firstborn and a secondborn and the father dies, shini eklen avian, and the father leaves as an inheritance, an evid, a lee roi or a behemoth or a cow, behemoth smeya or not a cow, a horse, katesad oisyn. So you can't cut the horse in half and you can't cut the evid in half. Ammar lei, so answers back, Ravnachman, torava, well, shani yomir. I'll tell you, you know what you can do, it's not much of a problem. Elizae, yoy mechad, Elizae mechad, or, since in this case, there's a firstborn who gets a double portion, yoy mechad, Elizae, shini yomir, so it'll work two days for the firstborn and then a day for the secondborn. L'afdafgades, it could be two months for the firstborn and then one month for the other, but that's the way they will split it. Mais fait. We have a series of snake sources now that the gomor is going to bring either questions on Ravnachman. I put a triangle on this mais fait, four lines from the bottom, near the end of the line is a tashmah. I also put a triangle on the tashmah. And if we flip the page on the third line, the third word is tashmah, that actually gets an upside down triangle for the attempt of the gomor will be reversed. So here we go. Let's do the first one. Mais fait. This is going to be a question on Ravjud, again, Ravjud is the one who said that one partner has the ability to tell the other, "Listen, either you buy me out or I'll buy you out." So it says the snake source. The snake source goes for about eight, nine lines. Mius sha'aqats v'aqats v'aqats v'aqats v'aqats v'aqats v'aqats v'aqats v'aqats v'aqats. Let's say you have a slave that is a non-Jewish slave, half slave, but half freed man, which you could usually have. If you have a slave who is joined by two people, a non-person frees his half and the other person didn't. So what does that slave do? If it works one day for the 50% of him, it's owned by the one master and he works for himself. The next day, that's Divre base hillow and on the base hillow. I also owned on the base shamay, because the base shamay is, say, to base hillow. Well, that's wonderful. Takantamis Rappai. So you still got the fellow who owns 50% of that slave getting 50% of the work that he does. However, it's also about Takantam, the 50% though of Tom Leroy, who's now a free man or maybe even a Jew. You haven't solved that issue. Why? Because who's he supposed to marry? Like who's his wife going to be? Who's his family going to be with? Lisa Shevrena, you can't marry a Shevrena, because you're 50% free man. Lisa Baschiron, and you know, he can't marry a regular base alco of girl because he's 50% of it. Now what do you expect him to do? Never have children, Yivatto. But on some level, that's the ultimate purpose of the universe. The whole universe wasn't created on a basic level level up here. Yivatto have human beings be productive and create fruitful and multiply Shannamara. The Pasa brings out in Ishaya, Lai Tohu Vodal, the Shevas Yitzara, not for voidness and nothingness. Did I create Hashem says the universe, rather, to be inhabited? Ella? Rather, naitikana ilam, so as to make sure things work more smoothly in this world. Klyphin is robbed by it, we force the master who stole 50% of this slave. The Aisynn, I say, Ben Charen, and he also has to free his 50%. Now he's entitled to the value of the Ev'e-Vedvek-Leis-Finn-Shtar, the Ev'e-Vedval, right out, basically, an IOU to that fellow Hazzi-Dama for half of his value. That's what Beishamara has to say. And you know what? Kamah, the Khazwa Beishil, the Harswa Beishamai. The Beishamai is actually changed their mind and agreed with the Beishamai's that that's what should be done. That's the end of the snake source. Now, it seems pretty clear from the snake source, the reason we're doing this is because of the Tikun Ha-Oilam. The Diyok would be, though, that if it wasn't because of this issue of being fruitful and multiplying, we would not force the one who still owned the Ev'e-Ved to do this. And the Ev'e-Ved would not be able to say to the master, "Listen. You've got to set me free. We'll put a price on whatever you think your 50% is worth, and I'll give it to you." So that seems to go against Ravi Ahudhu, who says that there is the ability of good or all good. And just the Gomara, that this case is different. Because if you think about it, Shiny Ha-Ha-Ha, Da-Al-Gud-Ika, Good-Leika, Good or All Good is if you have two partners, one can say to the other, "Either you buy me out or I'll buy you out." Here you can't do that because, on the one hand, the 50% of the slave that is owned by a person, that person can free it, and that's fine. However, once a person is a free man, or in this case, Leroy is 50%, that's free, can't be turned back into a Ev'e-Ved Kannani. Ev'e-Ved, maybe even not Ev'e-Kannani. So, Tashma, the Gomara tries again. Another triangle, and this is a snake source that goes to the middle of the second line on Amad-Bays. In this scenario, Shnei Akhen, he has two brothers, Ahadane Becharashir. One is poor, one is wealthy. Their father passes away and leaves them v. Niyak-Lanavian, Mirkhazubhe Sabad, a bathhouse, or an oil press. Well, Colin, Assam al-Sarif, the father had those investments that he would lease out or rent out, then whatever the profits are, are simply split between those two brothers, Escarla Emsa. Let's say that it wasn't for business purposes, it was for personal use, this