Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 6, 2015 | 讬状讝 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讛

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 93

Study Guide Ketubot 93


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

注住讬拽讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讚拽讬讟专讬 住讘专转 讜拽讘讬诇转 讜诪讗讬诪转 诪讞讝讬拽 讘讛 诪讻讬 讚讬讬砖 讗诪爪专讬

disputants i.e., individuals who dispute Reuven鈥檚 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 [岣ita] 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 讟讬专驻讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇 讝讜 诪谞讛 讜砖诇 讝讜 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖诇 讝讜 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘砖讜讛

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.

讛讬讜 砖诐 诪讗转讬诐 砖诇 诪谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 讞诪砖讬诐 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖诇 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖诇砖讛 砖诇砖讛 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖诇 诪谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 讞诪砖讬诐 讜砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛 讜砖诇 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖砖讛 砖诇 讝讛讘

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.

讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 驻讬讞转讜 讗讜 讛讜转讬专讜 讻讱 讛谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 砖诇 诪谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 讞诪砖讬诐 转诇转讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜转讘转 讘注诇转 诪讗转讬诐 诇讘注诇转 诪谞讛 讚讬谉 讜讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诪讱 讘诪谞讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖诇 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 砖诇 讝讛讘 转讬诪讗 诇讛 讛讗 住诇拽转 谞驻砖讱 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讛 诇讛 诪讚讬谉 讜讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽讬 谞驻砖讗讬

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.

讛讬讜 砖诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜讻讜壮

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.

砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛 砖讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜转讘转 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 诇讘注诇转 诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讘注诇转 诪谞讛 讚讬谉 讜讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诪讻诐 讘诪谞讛

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.

专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转

Rav Ya鈥檃kov 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.

专讬砖讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讚谞驻诇讜 砖讘注讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗

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.

住讬驻讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讚谞驻诇讜 砖讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜诪讗转讬诐 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗

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.

转谞讬讗 讝讜 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 谞转谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛

It is taught in a baraita: This is the teaching of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I do not agree with Rabbi Natan鈥檚 statement with regard to these women; rather, they divide the estate equally.

讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讛讟讬诇讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐

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,

讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注

the earnings are divided equally.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注

Rabba said: Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 诇讗 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabba鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 诪讗讬 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇拽讞 讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜

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.

诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜

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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖诇拽讞 讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜

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.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 驻讞转讜 讗讜 讛讜转讬专讜 讻讱 讛谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讞转讜 驻讞转讜 诪诪砖 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诪诪砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 讛讜转讬专讜 讝讜讝讬 讞讚转讬 驻讞转讜 讗住转讬专讗 讚爪讜谞讬转讗

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜专讗砖讜谞讛 谞砖讘注转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讛专讘讬注讬转 谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讗讞专讜谞讛 谞砖讻专转 讗祝 讛讬讗 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

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.

讛讬讜 讬讜爪讗讜转 讻讜诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诪转 诇讞讘专转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讝讻转讛 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖注讜转 讛讬讜 讻讜诇谉 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘砖注讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛

However, if all of the marriage contracts were issued on the same day, whichever wife鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and ben Nanas disagree? Shmuel said:

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 93-98 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how we divide a limited estate between surviving wives each with a different Ketuva value....
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 93: The Complication of Additional Players in Financial Allotment

A math word problem, as it were, beginning with a man who was married to 3 women, who each had...
bab rivers

Of Time and the River

On Ketuvot daf 93a we have a reference to a sage from an area called the Pekod River, Rabbi Yaakov...

Ketubot 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 93

注住讬拽讬谉 注讚 砖诇讗 讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讞讝讜专 讘讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讬转讗 讚拽讬讟专讬 住讘专转 讜拽讘讬诇转 讜诪讗讬诪转 诪讞讝讬拽 讘讛 诪讻讬 讚讬讬砖 讗诪爪专讬

disputants i.e., individuals who dispute Reuven鈥檚 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 [岣ita] 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讞讜讬 讟讬专驻讱 讜讗砖诇诐 诇讱

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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 砖诇砖 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇 讝讜 诪谞讛 讜砖诇 讝讜 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖诇 讝讜 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘砖讜讛

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.

讛讬讜 砖诐 诪讗转讬诐 砖诇 诪谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 讞诪砖讬诐 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖诇 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖诇砖讛 砖诇砖讛 砖诇 讝讛讘 讛讬讜 砖诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖诇 诪谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 讞诪砖讬诐 讜砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛 讜砖诇 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖砖讛 砖诇 讝讛讘

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.

讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 驻讬讞转讜 讗讜 讛讜转讬专讜 讻讱 讛谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 砖诇 诪谞讛 谞讜讟诇转 讞诪砖讬诐 转诇转讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜转讘转 讘注诇转 诪讗转讬诐 诇讘注诇转 诪谞讛 讚讬谉 讜讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诪讱 讘诪谞讛

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 讜砖诇 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 砖诇砖 砖诇砖 砖诇 讝讛讘 转讬诪讗 诇讛 讛讗 住诇拽转 谞驻砖讱 诪讬谞讛

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.

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专讛 诇讛 诪讚讬谉 讜讚讘专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽讬 谞驻砖讗讬

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.

讛讬讜 砖诐 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜讻讜壮

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.

砖诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讛 砖讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜转讘转 讘注诇转 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 诇讘注诇转 诪讗转讬诐 讜诇讘注诇转 诪谞讛 讚讬谉 讜讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讬 注诪讻诐 讘诪谞讛

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.

专讘 讬注拽讘 诪谞讛专 驻拽讜讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讬砖讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转

Rav Ya鈥檃kov 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.

专讬砖讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讚谞驻诇讜 砖讘注讬谉 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜诪讗讛 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗

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.

住讬驻讗 讘砖转讬 转驻讬住讜转 讚谞驻诇讜 砖讘注讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜诪讗转讬诐 讜注砖专讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗

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.

转谞讬讗 讝讜 诪砖谞转 专讘讬 谞转谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗谞讬 专讜讗讛 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 专讘讬 谞转谉 讘讗诇讜 讗诇讗 讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛

It is taught in a baraita: This is the teaching of Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I do not agree with Rabbi Natan鈥檚 statement with regard to these women; rather, they divide the estate equally.

讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讛讟讬诇讜 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐

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,

讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注

the earnings are divided equally.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注

Rabba said: Shmuel鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 讝讛 诪谞讛 讜讝讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛砖讻专 诇讗诪爪注 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讛 诇讗 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabba鈥檚 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.

讗讘诇 砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 诪讗讬 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇拽讞 讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜

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.

诇讬驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讬讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜

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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讞专讬砖讛 讗讘诇 讘砖讜专 诇讞专讬砖讛 讜注讜诪讚 诇讟讘讬讞讛 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖诇拽讞 讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜讝讛 讘砖诇讜 讜谞转注专讘讜 讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜 讜讝讛 谞讜讟诇 诇驻讬 诪注讜转讬讜

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.

转谞谉 讜讻谉 砖诇砖讛 砖讛讟讬诇讜 诇讻讬住 驻讞转讜 讗讜 讛讜转讬专讜 讻讱 讛谉 讞讜诇拽讬谉

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 驻讞转讜 驻讞转讜 诪诪砖 讛讜转讬专讜 讛讜转讬专讜 诪诪砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 讛讜转讬专讜 讝讜讝讬 讞讚转讬 驻讞转讜 讗住转讬专讗 讚爪讜谞讬转讗

Rav Na岣an 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.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讛讬讛 谞砖讜讬 讗专讘注 谞砖讬诐 讜诪转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讜讚诪转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜专讗砖讜谞讛 谞砖讘注转 诇砖谞讬讛 讜砖谞讬讛 诇砖诇讬砖讬转 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 诇专讘讬注讬转 讜讛专讘讬注讬转 谞驻专注转 砖诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛 讘谉 谞谞住 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讬讗 讗讞专讜谞讛 谞砖讻专转 讗祝 讛讬讗 诇讗 转驻专注 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讜注讛

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.

讛讬讜 讬讜爪讗讜转 讻讜诇谉 讘讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诪转 诇讞讘专转讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖注讛 讗讞转 讝讻转讛 讜讻讱 讛讬讜 讻讜转讘讬谉 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖注讜转 讛讬讜 讻讜诇谉 讬讜爪讗讜转 讘砖注讛 讗讞转 讜讗讬谉 砖诐 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 讞讜诇拽讜转 讘砖讜讛

However, if all of the marriage contracts were issued on the same day, whichever wife鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and ben Nanas disagree? Shmuel said:

Scroll To Top