Parallel
כתובות 93:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
claimants [disputing his title to the field] he may withdraw before he has taken possession of it, but after he had taken possession of it he may no longer withdraw, because [Reuben] can say to him, 'You have agreed to a bag sealed with knots and you got it'. And from what moment is possession considered to have been effected? — As soon as he sets his foot upon the landmarks. Others say: Even [If the sale was made] with a guarantee the same law applies. since [the seller] might say to him, 'Produce the tirpa [that was issued against] you and I shall pay you'. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO THREE WIVES DIED, AND THE KETHUBAH OF ONE WAS A MANEH, OF THE OTHER TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, AND OF THE THIRD THREE HUNDRED ZUZ AND THE ESTATE [WAS WORTH] ONLY ONE MANEH [THE SUM] IS DIVIDED EQUALLY. IF THE ESTATE [WAS WORTH] TWO HUNDRED ZUZ [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ [AND THE CLAIMANTS RESPECTIVELY] OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THE THREE HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVE EACH] THREE GOLD DENARII. IF THE ESTATE [WAS WORTH] THREE HUNDRED ZUZ, [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ AND [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE TWO HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVES] A MANEH WHILE [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE THREE HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVES] SIX GOLD DENARII. SIMILARLY, IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED TO A JOINT FUND AND THEY HAD MADE A LOSS OR A PROFIT THEY SHARE IN THE SAME MANNER. GEMARA. [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ. Should she not be entitled to thirty-three and a third zuz only? — Samuel replied: [Here it is a case] where the one who is entitled to the two hundred zuz gave a written undertaking to the woman who was entitled to one maneh, 'I have no claim whatsoever upon the maneh'. But if so, read the next clause: [THE CLAIMANTS RESPECTIVELY] OF THE TWO HUNDRED, AND THE THREE HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVE EACH] THREE GOLD DENARII, [why, it may be objected, could she not] tell her, 'You have already renounced your claim upon it'? — Because she can reply. 'I have only renounced my claim'. IF THE ESTATE [WAS WORTH] THREE HUNDRED etc. [Why should THE CLAIMANT] OF THE TWO HUNDRED ZUZ RECEIVE A MANEH [when in fact] she should be entitled to seventy-five zuz only? — Samuel replied: [Our Mishnah refers to a case] where the woman who was entitled to the three hundred zuz gave a written undertaking to the one who was entitled to the two hundred zuz and the other who was entitled to a maneh, 'I have no claim whatsoever upon you in respect of one maneh'. R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod replied in the name of Rabina: The first clause deals with two acts of seizure and the final clause deals with two acts of seizure. 'The first clause deals with two acts of seizure' viz. seventy-five zuz came into their hands the first time and one hundred and twenty-five the second time. 'The final clause deals with two acts of seizure, viz., seventy-five came into their hands the first time and two hundred and twenty-five the second time. It was taught: This is the teaching of R. Nathan. Rabbi, however, said, 'I do not approve of R. Nathan's views in these [cases] for [the three wives] take equal shares'. SIMILARLY IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED. Samuel ruled: If two persons contributed to a joint fund, one of them a maneh, and the other two hundred zuz,
—