bathhouse, or this olive press, Assam al-Atsma'i, well, then the surviving son who's wealthy, he can use them. The surviving son who's poor isn't really used these things. So, Hare, Asher, Amilani, the wealthy brother can say to the poor brother, the wealthy son can say to the poor son, Kannani Akhen, Mirkhazubhe, Mirkhazubhe, Mirkhazubhe, Mirkhazubhe, I like this bathhouse. I'll take it in my days, and you will get your higher some slaves, purchase some slaves, and let them bathe you or Kakhazayim, just go by, you know, like $50,000 of olives, Uba Vaasabhe, Sabat, and Yudhabhe, Sabat. And that, again, seems to indicate that the poor brother cannot say to him, well, listen, you purchase my half, which again, that would be a question on review that says that is something that can be employed. And the Gomorrah here is, well, answers how some Nami, again, it's only really one side. The poor brother can say, you pay me for my half, but he certainly can't say or, alternatively, I'll pay you for your half because he doesn't have that financial ability. So as some Nami, Gurika, Al-Gudlika, Tashma, another snake source. Now, this one is an upside down triangle because the proof is going to be reversed in the other direction. It's not going to be a question on Ravi Huda. It's actually going to be a question on Rav Naqman, who said that there is no ability to say good or ugly. So, Tashma, Kolshe-il-Yukalik says this snake source, Ushma Yalav, anytime you have an asset and it can be split, let's say, into two, and it still retains each one of the parts, it retains the same basic description. Then Hulkin, you can force a split-beam-lav and if not, Ma'al-en-o-Yisoy-bid-domim. You basically have to pay the other, the difference in value, which is basically saying good or all good. That would be a question on Rav Naqman, who says we don't employ good or all good. So, what are we going to do with this and the Gomorrah now, actually, someone concedes, Tanoyi-yid-sanya. That is actually a maklokus tanoyim, whether we say this or not. Now, the Gomorrah is going to spend about seven lines explaining how this following Bryce, that we're going to see shortly, is maklokus tanoyim tanakama for sashma Yal, in whether we say that you can force a good or all good or not. Tanoyi-yid-sanya, Bryce-yid-sanya, goes for two lines. Let's say you have a hotzer, and we said a hotzer, you have to give each person four amis beside what they have for their entrance way. Let's say the part that is going to be split is only seven amis. So, you can have one brother who could say to the other, "To'lat-sashir vani paklas." Listen, I want to divide this asset. You take the full share, you take, in our example, four amis, and I'll take less shaymin-lai. You actually listen to that brother and split it that way. So, you don't listen to him. That's the end of this next source. The good morning is a little bit more clarity. Hey, he done me, Colin. Well, what is actually going on over here? Colin. Ilema, I squiggled on the Ilema, and one line later in the middle line is an L-I squiggled on the Ilema. So, Ilema, Kit, Tanoyi, if you want to say it's just the way it is, like the way the words we read are taught, "My time to show them Ilema." Why in the world will show them Ilemaa say, "We don't listen to the brother." That makes perfect sense. If you have, let's say, seven amis, and one brother says this, "I want to split. I'll give my other brother a full share, and I'll take a minimal share." Like, why not? Ilemaa, rather it must be, should we not say, kasui mexr hahakim khaammar. That hahakim, hahakim khaatani, usually, but here's hahakim khaammar. This would be the way to understand the today's source. We do a rereading for the next two and a half lines. I put a writing a little over here. So let's say, again, you have this example where there's two people, and the hahatsr is seven amis. So if one of the inhabitants says, "Tol atashir," let's see if Alan Bob says to Bob, "listen Bob, you get your forum. It's Venni pakas, and I'll take less. Shaimin lei, we listen to him." Kam the good, oh, oh good. Now we're adding this in that the tannakam would also say that if Al says to Bob, "Listen, either you by me or I by you out," Nami Shaimin lei, we'll also listen to him. Asif Shaimin lei, comes along with Shaimin lei, and this is the tannah, then, that would be going like Raffnachman, le maimar, and Shaimin lei, that we do not listen to him. That's the end of the tannakam's source as we want to reread it. And that would be the way that we would conclude that it's actually in my hokas tannoyam. That's wonderful. Harper the Gomorz, who runs around and says, "No, lo kam, lo olam kittikatani," really, it says it had originally been taught with the Congress, and we said, "Well, then, how do we understand Shaimin lei? Why would he say that you don't have to listen to him?" Well, Nishim dhamma lei, it's because the brother can say to the other brother, "Ibid dhambi," listen, if it's a monetary issue that you want me to pay you to buy you out lacely dhamma lei maitana, I simply don't have those cash assets to be able to pay you. The Ibimatana, and if you are saying that you'll give me a little bit more, well, I don't want to get a little bit more. It's not fair. Nihali, I don't want it. Dixie, like the concept brought out in the possek, famous possek says, "Soyin lei maitana