Ketubot

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,