Parallel
כתובות 93
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,
—
the profit is to be equally divided. Rabbah said: It stands to reason [that Samuel's ruling applies] where an ox [was purchased] for ploughing and Was used for ploughing. Where, however, an ox [was purchased] for ploughing and was used for slaughter each of the Partners receives a share in proportion to his capital. R. Hamnuna, however, ruled: Where an ox [was bought] for ploughing, even if it was used for slaughter the profit must be equally divided. An objection was raised: If two persons contributed to a joint fund, one of them a maneh, and the other, two hundred zuz, the profit is to be equally divided. Does not this refer to an ox [bought] for ploughing and used for slaughter, and [thus presenting] an objection against Rabbah? — No, it refers to an ox that was bought for ploughing and was used for ploughing. What, however, [is the law where] an ox [was bought] for ploughing and used for killing? Does each partner [in such a case] receive a share in proportion to his capital? Then instead of stating in the final clause, 'If one man had bought [some oxen] out of his own money and the other [had bought some] out of his own money and the animals were mixed up, each partner receives a share in proportion to his capital', could not a distinction have been made in the very same case, [thus:] 'This applies only where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for ploughing, but where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for slaughter each partner receives a share in proportion to his capital'? — It is this, in fact, that was implied: 'This applies only where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for ploughing. but where an ox was bought for ploughing and was used for slaughter' the law is the same as 'if one man had bought [some oxen] out of his own money and the other [had bought some] out of his own money, and the animals were mixed up [in which case] each party receives a share in proportion to his capital'. We learned: SIMILARLY IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED TO A JOINT FUND AND THEY MADE A LOSS OR A PROFIT THEY SHARE IN THE SAME MANNER. Does not 'THEY MADE A LOSS mean that they made a loss on their actual transaction, and A PROFIT' that they made a profit on their actual transaction? — R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: No; they made 'A PROFIT' [owing to the issue of] new coins and THEY MADE A LOSS' [by the deterioration of a coin into] an istira that was only suitable for application to a bunion. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO FOUR WIVES DIED, HIS FIRST WIFE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE SECOND, THE SECOND TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE THIRD AND THE THIRD OVER THE FOURTH. THE FIRST MUST TAKE AN OATH [IN ORDER TO GIVE SATISFACTION] TO THE SECOND, THE SECOND TO THE THIRD, AND THE THIRD TO THE FOURTH, WHILE THE FOURTH RECOVERS PAYMENT WITHOUT AN OATH. BEN NANNUS SAID: SHOULD SHE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE BECAUSE SHE IS THE LAST? SHE ALSO MAY NOT EXACT PAYMENT EXCEPT ON OATH, IF ALL [KETHUBAHS] WERE ISSUED ON THE SAME DAY THEN THE WOMAN [WHOSE KETHUBAH] PRECEDED THAT OF THE OTHER, EVEN IF ONLY BY ONE HOUR, GAINS [THE FIRST RIGHT]. AND SO IT WAS THE CUSTOM IN JERUSALEM TO INSERT THE HOURS [IN SUCH DOCUMENTS]. IF ALL KETHUBAHS WERE ISSUED AT THE SAME HOUR AND THE ESTATE IS WORTH NO MORE THAN A MANEH [THE WOMEN] RECEIVE EQUAL. SHARES. GEMARA. On what principle do they differ? — Samuel replied:
—