si'rya," that it's a more advisable approach to hate or despise her, not want freebies from other people. Amalaya Bailaraviaisif, now a Bailaiisist Reviosif. Hadaravihouda, that which Revihouda said, that you could say, "Good or al-good," that is his opinion, but he actually got that from his Rabbi Hadaravihouda, kama. Dishmouli is the previous generation, his Rabbi Shmoul's approach, as we'll see right now. It's not. You have a quote from a Mishnah, it's actually a Mishnah that we had a few daffago. It's a line and a word, and the Mishnah said, "When you're dealing with a partnership that owns kisfei hakai dish, holy scroll," let's say for yachaskel, "afopi shishneim writes him, even if both parties want a split, low, yachlicu, you don't slice it somewhere down the middle and split it." the end of what the mission had said, "Connector v'amr schmuel." What did Schmuel say? "Le channu ele b'krachrecha." It's only if it's, let's say, just a safe rihezko, one scroll. Of albishné krihez, let's say they have a safe rihezko, and a separate safe rihez shayahu. Then, hulkin, you would split it. And apparently, that would be even if both parties don't agree, but one wants a split, you would split it. Now, if you have two different scrolls, clearly one is going to be worth more than the other. And the only ways you can enforce a split is it has to be that you would say a good or a good, because how could you possibly say that the person could force a split? Unless you say that, visagadeh, leistina de gudal good, and if you're not going to hold of that principle, my irea b'krachrecha. Then, why do we have to say it? It's only talking about if it's one volume, one scroll. L'afil b'krachne krihez, nami, ire shne krihezkin, nami. If you don't hold of the good or a good, well, answers the gamora, teargamma, rav shalman, bishishné and right sin, rav shalman will say that the case here is, which where both of them agree, however, you certainly cannot conclude from here that we would deploy the concept of good or a good when it is only one party that is interested. Period. Amra, maimar, andalana, maimar, hilchasah, istina de gudal good, al-a-laklamaise, is that we do say that that is a valid claim. One partner can say to the other, either I buy you out or you buy me out. Amra, vashila, maimar, vashi, said to him, maimar, hajra of nachman, but we just had a whole discussion where of nachman had said that there is no din of good or a good, and he by the way was like the chief justice of all the people. All monetary type cases, so what do you do with that? Amra lei said back on maimar, laishmili, I haven't heard of that. Now, you obviously heard of it. Kalaimar, that means to say laishmili, I heard of it and I simply don't agree with it. Okay, so apparently we're not going to go like Rov nachman, really? The Gomar asks, hello? The Gomar kamba, put a long question marking in the margin, going down about five lines. So, the Gomar asks now, we really, we don't pass like Rov nachman. So, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman. We're not going to pass like Rov nachman, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman. We're not going to pass like Rov nachman, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman, we're not going to pass like Rov nachman. They're also coming to Rov us, and other brothers were not sure what they were supposed to do over here, they brought the case to Rava and Rava and Rava and Rava and Rava said, "Lace, Dina, de guru, all good." Huh, now that sounds very much like Rov nachman, and Rava is passing apparently like Rava nachman, that we don't have to think of Gomar all good. So, the Gomar says, "Well, no, this is different, shiny husband, why is it different?" Because Gomar all good is basically whatever the total asset is, once I can say, I will buy all of it, or you buy me out. Ula Mar, here's the difference because here, Rava, me, by Ula, he needed both of those female slaves, Ula Mar, me, by Ula, Rava, Dina's brother, also needed both of them. And therefore, what they were trying to do is to split one take one Aama and the other one take the other Aama, however, Ki, Ka'amar, Lay, and when one brother said to the other, Skol Atchada, Va'an Akhada, you take one and I'll take one, that's not good or I'll go, good or I'll go, either you take all of it and pay me. And pay me, or I'll take all of it and pay you. Here, it's more of a division, a split that's taking place, and therefore, Lava, good or I'll go, it's not a case of good or I'll go. Asks the Gomar of Aakis Vyakar Yiddish, well, in one second, if you're talking about holy scrolls, to travaimi by Ula, you know, both of them can use those holy scrolls. If it's only one scroll, you say you don't split. Avalbishnae, Kriqin, Kolkamar, if it's two different scrolls, and say it's safe for Yishaya, you would be Haileik. What are we going to say about that? Well, answers the Gomar with this will include Ha'atir, Gomar of Shalman, Bishishnaeim, Raisin. No, no, no, that case is where, if you have two scrolls, Yishaya, and Yishaya, well, they both agree that, yeah, you take the Yishaya, and I'll take the Yishaya. And whether they agree to that split straight out, or they agree that one will compensate the other, it's where both of them are agreeing. Now we're talking about where the one brother wants a split or the other brother doesn't. Adkhan.