Ketubot 93
עֲסִיקִין, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶחְזִיק בָּהּ — יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ, מִשֶּׁהֶחְזִיק בָּהּ — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזוֹר בּוֹ. מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: חַיְיתָא דְּקִיטְרֵי סְבַרְתְּ וְקַבֵּילְתְּ. וּמֵאֵימַת מַחְזֵיק בַּהּ? מִכִּי דָיֵישׁ אַמִּצְרֵי.
disputants i.e., individuals who dispute Reuven’s ownership of the field, as long as Shimon has not yet taken possession of it, he can renege on the deal. However, once he has taken possession, Shimon cannot renege on the deal, because at that point the seller, Reuven, can say to him: You agreed to a sack [ḥaita] of knots and you received it, i.e., since you purchased the field with no guarantee, you understood that it was a risky investment. The Gemara asks: And from when is Shimon considered to have taken possession of the property? The Gemara answers: It is from when he walks the boundaries of the land to inspect it.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַחְרָיוּת נָמֵי. דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי טִירְפָךְ וַאֲשַׁלֵּם לָךְ.
There are those who say that even if Reuven sold him the field with a guarantee, Shimon may not demand a refund immediately when he discovers that there are disputants, as Reuven can say to Shimon: Show me your document of authorization to repossess property from me, and I will pay you.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים, וָמֵת, כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ מָנֶה, וְשֶׁל זוֹ מָאתַיִם, וְשֶׁל זוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, וְאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מָנֶה — חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה.
MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to three women and died and the marriage contract of this wife was for one hundred dinars and the marriage contract of this second wife was for two hundred dinars, and the marriage contract of this third wife was for three hundred, and all three contracts were issued on the same date so that none of the wives has precedence over any of the others, and the total value of the estate is only one hundred dinars, the wives divide the estate equally.
הָיוּ שָׁם מָאתַיִם, שֶׁל מָנֶה נוֹטֶלֶת חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁל מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁל זָהָב. הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת — שֶׁל מָנֶה נוֹטֶלֶת חֲמִשִּׁים, וְשֶׁל מָאתַיִם מָנֶה, וְשֶׁל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שִׁשָּׁה שֶׁל זָהָב.
If there were two hundred dinars in the estate, the one whose marriage contract was for one hundred dinars takes fifty dinars, while those whose contracts were for two hundred and three hundred dinars take three dinars of gold each, which are the equivalent of seventy-five silver dinars. If there were three hundred dinars in the estate, the one whose marriage contract was for one hundred dinars takes fifty dinars, the one whose contract was for two hundred dinars takes one hundred dinars, and the one whose contract was for three hundred dinars takes six dinars of gold, the equivalent of one hundred and fifty silver dinars.
וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לַכִּיס, פִּיחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ — כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין.
Similarly, three individuals who deposited money into a purse, i.e., invested different amounts of money into a joint business venture: If they incurred a loss or earned a profit, and now choose to dissolve the partnership, they divide the assets in this manner, i.e., based upon the amount that each of them initially invested in the partnership.
גְּמָ׳ שֶׁל מָנֶה נוֹטֶלֶת חֲמִשִּׁים? תְּלָתִין וּתְלָתָא וְתִילְתָּא הוּא דְּאִית לַהּ!
GEMARA: The Gemara asks about the halakha in the case where the estate has two hundred dinars, in which case the wife whose marriage contract was for one hundred dinars receives fifty dinars. Why should the wife whose marriage contract was for one hundred take fifty? She should have the right to collect only thirty-three and one-third dinars. Since her claim is only for the first hundred dinars, and all three women have an equal right to this first hundred, it stands to reason that it should be divided equally between the three of them.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּכוֹתֶבֶת בַּעֲלַת מָאתַיִם לְבַעֲלַת מָנֶה ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמָּךְ בְּמָנֶה״.
Shmuel said: This is a case where the wife whose contract was for two hundred writes a document to the wife whose contract was for one hundred dinars: I do not have any legal dealings or involvement with you with regard to the first hundred dinars. Since she relinquished her share in the first hundred dinars, only two claimants remain, the one whose contract was for one hundred and the one whose contract was for three hundred, and they divide it equally between them.
אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: שֶׁל מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁל זָהָב. תֵּימָא לַהּ: הָא סַלֵּקְתְּ נַפְשִׁךְ מִינַּהּ!
The Gemara asks: If that is so, say the latter clause of that very same statement in the mishna, where it states that the wife whose contract was for two hundred and the one whose contract was for three hundred take three dinars of gold each. This is difficult, because the wife whose contract was for three hundred should be able to say to the wife whose contract was for two hundred: You have removed yourself from the first hundred dinars, and so you have a claim only against the remaining hundred. It should follow that the wife whose contract was for three hundred should take one hundred in total, fifty from the first hundred and fifty from the second hundred, and the one whose contract was for two hundred should receive only fifty, which is half of the second hundred.
מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרָה לַהּ: מִדִּין וּדְבָרִים הוּא דְּסַלִּיקִי נַפְשַׁאי.
The Gemara answers: This is not so, because the wife whose contract was for two hundred can say to the wife whose contract was for three hundred: I have removed myself only from legal dealings or involvement, i.e., I have not completely relinquished my rights to the first hundred; I only agreed not to become involved in litigation with the wife whose marriage contract was for one hundred dinars. However, I maintain my rights to the first hundred dinars with regard to my involvement with you. Consequently, both women have equal rights to the remaining one hundred and fifty dinars, and they divide it equally between them.
הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְכוּ׳.
The mishna teaches that if there were three hundred dinars in the estate, the money is divided so that the wife whose marriage contract was for one hundred receives fifty dinars, the wife whose contract was for two hundred receives one hundred, and the one whose contract was for three hundred receives one hundred and fifty dinars.
שֶׁל מָאתַיִם מָנֶה? שִׁבְעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה הוּא דְּאִית לַהּ!
The Gemara asks: Why does the one whose contract was for two hundred receive one hundred dinars? She should have the right to receive only seventy-five. As Shmuel explained above, since she agreed not to litigate with the wife whose contract was for one hundred with regard to the first hundred, it turns out that she has a claim only for one hundred and fifty of the remaining sum, since she clearly has no rights at all to the third hundred; therefore, she should receive half of what she is suing for, which is seventy-five dinars.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּכוֹתֶבֶת בַּעֲלַת שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת לְבַעֲלַת מָאתַיִם וּלְבַעֲלַת מָנֶה ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמָּכֶם בְּמָנֶה״.
The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The case is where the one whose contract was for three hundred writes a document to the one whose contract was for two hundred and to the one whose contract was for one hundred dinars: I have no legal dealings or involvement with you with regard to the first hundred dinars. Due to this agreement, the first hundred is divided between the wife whose contract was for one hundred and the wife whose contract was for two hundred, with each receiving fifty. The second hundred is divided between the wife whose contract was for two hundred and the wife whose contract was for three hundred. As a result of this, the wife whose contract was for two hundred ends up with a full hundred. The third hundred goes exclusively to the wife whose contract was for three hundred, bringing her total to one hundred and fifty dinars.
רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבִינָא אָמַר: רֵישָׁא בִּשְׁתֵּי תְפִיסוֹת, וְסֵיפָא בִּשְׁתֵּי תְפִיסוֹת.
Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod said in the name of Ravina: The mishna is not referring to cases where one of the women waived her rights, but rather to cases in which they did not receive the inheritance all at once, but in installments; each time an installment became available, the women repossessed a portion of the estate. The first clause is referring to a case where there were two seizures of property, and the latter clause is similarly referring to a case where there were two seizures of property.
רֵישָׁא בִּשְׁתֵּי תְפִיסוֹת — דְּנָפְלוּ שִׁבְעִין וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּחַד זִימְנָא, וּמֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּחַד זִימְנָא.
The Gemara explains: The first clause of the mishna, where two hundred dinars were available, is referring to a case where there were two seizures of property, as seventy-five dinars became available at one time and one hundred and twenty-five dinars at another time. When the first installment became available, each of the women had an equal claim to the money and they divided it equally, each receiving twenty-five dinars. When the second installment became available, the woman whose contract was for one hundred dinars had a claim to seventy-five dinars, and received one-third of that amount, bringing her total to fifty. The other women also received an equal share of those seventy-five dinars, and divided equally the remaining fifty dinars, bringing their totals to seventy-five dinars apiece.
סֵיפָא בִּשְׁתֵּי תְפִיסוֹת — דְּנָפְלוּ שִׁבְעִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּחַד זִימְנָא, וּמָאתַיִם וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה בְּחַד זִימְנָא.
The latter clause, where three hundred dinars were available, is also referring to a case where there were two seizures of property, as seventy-five dinars became available to them at one time and two hundred and twenty-five dinars at another time.
תַּנְיָא: זוֹ מִשְׁנַת רַבִּי נָתָן. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵין אֲנִי רוֹאֶה דְּבָרָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי נָתָן בְּאֵלּוּ, אֶלָּא חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה.
It is taught in a baraita: This is the teaching of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I do not agree with Rabbi Natan’s statement with regard to these women; rather, they divide the estate equally.
וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהֵטִילוּ. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לְכִיס, זֶה מָנֶה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם —
It was taught in the mishna: Similarly, three individuals who deposited money into a purse, i.e., invested different amounts in a joint business venture, divide the assets in a similar manner. Shmuel said: In a case of two individuals who deposited money into a purse, where this individual invested one hundred dinars and that individual invested two hundred,
הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע.
the earnings are divided equally.
אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה, אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה — זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו. וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה — הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע.
Rabba said: Shmuel’s statement stands to reason in a case where they bought an ox for plowing and it was used for plowing, and now they wish to divide the earnings from the work of the ox. Since each part of the ox is necessary in order to plow, each partner’s contribution is equally necessary. However, in a case where they purchased an ox for plowing, but it was used for slaughter and they wish to divide their income from the sale of the meat, this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment. And Rav Hamnuna said: Even in a case where they purchased an ox for plowing and used it for slaughter, the earnings are divided equally.
