כל המריעין לו לא במהרה מטיבין לו—Whoever is dealt with badly will not soon be dealt with favorably

OVERVIEW When רב אחא מדיפתי heard that his intended appointment to be ראש ישיבה was given to רב אשי, he remarked כל המריעין לו לא במהרה מטיבין לו, etc. תוספות remarks on the inference of the word מהרה which is seemingly contradicted elsewhere in the גמרא.

תוספות anticipates the following difficulty: ובשילהי מרובה (בבא קמא דף פ,ב ושם דיבור המתחיל לעולם) דקאמר רב אחא גופיה לעולם אין מטיבין לו- And regarding the גמרא in the end of פרק מרובה,¹ where רב אחא himself stated (regarding כל המריעין לו, that) he will never be dealt with favorably, which seemingly contradicts what רב אחא says here that לא במהרה מטיבין לו; however after a while they may be מטיבין לו. תוספות responds: איכא למימר דמתחלה אמר לא במהרה מטיבין שהיה מצפה שיחזירוהו לגדולתו – One can say; that initially רב אחא said לא במהרה מטיבין, for he was anticipating that they would reinstate him to his prominence (as ראש ישיבה) –

However when he saw that they did not reinstate him, he said לעולם אין מטיבין לו.

SUMMARY רב אחא מדיפתי initially hoped that he would regain his position as ראש ישיבה.

THINKING IT OVER At what point is it past the time of מהרה that רב אחא realized that he will never regain his position?²

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא there is explaining the phrase of ודלת הננעלת לא במהרה תפתח (and the locked door will not swiftly be opened); where רב אשי said it means כל המריעין לו לא במהרה מטיבין לו, and רב אחא מדיפתי said that לעולם אין מטיבין לו. The גמרא there mentions that רב אחא made this statement based on his own experience and רש"י there (בד"ה מלתא) comments that the גמרא there is referring to this story in our גמרא here (making תוספות question even stronger). ² שמעתי שאומרים בשם הבעש"ט לפרש הכתוב והי' ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגא מאוד, דלכאורה למה להזכיר והי' ראשיתך מצער (שהוא דבר בלתי רצוי)? אלא מאחר שידוע שכל התחלות קשות, לכן אומר והיה ראשיתך (ההתחלה שהיא קשה, שזמן הזה יהיה) מצער, זמן קצר.

חלק בכור וחלק פשוט יהבינן ליה אחד מצרא—We give him his portion as a בכור and his portion as an ordinary son on one boundary

OVERVIEW רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע stated that it is obvious to him that the double portion that the בכור receives in the inheritance (his share as a regular son and the additional share as a בכור) are to be given to him together, in adjoining lots. The גמרא did not state the reason for this.¹ תוספות will explain it.

כדנפקא לן ביש נוחלין (לקמן דף קכד,א) מדכתיב² פי שנים מקיש חלק בכורה לחלק פשוט:³ As we derive this ruling in פרק יש נוחלין since it is written פי שנים (a double amount) we compare the portion of בכורה to the regular portion; just as each חלק פשוט is given אחד מצרא, so too the two portions of the בכור (which are included in the one word of שנים [and are to be considered as one חלק]) are to be given אחד מצרא.

SUMMARY The פסוק of פי שנים teaches that both shares of the בכור must be adjoining.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Perhaps the היקש teaches that just as the חלק פשוט must be אחד מצרא so too the חלק בכורה must be אחד מצרא; but how do we derive that both חלקים (the פשוט and the בכור) must be אחד מצרא together?!⁴
2. Does the היקש teach us that we must give the בכור both חלקים אחד מצרא (regardless), or does it teach us that the חלק פשוט and the חלק בכורה are one חלק (and what would be the difference between these two interpretations)?⁵

footnotes: ¹ רש"י in ד"ה פשיטא writes that since both (shares) are his they are like one share (see סוכ"ד אות יד). ² The פסוק in דברים (כי תצא) כא,יז states כי את הבכר בן השנואה יכיר לתת לו פי שנים בכל אשר ימצא לו וגו'. ³ It is actually רבי there who makes this היקש to teach us that the בכור receives his חלק בכורה even if it was לא מטא לידיה (עיי"ש); however the רבנן there (who argue with רבי and maintain that he receives a חלק בכורה only if it is מטא לידיה) state that פי שנים comes to teach למיתבא ליה אחד מצרא (without actually mentioning the היקש). ⁴ See נח"מ and סוכ"ד אות יד. ⁵ See מטה יוסף אות רעא.

אמיצרא דבי נשי—By the boundary of בי נשא

OVERVIEW A person bought property abutting the property of בי נשיה of which he eventually was an heir together with the other siblings. תוספות explains that it depends on the following texts to determine whether בי נשי is referring to his father or father-in-law.

אית דגרס בתר הכי אמרי אחוותא¹ – There are those texts later which read, ‘the sisters said’ – אם כן בי נשיה² היינו חמיו ולא היו לחמיו בנים כי אם בנות³ – In that case ביה נשיה means his father-in-law, for his father-in-law did not have any sons, only daughters – ואית דגרס אמרי אחי אם כן בי נשיה⁴ היינו אביו⁵ [ועיין תוספות שבת כג,ב דיבור המתחיל דבי נשא]: And some texts read, ‘the brothers said’; in that case בי נשיה means his father.

SUMMARY בי נשי can either mean his father-in-law, or his father.

THINKING IT OVER Is there any practical difference whether we are discussing his father’s estate or his father-in-law’s estate?⁶

footnotes: ¹ The sisters did not want that he should receive the adjoining property without compensating them. ² The word נשי is alluding to נשים women (his wife’s father). ³ בי נשי cannot mean his father, for the sisters have no part (nor any say) in the inheritance since he is a son, and a daughter cannot inherit if there is/are son(s). בי נשי must mean his father-in-law, who had no sons (only daughters) and his wife’s sisters who were equal heirs with his wife wanted him to pay to receive this adjoining field. ⁴ See שבת קנו,א where נשא refers to the father. See also תוספות שבת כג,ב ד"ה דבי that according to the ר"ת the term נשא is used for the father after he passed on; however the רשב"א there citing the גמרא on קנו,א maintains that it is used even when the father is alive. See חת"ס ד"ה אמצרי and סוכ"ד אות כ. ⁵ בי נשי cannot mean his father-in-law, for since there are brothers of the deceased father-in-law, his wife (and he) are not heirs at all in this estate. ⁶ See footnote # 4. See also רבינו גרשום ד"ה אמר האי.

כגון זה כופין על מדת סדום—In this for instance we constrain him**** from acting in the manner of סדום¹

OVERVIEW A son bought property adjoining his father’s property. רבה ruled that he can demand that his inherited share in the estate should be the field which adjoins his property. Not to give it to him would be a מדת סדום, since for the other heirs it makes no difference where their properties are located, and to this son it would be advantageous to have all his properties (the old and the new) adjoining each other. תוספות discusses the implication and application of כופין על מדת סדום. תוספות asks: תימה לרבינו יצחק לרבה אמאי איצטריך קרא² בבכור דיהבינן ליה אחד מצרא³ – The ר"י is astounded! According to רבה (that כופין על מדת סדום applies in this case), why is a פסוק necessary to teach us that we give the בכור his two portions (חלק פשוט וחלק בכורה) on one boundary (that it should be one contiguous property)?! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק לפי שלא נתן לו⁴ כח הכתוב אלא כב' אחיו⁵ – And the ר"י answers; since the פסוק only gave to the בכור the rights of two brothers – ואילו היו שני אחיו רוצים להשתתף לא כפינן לשלישי לתת להם חלק ביחד⁶ – So if two brothers want to partner (and combine their inheritance) we do not coerce the third brother to give them their shares together, ⁷**** but rather the third brother can insist on casting lots for their respective three parcels.⁸ תוספות offers an additional explanation why the פסוק of פי שנים is necessary: ועוד דבכור מתנה קרייה רחמנא– And in addition; that the תורה refers to the parcel of the בכור as a gift – כדאמר ביש נוחלין (שם) דכתיב לתת⁹ לו פי שנים ואין לכוף את הנותן¹⁰ – As the גמרא states in פרק יש נוחלין, that it is written לתת לו פי שנים (to give him double); and we cannot force a grantor of a gift as to where the location of the gift should be. תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:¹¹ ולאביי נמי אי לאו דקרייה רחמנא בכור – And also according to אביי, if the תורה would not have called the יבם a בכור – הוה אמינא יקום על שם אחיו כאילו הוא ואחיו קיימין – We would have thought that the verse יקום על שם אחיו (he should take the place of his brother)¹² means that he should inherit his brother’s share as if he and his brother are alive.¹³ תוספות offers an alternate solution to the original question (why a פסוק is necessary): ורבינו יצחק בן אברהם מפרש דהא דאמר רבה כופין לא מדין תורה קאמר – And the ריצב"א explained that when רבה ruled 'כופין', he did not mean that this is a תורה law – דבדין היה יכול למחות¹⁴ שכנגדו דאיכא קפידא ברוחות כדאמר בכמה דוכתין¹⁵ – For according to תורה law the other heir can protest and not allow him to take the adjoining property for there is ‘preference in location’ as is mentioned in many places in the גמרא. Therefore מה"ת we cannot be כופה, since they can always be מוחה ברוחות –

ועוד הא דכופין על מדת סדום בזה נהנה וזה לא חסר¹⁶ –** And additionally this that we are כופין על מדת סדום in a case where one benefits and the other does not lose – היינו בשכבר דר בחצר חבירו שאינו מעלה לו שכר – That is only if he lived in his friend’s חצר, that he does need to pay rent – אבל הא פשיטא שיכול למחות בו שלא יכנס לדור בביתו¹⁷ – However this is obvious that the owner of the property can protest and prevent him that he should not enter to live in his house – אפילו בחצר דלא קיימא לאגרא וגברא דלא עביד למיגר דהוה זה¹⁸ נהנה וזה לא חסר – Even in a case where the חצר is not intended to be rented and the other person does not usually rent, which makes it a case of זה [לא] נהנה וזה לא חסר, and the owner can prevent him from using his property – אלא¹⁹ מתקנת חכמים קאמר הכא דכופין²⁰ – Rather it is because of a rabbinic enactment that רבה rules here that כופין – והשתא אין להקשות כלל²¹ אמאי איצטריך קרא בבכור: So now there is no question at all why we require the פסוק of בכור.

SUMMARY There is no כופין עמ"ס by a בכור (and a יבם) since (תי' ר"י) it is like two brothers who want to deny the third brother his rights to a lottery, or because בכורה is a מתנה where there is no כופין. Alternately (תי' ריצב"א) the rule of כופין עמ"ס (in these cases of לכתחלה) is only מדרבנן and a בכור receives his two portions אחד מצרא מדאורייתא.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות finds it necessary to explain why according to אביי we require a פסוק for a יבם that he receives both parcels אחד מצרא, and the concept of כופין על מדת סדום is insufficient. אביי shortly maintains that even in a case of תרתי ארעתא אחד נגרא we do not say כופין על מדת סדום; what is תוספות difficulty with אביי?!²²
2. According to the ריצב"א are the two brothers able to coerce (מדרבנן) the third brother to give them adjoining parcels?
3. Is כופין עמ"ס a תורה law or a דרבנן law?

