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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 6, 2015 | ื™ืดื– ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 93

ืขืกื™ืงื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืžืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื“ืงื™ื˜ืจื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื•ืงื‘ื™ืœืช ื•ืžืื™ืžืช ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื” ืžื›ื™ ื“ื™ื™ืฉ ืืžืฆืจื™

disputants i.e., individuals who dispute Reuvenโ€™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 [แธฅaita] 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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื—ื•ื™ ื˜ื™ืจืคืš ื•ืืฉืœื ืœืš

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืฉืœ ื–ื• ืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ื–ื• ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ื–ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืœื ืžื ื” ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื”

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.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืžืืชื™ื ืฉืœ ืžื ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžื ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืฉื” ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘

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.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ืคื™ื—ืชื• ืื• ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื›ืš ื”ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืœ ืžื ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื•ืชืœืชื ื•ืชื™ืœืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืชื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžื ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืขืžืš ื‘ืžื ื”

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉืœืฉ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืชื™ืžื ืœื” ื”ื ืกืœืงืช ื ืคืฉืš ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื” ืœื” ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืงื™ ื ืคืฉืื™

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.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ

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.

ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ืžื ื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื‘ืขืœืช ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžื ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืขืžื›ื ื‘ืžื ื”

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.

ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื ื”ืจ ืคืงื•ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช

Rav Yaโ€™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.

ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช ื“ื ืคืœื• ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื

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.

ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช ื“ื ืคืœื• ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื ื•ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื

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.

ืชื ื™ื ื–ื• ืžืฉื ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืจื•ืื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืืœื• ืืœื ื—ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื”

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

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื

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,

ื”ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืžืฆืข

the earnings are divided equally.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื™ืœืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื”ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืžืฆืข

Rabba said: Shmuelโ€™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 partnerโ€™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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื”ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืžืฆืข ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื•ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื” ืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื”

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbaโ€™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.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืžืื™ ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืœืงื— ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื•

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.

ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื•

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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืงืืžืจ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืœืงื— ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื•

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.

ืชื ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ืคื—ืชื• ืื• ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื›ืš ื”ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืคื—ืชื• ืคื—ืชื• ืžืžืฉ ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ืžืžืฉ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืœื ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื—ื“ืชื™ ืคื—ืชื• ืืกืชื™ืจื ื“ืฆื•ื ื™ืชื

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืืจื‘ืข ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื ืฉื‘ืขืช ืœืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื ืคืจืขืช ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื‘ืŸ ื ื ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ืจื•ื ื” ื ืฉื›ืจืช ืืฃ ื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืคืจืข ืืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

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.

ื”ื™ื• ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื–ื›ืชื” ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื• ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืฉืขื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ื‘ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืœื ืžื ื” ื—ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื”

However, if all of the marriage contracts were issued on the same day, whichever wifeโ€™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.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 93

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 93

ืขืกื™ืงื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืžืฉื”ื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ื‘ื• ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืชื ื“ืงื™ื˜ืจื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื•ืงื‘ื™ืœืช ื•ืžืื™ืžืช ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื” ืžื›ื™ ื“ื™ื™ืฉ ืืžืฆืจื™

disputants i.e., individuals who dispute Reuvenโ€™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 [แธฅaita] 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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื—ื•ื™ ื˜ื™ืจืคืš ื•ืืฉืœื ืœืš

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืฉืœืฉ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืช ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืฉืœ ื–ื• ืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ื–ื• ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ื–ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืœื ืžื ื” ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื”

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.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืžืืชื™ื ืฉืœ ืžื ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืœ ืžื ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ืžื ื” ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืฉื” ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘

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.

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ืคื™ื—ืชื• ืื• ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื›ืš ื”ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืฉืœ ืžื ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœืช ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื•ืชืœืชื ื•ืชื™ืœืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืชื™ื ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžื ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืขืžืš ื‘ืžื ื”

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.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืฉืœ ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉืœืฉ ืฉืœ ื–ื”ื‘ ืชื™ืžื ืœื” ื”ื ืกืœืงืช ื ืคืฉืš ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจื” ืœื” ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืกืœื™ืงื™ ื ืคืฉืื™

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.

ื”ื™ื• ืฉื ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ

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.

ืฉืœ ืžืืชื™ื ืžื ื” ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”

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.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืชื‘ืช ื‘ืขืœืช ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืœื‘ืขืœืช ืžื ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืขืžื›ื ื‘ืžื ื”

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.

ืจื‘ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืžื ื”ืจ ืคืงื•ื“ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช ื•ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช

Rav Yaโ€™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.

ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช ื“ื ืคืœื• ืฉื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื ื•ืžืื” ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื

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.

ืกื™ืคื ื‘ืฉืชื™ ืชืคื™ืกื•ืช ื“ื ืคืœื• ืฉื‘ืขื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื ื•ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืขืฉืจื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื‘ื—ื“ ื–ื™ืžื ื

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.

ืชื ื™ื ื–ื• ืžืฉื ืช ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื ื™ ืจื•ืื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื‘ืืœื• ืืœื ื—ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื”

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

ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื

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,

ื”ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืžืฆืข

the earnings are divided equally.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžื™ืœืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื”ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืžืฆืข

Rabba said: Shmuelโ€™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 partnerโ€™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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืฉื ื™ื ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ื–ื” ืžื ื” ื•ื–ื” ืžืืชื™ื ื”ืฉื›ืจ ืœืืžืฆืข ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื•ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื” ืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื”

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbaโ€™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.

ืื‘ืœ ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืžืื™ ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืœืงื— ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื•

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.

ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื•

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.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืงืืžืจ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื•ืจ ืœื—ืจื™ืฉื” ื•ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืœืงื— ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืฉืœื• ื•ื ืชืขืจื‘ื• ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื• ื•ื–ื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœืคื™ ืžืขื•ืชื™ื•

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.

ืชื ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ืฉืœืฉื” ืฉื”ื˜ื™ืœื• ืœื›ื™ืก ืคื—ืชื• ืื• ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื›ืš ื”ืŸ ื—ื•ืœืงื™ืŸ

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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืคื—ืชื• ืคื—ืชื• ืžืžืฉ ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ืžืžืฉ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ืœื ื”ื•ืชื™ืจื• ื–ื•ื–ื™ ื—ื“ืชื™ ืคื—ืชื• ืืกืชื™ืจื ื“ืฆื•ื ื™ืชื

Rav Naแธฅman 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื™ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ืฉื•ื™ ืืจื‘ืข ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืžืช ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื ืฉื‘ืขืช ืœืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืฉื ื™ื” ืœืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ืช ืœืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื•ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ื ืคืจืขืช ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื‘ืŸ ื ื ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื™ื ืื—ืจื•ื ื” ื ืฉื›ืจืช ืืฃ ื”ื™ื ืœื ืชืคืจืข ืืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื”

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.

ื”ื™ื• ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืœ ื”ืงื•ื“ืžืช ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื–ื›ืชื” ื•ื›ืš ื”ื™ื• ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืฉืขื•ืช ื”ื™ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื™ื•ืฆืื•ืช ื‘ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืœื ืžื ื” ื—ื•ืœืงื•ืช ื‘ืฉื•ื”

However, if all of the marriage contracts were issued on the same day, whichever wifeโ€™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.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ

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

Scroll To Top