1)
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. What does 'Gud O Agud' mean?
What does Rav Nachman say?
Rava asked Rav Nachman what a B'chor and a Pashut will do, according to him, if their father left them an Eved or a non-Kasher animal. What did he answer?
1)
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 'Either you buy me out or I buy you out. The choice is yours'.
Rav Nachman does not hold of 'Gud O Agud'. In his opinion, neither can force the other to divide the Chatzer.
Rava asked Rav Nachman what a B'chor 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 B'chor two days and the Pashut, one.
2)
According to Beis-Hillel in the Mishnah in Iduyos, a half-Eved, half ben-Chorin, serves his master one day, and himself, the next. On what grounds do Beis-Shamai disagree with that?
Which Pasuk in Yeshayah serves as the basis for their opinion?
So what does one do, according to Beis Shamai?
What did Beis Hillel say to that?
How does Rav Yehudah reconcile his opinion (of 'Gud O Agud') with this Mishnah?
2)
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 that, because - although his master may well be happy with this arrangement, the Eved is not, since he can marry neither a Shifchah nor a bas-Chorin ...
... and the Pasuk in Yeshayah says "Lo Tohu Bera'ah, La'sheves Yetzarah'', creating a Mitzvah of 'Sheves' (having children), even where the Mitzvah of "P'ru u'Revu" does not apply.
So according to Beis Shamai - we force the master to set the half-Eved, half ben Chorin completely free (and he remains obligated to reimburse his former master half his value).
Beis Hillel - conceded that Beis Shamai is right.
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 Yisrael for more than six years).
3)
What does another Mishnah in Iduyos say about two brothers, one rich and one poor, who inherit a bathhouse or an oil-press, if they are ...
... for renting out?
... for personal use? What can the rich brother say to the poor one?
How will Rav Yehudah explain this Mishnah? Why does the Tana not advocate 'Gud O Agud'?
3)
Another Mishnah in Iduyos rules that if two brothers, one rich and one poor, inherit a bathhouse or an oil-press, if they are ...
... for renting out - they share the profits.
... for personal use, the rich brother can say to the poor one - 'Purchase Avadim and let them bathe in the bathhouse; purchase olives and let the Avadim come and work in the olive-press (even though he knows that he cannot afford to do so).
Here too, Rav Yehudah explains that the Tana cannot advocate 'Gud O Agud' - because the poor man, who does not have the means, is unable to say 'Agud'.
13b----------------------------------------13b
4)
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'. What does this mean? On whom does it pose a Kashya?
We answer that 'Gud O Agud' is in fact a Machlokes Tana'im. What does the Tana Kama in the Beraisa say in a case where Reuven says to Shimon 'You take the Shi'ur Chatzer (or whatever) and I will take the rest'?
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says 'Ein Shom'in Lo'. Why do we object to the text of the Beraisa as it stands?
So how do we attempt to amend it? What does this prove?
4)
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.
We answer that this is in fact a Machlokes Tana'im. In a case where Reuven says to Shimon 'You take the Shi'ur Chatzer (or whatever) and I will take the rest' - the Tana Kama in the Beraisa rules 'Shom'in lo'.
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.
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.
5)
On what basis do we reinstate the original version of the Beraisa (leaving the proof for Rav Yehudah from our Mishnah intact)? Why might Shimon well refuse Reuven's offer to take the Shi'ur Chatzer, leaving himself with the remainder?
What if Reuven offers to give it to him as a Matanah?
Our Mishnah concludes 've'Kisvei ha'Kodesh, Af-al-Pi she'Sheneihem Rotzim, Lo Yachloku'. How does Shmuel qualify this statement?
On what basis do we try and prove from here that Shmuel holds like Rav Yehudah (his Talmid)? What must we assume, in order to say that?
How do we refute this proof too?
5)
We reinstate the original version of the Beraisa however, leaving the proof for Rav Yehudah from our Mishnah intact. Shimon might well refuse Reuven's offer to take the Shi'ur, leaving himself with the remainder - claming that he cannot afford to pay the difference ...
... and if Reuven intends to give it to him as a Matanah - he can argue that he subscribes to the advice given by the Pasuk in Mishlei "Sonei Matanos Yichyeh".
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').
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').
We refute this proof too - by establishing Shmuel where 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).
6)
Ameimar ruled that we do say 'Gud O Agud'. What did he mean when he told Rav Ashi when, following the latter's query what he will do with Rav Nachman, he replied 'Lo Shemi'a li'?
What do we know about each of the two Shefachos that Rav Chin'na left his two sons Rava and Rav Dimi?
What did Rava rule, when they came before him (and one of them wanted to apply the principle 'Gud O Agud')?
6)
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', he meant - that he did not rule like him.
We know - that one of the two Shefachos that Rav Chin'na 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).
When they came before Rava (and one of them wanted to apply the principle 'Gud O Agud'), he replied - 'Leis Dina de'Gud O Agud'.
7)
How do we reconcile Ameimar with Rava's ruling?
Then why did Shmuel rule in the case of Kisvei Kodesh 'Yachloku', even though there too, they both wanted both Sefarim?
7)
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]).
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 Sefarim, and settle the difference.
8)
Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa permits writing Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim in one volume. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
The Chachamim are the most stringent of all. What do they say?
Rebbi Yehudah related that Bitus ben Zonin had owned one volume containing all eight Sifrei Nevi'im (though the Chachamim claim that they were all separate volumes). Under whose auspices did he do that?
What did Rebbi relate? What did they bring before him and his colleagues, which they subsequently validated?
8)
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').
The Chachamim are the most stringent of all. According to them - each Seifer of Nevi'im and Kesuvim must be written separately.
Rebbi Yehudah related that Bitus ben Zonin had owned one volume containing all eight Sifrei Nevi'im (though the Chachamim claim that they were all separate volumes) - under the auspices of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.
Rebbi related - how they brought before him and his colleagues Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim in one volume, which they subsequently validated.
9)
The Beraisa requires a space of four rows between each Chumash of Torah. How much space must one leave between each Navi ...
... in Nevi'im?
... of the T'rei-Asar (the twelve minor prophets)?
What does the Tana then mean when he adds 'u'Mesayem mi'Lematah u'Maschil mi'Lema'alah'?
Another Beraisa permits writing Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim together in one volume. In what way would such a Seifer differ in looks from our Sifrei-Torah?
How much space must the Sofer then leave blank ...
... at the beginning of the Seifer?
... at the end?
9)
The Beraisa requires a space of four rows between each Chumash of Torah. Between each Navi ...
... in Nevi'im too, the Sofer must leave - four rows.
... of T'rei-Asar (the twelve minor prophets), he must leave - three rows.
When the Tana 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).
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).
The Sofer then leaves blank sufficient space ...
... at the beginning of the Seifer - to scroll round the Eitz Chayim.
... at the end - to scroll round the entire Seifer.
10)
The Beraisa concludes 'u'Mesayem mi'Lematah u'Maschil mi'Lema'alah, ve'Im Ba Lachtoch, Chotech. What problem do we have with the final statement?
How do we amend it to answer the Kashya?
10)
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 is obvious.
So we amend it to read - 'she'Im Ba Lachtoch, Chotech', turning it into a reason for the previous ruling ('u'Mesayem mi'Lematah u'Maschil mi'Lema'alah' [without leaving a space on top of the second column]).