Explanation (R. Chananel): The field has a river to the east and north, and on the west and south flows an irrigation channel, they divide it through Karna Zol;

I.e. they divide it along the diagonal from the northeast corner to the southwest corner, and each has one side on the irrigation channel, and one side on the river;

Wherever the river or irrigation channel flows is called one side.

Assertion (Ri): One may tell [his partner] even for much more than the value, "Gud Oh Agud" (buy my share for this, or I will pay you this for your share).

Rebuttal (Ritzva): If so, one could remove his friend through inflating the price for a Chatzer without Din Chalukah!

Question: Why does he mention a Bechor and a Pashut, and not a Pashut and a Pashut?

Answer (R. Tam): The case of a Pashut and a Pashut was not difficult for him. He works one day for this one, and one day for this one;

However, a Bechor and a Pashut was difficult for him. If he works for the Bechor two days, the Bechor received more than double;

If there is a city further than one day's journey, and people profit greatly there, for there is cheap merchandise...

The Pashut, who has [rights to] the slave only for one day at a time, cannot [tell the slave] to go there.

[Rav Nachman] answered that in any case, they divide like this.

Answer #2 (Ri): [Rava] mentioned a Bechor and a Pashut, because it says in Kesuvos (93b) (that if partners bought an ox for plowing and it is destined to plow, all agree that they share the profits equally, even if one invested 100 and the other invested 200;

Therefore, he asked how they divide, for now the Bechor should not get double!

[Rav Nachman] answered that he works for [the Pashut] for one day, and for [the Bechor] two days. This is unlike an ox for plowing and it is destined to plow;

There, they share the profits, for initially they joined with this intent;

However, the reason does not apply to a Bechor and a Pashut, so each receives according to his share.

Implied question: It says in Yevamos (62a) that everyone agrees about a slave that he has no lineage, and [even if he had children] he did not fulfill Peru u'Rvu;

Also here, if he marries a Shifchah, he did not fulfill Peru u'Rvu, since the child does not trace his lineage to him.

Even Sheves ("Lo Sohu Bera'ah Lasheves Yetzarah") he did not fulfill, like it connotes there, that Sheves depends on Peru u'Rvu.

Answer (Ri): In any case we would not force his master to free him due to Peru u'Rvu, if he could fulfill even Sheves to a tiny extent, since it is a case of Ones.

Implied question: Why didn't [Beis Shamai] bring the verse of Peru u'Rvu?

Answer #1 (Rivam): Lasheves Yetzarah applies even to his slave half.

Implied question: They forced the master of a half-Shifchah, half-Bas Chorin to free her only because men conducted with her like Hefker. Why didn't they force him due to Sheves?

Answer: Perhaps even when he will free her, she will not fulfill [Sheves], because she is not commanded about Peru u'Rvu, like it says in Yevamos (65b) that a woman is not commanded about Peru u'Rvu;

However, when a [male] slave becomes free, he must fulfill Peru u'Rvu.

Answer #2 (Ri): They did not bring the verse of Peru u'Rvu because he is exempt from that Mitzvah, due to Ones;

We do not force his master to free him in order that he will become obligated in it, for if so, we should force the masters of all slaves to free them, so they will be obligated in all the Mitzvos!

Therefore, it mentioned the verse Lo Sohu Vera'ah, because it connotes that it is a great Mitzvah, and therefore we force.

Support: Also in Megilah (27a) we bring this verse regarding the Heter to sell a Sefer Torah only to learn Torah or marry a woman;

[It is permitted for] learning Torah, for it was taught that learning Torah is great, for it leads to action;

Also [one may sell in order] to marry a woman, for Lo Sohu Vera'ah, rather, Lasheves Yetzarah.

Question: Why do we force [him to free him]? The Aseh of Peru u'Rvu should be Docheh the Lo Sa'aseh of Lo Yihyeh Kadesh (the Isur for a slave to marry a Bas Yisrael)!

Answer #1 (Ri): At the time that the Lav is uprooted, he does not fulfill the Aseh. He transgresses the Lav from the time of Ha'ara'ah (the first stage of Bi'ah, either touching of the genitals or entrance of the crown). He does not fulfill the Aseh until a full Bi'ah (which can impregnate).

Answer #2: She is forbidden to marry him, for regarding her, there is no Aseh.

Answer #3: Even if she were commanded, she could marry someone else (permitted to her. Therefore, she may not transgress to marry a half-slave.)

Answer #4: Since it is possible to fulfill both (Peru u'Rvu and Lo Yihyeh Kadesh) through forcing [his master to free him, the Aseh] is not Docheh [the Lav].

Question: How can we force him to free him? We say in Gitin (38b) that anyone who frees his [Kena'ani] slave transgresses an Aseh!

Suggestion: For a Mitzvah is different (it is permitted).

Rejection: We do not tell one to transgress, in order that someone else will merit, like it says in Shabbos (4a)!

Implied question: Why did R. Eliezer free his slave, in Gitin (38b), when he entered the Beis ha'Keneses and did not find 10? (He freed him to complete the Minyan.)

Answer: There, R. Eliezer himself did the Mitzvah through this. He completed the Minyan.

Implied question: It says in Eruvin (32b) that it is better for a Chaver to do a small Isur (tithe Lo Min ha'Mukaf, i.e. when the Ma'aser is not near the Tevel being exempted) so an Am ha'Aretz will not do a big Isur (eat Tevel)!

Answer: There it is because the Am ha'Aretz would do an Isur through the Chaver. [The Chaver] would feed him Tevel.

Answer (Ri): For a great Mitzvah it is permitted even though he transgresses an Aseh;

This is like we say in Pesachim (59a) that no Avodah is done after the afternoon Tamid other than Ketores, [Hadlakas] ha'Neros, Pesach, and Mechusar Kipurim on Erev Pesach;

It explains there that the Aseh of Pesach, which has Kares, overrides the Aseh of Hashlamah (that the afternoon Tamid should be the last Korban of the day).

Inference: The Kohen [who offers the birds for the Mechusar Kipurim] transgresses the Aseh of Hashlamah, so that the Mechusar Kipurim can fulfill the Mitzvah of Pesach.

Question: Why do we force [him to free him? The half-slave] should sell himself to be an Eved Ivri, according to the opinion in Kidushin (14b) that one who sells himself, his master may give to him a Shifchah Kena'anis [to have children from him], and like the opinion that even if he has no children or wife, his master may give to him a Shifchah Kena'anis?

Implied question: (What is the question?) Eved Ivri applies only when Yovel applies, like it says in Kidushin (69a. It did not apply in the days of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai!)

Answer: Yovel did apply in Bayis Sheni, like R. Tam explained in Gitin (36a) regarding Hillel's enactment of Pruzbul.

Answer (Ri): This is not a solution, for one may not sell himself to be an Eved Ivri, like it says in Kidushin (22b) `the ear that heard on Har Sinai "Ki Li Bnei Yisrael Avadim" [and even so he wants to remain a slave, that ear should be pierced].'

Question: He should marry a half-Shifchah, half-Bas Yisrael!

Implied question: He cannot be Mekadesh her (for then an Isur Misah will forbid Bi'ah), for his slave side would have Bi'ah with a married woman!

Answer: He could marry her without Kidushin, like it says "he cannot marry a Shifchah...";

Inference: If he were permitted to a Shifchah, we would not force his master to free him, even though Kidushin does not take effect with a Shifchah. In any case, he would marry her without Kidushin!

Answer: Also now, his slave side would have Bi'ah with the free side [of the half-Shifchah, which is forbidden].

Implied question: This should be like a mule (which comes from a horse and donkey)! It says in Chulin (79a) that one may mate a mule with its own species. We do not say that the donkey side mates with the horse side!

Answer: There, it says "Kil'ayim", which connotes two species, similar to [the Isur of] plowing with an ox and donkey. A mule is a species unto itself. This is why one may ride on it (it is not considered working with a horse and donkey together).

Question: He should marry a Mamzeres! His slave side is permitted to a Mamzeres, like the Mishnah in Kidushin (69a) teaches that Mamzerim can permit their seed. How is this? A Mamzer marries a Shifchah [and frees the children].

Also his free side is permitted [to a Mamzeres], like the Mishnah (Kidushin 69a) teaches that Mamzerim and freed slaves may marry each other!

Answer (Ri): This is not a solution, to increase Mamzerim in Yisrael.

Question: He should marry a Nesinah (one of the Kena'ani nations)! Nesinim and freed slaves may marry each other, like the Mishnah there in Kidushin says.

Also his slave side is permitted to a Nesinah, for it says in Yevamos (85b, regarding the two opinions about when a woman in a forbidden marriage has a Kesuvah) "they argue about a Mamzeres or Nesinah who married a Yisrael";

According to the opinion (that she has a Kesuvah) because he entices her [to marry him, here she has no Kesuvah, for] she entices him, i.e. [she is not concerned lest he resent her for disqualifying his children,] because he can permit his seed, i.e. his son will marry a Shifchah!

Answer: Really, a Nasin may not marry a Shifchah. Even so, she entices him, since she can be Machshir, even through Isur. This man is not concerned for Isur, for he married a Mamzeres or Nesinah!

Question: Why is a Nasin forbidden to a Shifchah, and a Mamzer is permitted? Also a Nasin is forbidden to Kahal (to marry Yisraelim), like a Mamzer, for it says "Lo Sischaten Bam"!

Answer (R. Tam): It is because a Mamzer is already Kadesh, for he was born from a severe Isur, in which Kidushin cannot take effect. Therefore, the Lav Lo Yihyeh Kadesh does not forbid him.

Distinction: However, we do not permit him to [have Bi'ah with] a male or animal, even according to the opinion in Sanhedrin (54b) that learns these Isurim from Lo Yihyeh Kadesh;

We permit him only Kedeshus from which he comes. He does not come from Kedeshus of [Bi'ah with] a male or animal.

Question: What is this different than converts and freed slaves? They are permitted to a Nesinah, and forbidden to a Shifchah, even though both of these are Chayavei Lavim!

Answer (Ri): Kidushin takes effect on Nesinim, so we learn them from others forbidden to the Kahal, such as an Amoni, Mo'avi Mitzri or Edomi. They are permitted to the Kahal of converts, for it is not called Kahal [Hash-m];

Kidushin does not take effect on a Shifchah, so we do not learn her from [these other Pesulei Kahal].

Question: Here is different, for the slave does not give money immediately, rather, he writes a document for his value!

Answer: It connotes that we force due to "he should not be Batel [from Peru u'Rvu]." If not for this, we do not force in any case, even if he would give money.

Explanation: This is not precise that he made them to rent out. The same applies if he made them for himself, but he is able to rent them out.

Explanation: Now we are thinking that they divide because one of them wants to divide, and the case of two scrolls is like one scroll. There is not written in one what is written in the other, e.g. [Sefer] Yehoshua and Shmuel;

Why do we divide Bal Korcho (against his will)? They are not the same! Rather, surely he holds that we say Gud Oh Agud.

Question: Even if we say Gud Oh Agud, why do they divide, since what is written in one is not written in the other, and both [partners] need both [Seforim]?

Answer: He could have said "also according to you (who wanted to prove that we say Gud Oh Agud, this is difficult)."

Assertion: The text does not say like it says in a minority of texts "and if you think that we do not say Gud Oh Agud, just like both [partners] need this, both need this."

Proof: All the more so, if both do not need this and this, he asks even better "if we do not say Gud Oh Agud, why do they divide?" (Kos Yeshu'os - this is a better question, for now we cannot say "also according to you (who hold that we say Gud Oh Agud, this is difficult)."

Implied question: [If he combines them,] it is impossible that he will not put Nevi'im and Kesuvim on top of Torah;

In Megilah (27a), it connotes that one may not put [Nevi'im or Kesuvim on top of Torah]!

Answer: That is when they are in two scrolls. When they are combined together, it is not disgraceful.

Implied suggestion: Because one may not put one on top of the other, he requires each by itself.

Rejection: The only Isur we find is putting Nevi'im or Kesuvim on top of Torah, but one may put Nevi'im on Kesuvim or vice-versa!

Explanation: Rather, it is lest it look like it is all Torah, or all Nevi'im, just like Chachamim say after this that every Navi must be by itself;

You are forced to say that the reason is lest everything look like one Navi. So it seems to the Rashba.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He need not leave four lines in between.

Explanation #2 (Ri): Between one Chumash of Torah and another, he must [leave four lines]. Only regarding Nevi'im it says that he need not leave, like it explains the reason below (14a), that if he will want to cut, he will cut (and it is improper to have blank lines at the beginning of the Navi).

However, between one Chumash of Torah and another, no (rather, he must leave four lines). This is like an open Parshah. If it finishes at the bottom [of a column], he would have to leave one line [blank at the top of the next column];

Also here, it is proper to leave at the end of every Chumash a [blank] Parshah of four lines.

Explanation #3 (Ritzva): He finishes at the bottom and begins at the top, and he always leaves four lines. This is only between one Navi and another;

However, between one Chumash and another, he may not finish at the bottom and begin at the top, even through leaving four lines, like it says in the Yerushalmi in Megilah;

And he must finish [a Chumash] in the middle of a column, and begin in the middle. In the Navi, he finishes at the bottom and begins at the top...

It seems to me that the reason why one should not finish [a Chumash] at the bottom of a column, even if he would leave four lines, is lest he come to cut;

However, between one Navi and another, since if he wants to cut, he may, he may finish at the bottom.

Remark: So it is written in all Seforim.

Question (Ri): A Beraisa in Maseches Sofrim says that all Seforim are rolled to their beginning. Also below, it says that Sefer Azarah is rolled to its beginning.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): It is rolled from its beginning to its end.

Objection #1: The words connote unlike this.

Objection #2: Also regarding a Mezuzah, we say that it is rolled from "Echad" towards "Shma", i.e. its beginning to its end.

Objection #3: It explicitly says in the Yerushalmi in Megilah "one makes a pole for a Sefer Torah at the end.

Alternative text (Ri): The text should say "one leaves at the beginning enough to surround, and at the end to roll around a pole.

Defense (of our text - Rashba): Here is different, for we discuss combining Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim;

Then, it is not proper to make a pole at the end, like normally, for it is disgraceful that Torah is wrapped around Nevi'im and Kesuvim. It looks like it was made to guard them from filth;

Therefore, he makes here a pole at the beginning, so Torah will be on the inside, and Nevi'im and Kesuvim outside.

Version #1: Below (14a), when we answer "li'Tzedadin ka'Tani" ("Kedei Lagul" at the beginning and the end are different), the text does not say "[at] the beginning of the Sefer, enough to roll around a pole, and [at] the end, enough to surround"!

There, we do not discuss combining Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim, so we should say oppositely (the pole is at the end).

In most Seforim, the text says only "li'Tzedadin ka'Tani", and no more.

Answer #2 (Rashba): Even according to the texts that say "at the beginning to roll around a pole, and at the end, enough to surround", this is not so difficult. He prefers to answer similar to this [first] Beraisa, which he was discussing.