Ketubot

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: