Leib Taylor asked:

The gemara at the begining is mashma acc to Rashi the the question is based on taking the whole chafetz and divide, so that one pays and the other gets the chafetz.

At the Maskanah, though, it implies that really the din applies only to give each one a chaftez and then pay for the more expensive part is what can't be done (Amud B) by the case of the maidservants. Is there the a double machlokes, whether totally dividing the chaftes or giving one the whole chafets and paying the other for it?

Leib Taylor, Manchester, England

The Kollel replies:

The way we understood it, you want to know what "Gud O Agud" means: Does it mean that one partner can make the other agree to either take the entire object and pay the value of half or to accept the value of half and give the entire object to the first partner? Or does it mean that one partner can make the other agree to take some of the object and compensate the other partner for what he took that was more than his share.

If that is your question the answer is as follows:

"Gud o Agud" only applies to an object which cannot be split evenly (i.e. it does not have "Din Chalukah"). If the object can be split, each partner certainly has the right to force his partner to split, in order to break the partnership and take with him the half that he owns (but nothing more).

The convention of "Gud o Agud" presumes that we cannot force two partners to be eternally bound together. Thus, in the case of the maidservants, "Gud O Agud" would dictate that each partner can break the partnership and take with him his portion of each one of the maidservants. The outcome would necessarily be that one pays the other the difference in price between the two maidservants. However the Gemara's conclusion is that there is no Gud O Agud" in such a case, for we cannot force the partners to trade one maidservant for the other.

D. Zupnik