Responsa for Bava Batra 196:9
טרקלין י' על י': מאי טרקלין קובתא בי וורדי
<b><i>GEMARA.</i></b> Why has it been stated, A WEDDING HOUSE FOR HIS SON OR A WIDOW HOUSE FOR HIS DAUGHTER, and not 'a wedding house for his son or daughter, or a widow house for his son or daughter'? — [By this the Mishnah] has taught us incidentally that it is not the [proper] way for a son-in-law to live at the house of his father-in-law; as it is written in Bensira, 'I have weighed all things in the scale of the balance and found nothing lighter than bran; lighter than bran is a son-in-law who lives in the house of his father-in-law; lighter than [such] a son-in-law is a guest [who] brings in [with him another] guest; and lighter than such a guest [is he who] replies before he hears [the question],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Cf. Sirach, Ecclus. XI, 8.] ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. If the size of the room is ten cubits by ten cubits, A may force the other partners to agree to a partition since he, A, owning one quarter of the room, would receive a "usable unit" upon a partition even according to Ri who sets the minimum for such "usable unit" at six cubits by four cubits. For these measurements, the talmudic cubit of twenty-four thumb-breadths should be used. Even though such partition might leave C, D and E with parts smaller than this minimum, A would still be entitled to effect a partition of the property since before Jacob sold his share to C, D, and E each partner (A, B and Jacob) would have been entitled to a "usable unit." Moreover, A could have forced Jacob to agree to a partition even if he, A, would not have received a "usable unit." The restriction upon partners not to partition a house unless each partner receives a "usable unit", was decreed by the Rabbis for the benefit of those partners who were to receive the smaller parts. Therefore, A would have been entitled to waive this rabbinic decree that had been designed for his personal benefit.
SOURCES: Cr. 234: Am II, 178; Mord. B. B. 569; cf. Mord. B. M. 384; Agudah B. M. 158.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. The Talmud records a difference of opinion on this subject between the Rabbis who decided in the affirmative and Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel who decided in the negative. Some post-talmudic authorities accept the former opinion, while others accept the latter. The talmudic discussion of the opinion of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, leads us to accept the opinion of the Rabbis.