footnotes: ¹ מדת סדום is mentioned in מס' אבות (פ"ה מ"ו) that האומר שלי שלי ושלך שלך, etc. יש אומרים זוהי מדת סדום; meaning that I only take my needs in consideration, not of my fellow Jew. ² See previous תוס' ד"ה חלק that we derive from the פסוק פי שנים that a בכור receives both shares אחד מצרא. ³ Just as in the case of זבין ארעא אמצרא דבי נשי we give him the adjoining property (for כופין על מדת סדום), the same should apply to a בכור that we give him both shares אחד מצרא for כופין על מדת סדום. The other sons have nothing to lose by giving him both shares together, and it is beneficial for the בכור. ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read; לו הכתוב כח אלא. ⁵ This would be our understanding if the פסוק would not say פי שנים, but would rather say חלק נוסף or something similar. ⁶ Let us assume that the estate consists of three equal adjoining parcels; where parcels 1 & 3 abut parcel 2 on either side. The partners cannot insist that that they receive parcel 2 and the lottery should be whether they receive either 1 or 3, and the third brother can receive either parcel 1 or 3 but not parcel 2. Rather the third brother has a right that there should be an equal lottery for all three parcels. ⁷ Similarly I would have thought by בכור that the brothers can insist that he receive his two parcels separately by lottery; therefore we need the פסוק of פי שנים to teach us that he receives both parcels together. ⁸ It will be necessary to distinguish between the case of זבן אמצרא דבי נשא where we do say כופין על מדת סדום, and the case of שני אחיו where there is no כופין עמ"ס. One explanation may be that by זבן אמצרא he already had a certain right in the adjoining property even before his father died (his father could not sell this property without giving him first refusal rights since he is a בר מצרא) therefore we say כופין עמ"ס (to retain his rights); however by the שני אחיו at the time the father died none of the brothers had any claim on any of the fields and the third brother had an equal right to the middle field, therefore we do not say כופין עמ"ס (to deny him his right). See סוכ"ד אות כב. ⁹ The word לתת (to give) indicates that this extra portion is a gift. ¹⁰ It seems that since the extra portion of the בכור is at the expense of the remaining brothers; it is considered as if they are gifting him this extra portion, and we cannot coerce a grantor how he should distribute his gift. The brothers can decide that the gift should not be adjoining. See נתיבות המשפט סי' רע"ח ס"ק ט and ברכת אברהם (לח,ב). ¹¹ אביי ruled that a יבם receives his and his deceased brother’s inheritance אחד מצרא, since the תורה refers to the יבם as the בכור. The same question arises here as well; why is a פסוק necessary; we should give the יבם both parcels אחד מצרא for כופין על מדת סדום. We cannot answer here that מתנה קרייה for by יבום there is no mention of מתנה. ¹² This פסוק teaches that the יבם receives the inheritance of the deceased brother (in addition to his own). ¹³ If both he and his [deceased] brother were alive they could not manipulate the other heirs that their properties (of the יבם and the מת) should adjoin, as תוספות just stated (in the first answer to the previous question. See footnote # 6). Similarly without the פסוק of בכור the יבם could not coerce his brothers to give him both parcels אחד מצרא. ¹⁴ Therefore there is no question why a פסוק is necessary; for רבה is giving (merely) a rabbinic ruling while the פסוק makes it a תורה ruling. See footnote # 21. ¹⁵ See קידושין מב,ב that יכולים למחות ברוחות. The minor heirs can protest at maturity that they prefer their parcel in a different location (not the one that was chosen for them by their אפוטרופוס). ¹⁶ The גמרא in ב"ק כ,א-ב discusses a case where a person lived in someone’s property without permission. The גמרא concludes that if the owner has no intention of renting out this place (he is לא חסר, not losing anything by the squatter living there) then even if the squatter (usually) rents (so he is a נהנה), nevertheless he need not pay the rent (and certainly if he never rents [where he is a לא נהנה]), since we are כופין עמ"ס, for the owner suffered no loss. ¹⁷ Even if we were to assume that כופין עמ"ס is a דאורייתא that is only בדיעבד not to pay, but to initially force one to give up his rights (to his house, or to a lottery), there is no כופין עמ"ס מדאורייתא. ¹⁸ The רש"ש amends this to read, זה לא נהנה. ¹⁹ Here too (by בכור or by זבין אמצרא דבי נשא), the other brothers have a right to a גורל; therefore initially they can say we do not wish to relinquish this right. The only reason we are כופין עמ"ס is because of a תק"ח. ²⁰ The reason the חכמים were כופה עמ"ס by ירושה and not by שכירות (where one may refuse to let anyone live in his חצר) may be that by שכירות he is the actual owner of the חצר, and there is not ample reason to deny him the right of ownership on his property. However by ירושה the other brothers have no actual right to any particular parcel, but rather they merely have a potential right through a גורל. The חכמים enacted that this potential right for גורל must be relinquished to accommodate the brother who may suffer a loss if there is a גורל. ²¹ See footnote # 14. If it is derived from a פסוק, then the adjoining parcel legally belongs to the בכור; if it is כופין עמ"ס we require the consent (even through כפיה) of the other brother(s) to transfer it to the בכור. ²² See נח"מ and סוכ"ד אות כו.

מעלינן ליה כנכסי דבר מריון—We raise its assessment as the estates of בר מריון

OVERVIEW A son bought property adjoining his father’s property. רבהruled that he can demand that his inherited share in the estate should be the field which adjoins his property. However רב יוסף argues that the brothers can say that we assess this adjoining property which you desire as to be very expensive as the properties of בר מריון. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the meaning of מעלינן ליה כנכסי דבר מריון.

פירש הקונטרס בשדה¹ הבעל² שיכולים לומר שפעמים מתברכת משאר שדות – רש"י explained that the claim of מעלינן כנכסי דבר מריון is by a בית הבעל, where the brothers can claim that occasionally this field which you want is blessed with rain more than the rest of the fields, and therefore it is worth more – ובתרתי ארעתא אתרי נגרי³ לא שייך למימר מעלינן – However by two fields bordering two canals it is not applicable to say מעלינן – כיון שצריך להשקות ואין מתברכת זו יותר מזו – Since these fields (בית השלחין) require irrigation, so one field is not more blessed than the other. This concludes פירש"י.⁴ תוספות disagrees with the explanation of פירש"י: ואין נראה דגם אותם שצריך להשקות מתברכת אחת מהם פעמים יותר – And תוספות does not share this view, for even regarding those fields which require irrigation one of them may occasionally be more blessed than the others – שאחת לוקה בשידפון⁵ ואחת אינה לוקה – For one field may be stricken with שדפון and the other may not, so the brothers should be able to argue מעלינן even by a שדה בית השלחין, so why did רב יוסף say that their argument by a בית השלחין is האי מדויל וכו' and not מעלינן וכו'. תוספות offers his interpretation of מעלינן: ופירש רבינו תם מעלינן כנכסי דבר מריון לא ניתן לך זכות שיש לנו בשדה זו⁶ – And the ר"ת explained that מעלינן כנכסי דבר מריון means, we (the brothers) will not give up to you our rights which we possess in this (adjoining) field – אם לא בדמים יקרים כמו בני מריון שהיו עשירים⁷ – Unless you pay for it an expensive price, just as the בני מריון who were wealthy – ולא היו מוכרים קרקעותיהם אלא בדמים יקרים – And they would not sell their fields unless they received an expensive price.⁸ תוספות continues: ותרתי ארעתא אתרי נגרי לא קאי אעובדא דההוא גברא⁹ אלא מילתא באנפי נפשיה – And the case of תרתי ארעתא אתרי נגרי is not referring back to the episode of that man who bought property אמצרי דבי נשא, but rather it is a separate case – כלומר שתי שדות שיש לכל אחד נגר– Meaning if there are two fields and each of them has its canal to irrigate it – ורוצה האחד שיחלקו כל אחת לשתים שיקח חצי שדה זו וחצי שדה זו – And one of the heirs (or partners) wants that each field should be divided into two parcels, so each one (of the heirs/partners) would take half of this field and half of the other field (instead of each one taking one complete field); regarding this claim – אמר רבה כופין על מדת סדום ויטול כל¹⁰ שדה שלם כדי שיהא לכל אחד חלק אחד מצרא¹¹ – רבה ruled that כופין עמ"ס and each one receives a complete field in order that each one should have a contiguous parcel. תוספות responds to a seeming difficulty: וכן יש לפרש תרתי ארעתא אחד¹² נגרא שהנגר מפסיק בין שתי השדות¹³ – And we can similarly explain the case of two fields bordering one canal, that the canal separates the two fields – ואם יחלקו כל שדה לשתים לא יהיה חלקו אחד מצרא – So that if each field was divided into two (and they would each take portions on both sides of the canal), his parcel will not be contiguous. Therefore even רב יוסף agrees that כופין עמ"ס (since the reason of האי מדויל does not apply) and it cannot be divided. תוספות explains why we do not use the argument of מעלינן in the cases of תרתי ארעתא: והשתא בהני לא שייך למימר¹⁴ מעלינן¹⁵ כנכסי דבי בר מריון – And now we understand that in these cases of תרתי ארעתא (either אתרי נגרי or אחד נגרי), it is not possible to argue מעלינן כנכסי דבי בר מריון and require to divide the fields דאטו אם האחד רצה לחלוק לעשרים נאמר שיחלקו משום מעלינן – For is it then so that if one would want to divide the field into twenty parcels would we consider dividing them because of the מעלינן claim; obviously not!¹⁶ תוספות presents an additional difficulty for פירש"י:

And the expression מעלינן is also not appropriate according to פירש"י.

SUMMARY רש"י maintains מעלינן is applicable only for a בית הבעל where there is a possibility that one field receives more rain than the others, but not by a בית השלחין. However תוספות maintains that מעלינן merely means that we do not want to release our rights to this field unless we receive a high price for it (it applies to all fields). מעלינן cannot override having one’s (initial) parcel אחד מצרא.

THINKING IT OVER

1. When we say מעלינן, is there a limit as to how much¹⁸ the brothers can claim?
2. In the case of תרתי ארעתא אתרי נגרא why is it that (according to רב יוסף) the claim of מעלינן is not sufficient to deny them אחד מצרא, however the claim of האי מדויל can deny them the right to be אחד מצרא?
3. How can we explain (according to תוסופת) the מחלוקת between רבה ורב יוסף (regarding זבן אמצרא וכו') whether it is a מדת סדום or not?¹⁹

footnotes: ¹ A שדה הבעל is a field which relies only on rainwater for the crops to grow; it is not irrigated (as a בית השלחין). ² The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read; הבעל ואיירי שיכולים. ³ Regarding the case of תרתי ארעתא אתרי נגרי we do not find רב יוסף saying that the brothers can claim מעלינן וכו'; the reason (according to רש"י) is, as תוספות continues to explain פירש"י)) that irrigated fields are all equally irrigated. ⁴ According to רש"י the claim of מעלינן causes their refusal to give him the adjoining property, because this property is (possibly) worth more. See footnote # 8. ⁵ שדפון is translated as ‘blight’ (a disease which causes the plants to wither and die).. ⁶ The other brothers have a right to divide the fields with a גורל which may result that this adjoining field will belong to one of the other brothers. If one of the other brothers receives this adjoining field he will be able to sell it to this brother (who does not want the גורל) at a higher price. They may request to be paid (whatever price they want) to relinquish this right. רב יוסף maintains that this is not מדת סדום, for the other brothers possibly stand to profit if there is a גורל (and they will lose that potential profit if there is no גורל). ⁷ Wealthy people have no ‘cash flow’ issue, and are willing to wait until they get the price they want (above the current market price). ⁸ According to תוספות their refusal to give him the adjoining property is because they have a right for a גורל; they therefore claim that to relinquish this right we assess this property כנכסי בר מריון. See footnote # 4 & 6. ⁹ רש"י בד"ה תרי learns that the case of תרתי ארעתא is referring to the case of זבן אמצרא דבי נשא. However תוספות cannot learn that way, for in that case רב יוסף should have objected to כופין עמ"ס by saying מעלינן just as he said by זבן אמצרא. ¹⁰ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read; כל אחד שדה. ¹¹ It seems (according to תוספות) that the two parcels were not adjacent to each other. ¹² In the case of תרתי ארעתא אתרי נגרי we can assume that the fields were not adjacent to each other; however by תרתי ארעתא אחד נגרי, seemingly the fields are adjacent to each other so why are we כופין עמ"ס since the fields join? ¹³ The canal runs between the two fields. See the מהרש"א for an explanation how the fields can be divided. ¹⁴ Seemingly we could argue that each field should be divided into two for one brother may claim that either field is expensive כנכסי דבר מריון. Therefore תוספות rejects this argument. ¹⁵ The claim of מעלינן is valid (according to רב יוסף) when one of the parties wants to claim a field without a גורל; therefore מעלינן denies him that request. However here where both parties wanted to divide with a גורל the only issue was whether to make the גורל on the two whole fields or the גורל should be on both halves of each field. The claim of מעלינן is insufficient to grant any party a right to divide parcels. The right to complete parcels (which is the ‘normal’ way to divide) overrides any claim of מעלינן. See following footnote # 16. ¹⁶ It should be noted that in the case of זבן אמצרא the claim of מעלינן denies the son’s request to divide without a גורל (to change the status quo). In the cases of תרתי ארעתא, the purported claim of מעלינן (which תוספות rejects) would have supported the claim of the one who wanted to break up the parcels (and change the status quo). ¹⁷ מעלינן means we are assessing it at a high price (above the market value). However, according to רש"י the claim should have been לפעמים זו מתברכת וזו לא [so it is actually worth more (see נח"מ). See ‘Thinking it over # 1]. ¹⁸ It is obvious that the brothers will not claim such an exorbitant price that it will not be worth for the adjoining brother to buy it at that price. The question here is whether בי"ד will not allow the brothers to demand payment above a certain level (even if we maintain מעלינן). ¹⁹ See סוכ"ד אות כט.