מֵיתִיבִי: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לַכִּיס, זֶה מָנֶה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם — הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע. מַאי לָאו, בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה? לָא, בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabba’s statement from the following Tosefta: In the case of two individuals who deposited money into a purse, i.e., invested in a joint business venture, this one invested one hundred dinars and that one invested two hundred, the earnings are divided equally. The Gemara comments: What, is it not referring to the case of an ox that was purchased for plowing and was used for slaughter, and it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabba? The Gemara responds: No, the Tosefta is referring only to the case of an ox that was purchased for plowing and used for plowing.
אֲבָל שׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה מַאי — זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו. אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לָקַח זֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ — זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו,
The Gemara asks: But in the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for slaughter, what is the opinion of the Tosefta; is it that this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment? If so, rather than teaching the latter clause of that same Tosefta, which reads as follows: If this partner purchased oxen with his own funds and that partner also purchased oxen with his own funds, and they became mixed when the two owners entered a joint business venture, this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment, it should teach a different case.
לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידֵיהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה. אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה — זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו!
The Gemara explains: Let the Tosefta distinguish and teach within the case of the first clause itself, as follows: In what case is this statement said, that the earnings are divided equally? In the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for plowing, but in the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for slaughter, this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment. Since the Tosefta did not make that distinction, it appears that it is dealing with both cases.
הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה. אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה — נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁלָּקַח זֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ, זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו.
The Gemara answers: That is indeed what the Tosefta is saying: In what case is this statement said? In the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for plowing, but in the case of an ox purchased for plowing but used for slaughter, it becomes like a case where this partner purchased oxen with his own funds and that partner purchased oxen with his own funds, and they became mixed when the two owners entered a joint business venture. The halakha in such a case is that this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment.
תְּנַן: וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לַכִּיס, פִּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ — כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין,
The Gemara presents another proof: We learned in the mishna: Similarly, three individuals who deposited money into a purse, i.e., invested different amounts of money into a joint business venture: If they incurred a loss or earned a profit and now choose to dissolve the partnership, they divide the assets in this manner, i.e., based upon the amount that each of them initially invested in the partnership.
מַאי לָאו: ״פִּחֲתוּ״ — פִּחֲתוּ מַמָּשׁ, ״הוֹתִירוּ״ — הוֹתִירוּ מַמָּשׁ!
What, is it not that when the mishna says: They incurred a loss, it means that they incurred an actual loss, and when it says: They earned a profit, it means that they earned an actual profit, and it says that they divide the assets proportionally and not equally? This poses a difficulty for Shmuel, who is of the opinion that they should divide the assets equally.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לָא, ״הוֹתִירוּ״ — זוּזֵי חַדְתֵי, ״פִּחֲתוּ״ — אִסְתֵּירָא דְצוֹנִיתָא.
Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: No, when the mishna says they earned a profit, it means that they received new dinars, i.e., coins, in place of the old ones they had started with, and these new coins were of greater value than the original ones. Similarly, when it says that they incurred a loss, it means that they received defective coins useful only for a wound. When they were dividing the money between themselves, they found some old coins, which had become rusty or invalidated by the government and therefore lost some or all of their value and were good for nothing other than scrap metal. When dividing the coins they are left with, they do so in proportion to their monetary stakes, but this does not apply to the actual profits they earned.
מַתְנִי׳ מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים וָמֵת — הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּשְׁלִישִׁית לָרְבִיעִית. וְרִאשׁוֹנָה נִשְׁבַּעַת לַשְּׁנִיָּה. וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּשְׁלִישִׁית לָרְבִיעִית, וְהָרְבִיעִית נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. בֶּן נַנָּס אוֹמֵר: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אַחֲרוֹנָה נִשְׂכֶּרֶת? אַף הִיא לֹא תִּפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.
MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to four women and died, the woman he married first precedes the woman he married second in claiming her marriage contract, the second precedes the third, and the third precedes the fourth. And the first wife takes an oath to the second that she has taken nothing from the jointly owned properties of the estate in an unlawful manner, and the second takes an oath to the third, and the third to the fourth. The fourth wife is paid her share without having to take an oath. Ben Nanas says: Should she gain this advantage merely because she is last? After all, she too is being paid from property that would otherwise go to the orphans. Rather, she too is not paid without an oath.
הָיוּ יוֹצְאוֹת כּוּלָּן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד — כׇּל הַקּוֹדֶמֶת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ אֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת זָכְתָה. וְכָךְ הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שָׁעוֹת. הָיוּ כּוּלָּן יוֹצְאוֹת בְּשָׁעָה אַחַת, וְאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מָנֶה — חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה.
However, if all of the marriage contracts were issued on the same day, whichever wife’s marriage contract precedes that of another, even by a single hour, has acquired the right to be paid first. And so, the practice in Jerusalem was that they would write the hours when the documents had been signed on the documents, in order to enable the document holder to demonstrate that his or her document preceded that of another. If all the contracts were issued in the same hour and there is only one hundred dinars from which to pay all of them, all of the women divide the money equally.
גְּמָ׳ בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and ben Nanas disagree? Shmuel said:
