Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth

Folio 93a

claimants¹  [disputing his title to the field]²  he³  may withdraw before he has taken possession of it,⁴  but after he had taken possession of it⁵  he may no longer withdraw,⁶  because [Reuben] can say to him,³  'You have agreed to a bag sealed with knots⁷  and you got it'.⁸  And from what moment is possession considered to have been effected? — As soon as he⁹  sets his foot upon the landmarks.¹⁰  Others say: Even [If the sale was made] with a guarantee the same law¹¹  applies. since [the seller] might say to him, 'Produce the tirpa¹²  [that was issued against] you and I shall pay you'.¹³

MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO THREE WIVES DIED, AND THE KETHUBAH OF ONE¹⁴  WAS A MANEH,¹⁵  OF THE OTHER¹⁴  TWO HUNDRED ZUZ, AND OF THE THIRD¹⁴  THREE HUNDRED ZUZ¹⁶  AND THE ESTATE¹⁷  [WAS WORTH] ONLY ONE MANEH¹⁸  [THE SUM] IS DIVIDED EQUALLY.¹⁹  IF THE ESTATE²⁰  [WAS WORTH] TWO HUNDRED ZUZ [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ²¹  [AND THE CLAIMANTS RESPECTIVELY] OF THE TWO HUNDRED AND THE THREE HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVE EACH] THREE GOLD DENARII.²²  IF THE ESTATE²³  [WAS WORTH] THREE HUNDRED ZUZ,²⁴  [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ²⁵  AND [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE TWO HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVES] A MANEH²⁵  WHILE [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE THREE HUNDRED ZUZ [RECEIVES] SIX GOLD DENARII.²⁶  SIMILARLY, IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED TO A JOINT FUND²⁷  AND THEY HAD MADE A LOSS OR A PROFIT THEY SHARE IN THE SAME MANNER.²⁸

GEMARA. [THE CLAIMANT] OF THE MANEH RECEIVES FIFTY ZUZ. Should she not be entitled to thirty-three and a third zuz only?²⁹  — 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'.³⁰  But if so,³¹  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 she³²  not] tell her,³³  'You have already renounced your claim upon³⁴  it'? — Because she can reply. 'I have only renounced my claim'.³⁵

IF THE ESTATE [WAS WORTH] THREE HUNDRED etc. [Why should THE CLAIMANT] OF THE TWO HUNDRED ZUZ³⁶  RECEIVE A MANEH [when in fact] she should be entitled to seventy-five zuz only?³⁷  — 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'.³⁸  R. Jacob of Nehar Pekod³⁹  replied in the name of Rabina: The first clause deals with two acts of seizure⁴⁰  and the final clause deals with two acts of seizure.⁴⁰  'The first clause deals with two acts of seizure' viz. seventy-five zuz came into their hands⁴¹  the first⁴²  time⁴³  and one hundred and twenty-five the second⁴²  time.⁴⁴  'The final clause deals with two acts of seizure, viz., seventy-five came into their hands⁴¹  the first⁴²  time⁴³  and two hundred and twenty-five the second⁴²  time.⁴⁵

It was taught: This⁴⁶  is the teaching of R. Nathan. Rabbi,⁴⁷  however, said, 'I do not approve⁴⁸  of R. Nathan's views in these [cases]⁴⁶  for⁴⁹  [the three wives]⁵⁰  take equal shares'.⁵¹

SIMILARLY IF THREE PERSONS CONTRIBUTED. Samuel ruled: If two persons contributed to a joint fund,⁵²  one of them a maneh, and the other two hundred zuz,

1. [H] 'contestants' (v. Rashi). Others: 'disputes' (cf. Jast. s.v, [H]).
2. Aliter: 'Protests against the tithe were issued' (v. fast. loc. cit.).
3. Simeon.
4. If he has not yet paid for it.
5. And so legally acquired it. Legal acquisition may be effected before the price of the land had been paid, the price becoming a debt due to the seller.
6. Despite the disputes involved.
7. Rashi (B.K. 9a): A bag full of wind.
8. I.e.'you made a purchase without proper investigation and you must bear the unpleasant consequences.
9. The buyer.
10. Of the field, to level them (v. Rashi B.M. 14b).
11. That the buyer may not withdraw after he had taken possession.
12. V. supra p. 584, n. 8.
13. I.e., before the court has authorized the distraint the buyer has no right to cancel the sale on the ground that he is troubled by claimants, Only when the court has given its decision in favour of the claimants, and the land was actually taken away from him, has he the right to call upon the seller for compensation.
14. Lit., 'this',
15. A hundred zuz (v. Glos.).
16. And the three contracts bore the same date, If they bear different dates the collection of any earlier kethubah takes precedence over the later one.
17. Lit., 'there was'.
18. A hundred zuz (v. Glos.).
19. Since the three women have equal claims upon that maneh, the smallest kethubah being for no less than one maneh.
20. Lit., 'there was'.
21. This will be discussed in the Gemara infra.
22. I.e., seventy-five zuz. A gold denar twenty-five silver denarii or zuz (v. B.M. 45b). The two women take equal shares in the two hundred zuz since the kethubah of either is for no less a sum and the money available is equally pledged to both.
23. Lit., 'there was',
24. So that the first maneh is pledged to all the three women (cf. supra note 2). the second to the claimants of the two hundred and the three hundred respectively, while the third maneh is only pledged to the claimant of the three hundred.
25. V. supra note 4'
26. One hundred and fifty us.
27. Lit., 'who put into a bag' sc. for trading purposes.
28. In proportion to the amounts contributed.
29. I.e., a third of the first maneh, since she has no claim at all upon the second maneh,
30. Which is legally pledged to her. In that maneh she has only one rival claimant in the person of the woman whose kethubah is for three hundred, The maneh is consequently to be divided between the two only.
31. That the holder of the kethubah for the two hundred us has renounced her claim upon the first maneh,
32. The claimant of the three hundred zuz.
33. The holder of the kethubah for the two hundred.
34. Lit., 'you have removed yourself from'.
35. 'As far as the claimant of the maneh was concerned but not my legal right to a share in it', i.e., she only undertook to abstain from litigation with the claimant of the maneh in order to enable her thereby to obtain a half of that sum, but she had not renounced her right to a share in that maneh should she ever wish to assert it against the third wife, the holder of the kethubah for the three hundred us. She is, therefore, entitled, as far as the balance of that maneh is concerned, to claim a share equal to that of the third wife, which, together with her share in the second maneh, amounts to (50/2 + 100/2) seventy-five us or three gold denarii,
36. Who, as stated above, has renounced fifty zuz of the first maneh.
37. I.e., a half of the balance of fifty of the first maneh and a half of the second maneh amounting to a total of (50/2 + 100/2 = 25 + 50) seventy-five zuz. The third maneh upon which she has no claim at all (cf. supra p. 590. n. 7) must, of course, be excluded from the calculations of her share.
38. While the woman whose kethubah was for two hundred us did not renounce any of her rights in favour of the holder of the kethubah for the one maneh. The first maneh is consequently divided between these two, the second maneh between the second and the third woman while the third maneh is given to the third woman only.
39. Lit., 'the river of Pekod', a town east of Nehardea, or a district in S.E. Babylon. Pekod is mentioned in Jer. L, 21 and Ezek. XXIII, 23.
40. l.e., the women collected the amounts mentioned in two instalments, the second of which was not available when the first was collected.
41. Lit., 'fell'.
42. Lit., 'one'.
43. Since each woman had a claim upon this sum the three divide it between them in equal shares, each one receiving twenty-five zuz.
44. The first one, having already received twenty-five zuz, now claims no more than seventy-five zuz, and since her claim to the seventy-five zuz is legally equal to the claims of the other two women the sum is equally divided between them and she receives a third of it, or twenty-five zuz, bringing up her total collection to FIFTY ZUZ. The second woman who has a claim upon the full balance of a hundred zuz divides the sum with the third woman each receiving fifty zuz which, added to the twenty-five zuz each received of the first maneh, amounts to a total of seventy-five zuz, or THREE GOLD DENARII.
45. Seventy-five us of these, as in the previous case (cf. supra n. 4), is equally divided between the three women thus allowing a total of FIFTY ZUZ for the first woman. The second one who also received twenty-five zuz at the first division and who still claims a balance of two hundred minus twenty-five = one hundred and seventy-five zuz receives twenty-five zuz as her share in the seventy-five zuz mentioned and another fifty zuz which is her share in the maneh that is equally divided between her and the third woman, thus receiving a total of twenty-five plus twenty-five plus fifty = a hundred zuz or a MANEH. The balance of fifty zuz now remaining is given to the third woman who thus receives a total of twenty-five plus twenty-five plus fifty plus fifty = one hundred and fifty = six GOLD DENARII.
46. The part of our Mishnah which deals with the eases of the three women.
47. R. Judah the Patriarch or Prince, compiler of the Mishnah.
48. Lit., 'see'.
49. Lit., 'but'.
50. Despite the difference in the amounts of their respective kethubahs.
51. The estate being equally pledged to all the three, the woman who claims the smallest amount has no less a right to it than the women who claim the bigger amounts have a right to theirs. Only in the case of contributors to a common fund are profits and losses to be divided in proportion to the respective amounts contributed.
52. Cf. supra p. 590, n. 10.

the profit is to be equally divided.¹

Rabbah said: It stands to reason [that Samuel's ruling applies] where an ox [was purchased]²  for ploughing and Was used³  for ploughing.⁴  Where, however, an ox [was purchased] for ploughing⁵  and was used³  for slaughter⁶  each of the Partners⁷  receives a share in proportion to his capital.⁸  R. Hamnuna, however, ruled: Where an ox [was bought] for ploughing,⁹  even if it was used³  for slaughter¹⁰  the profit must be equally divided.¹¹

An objection was raised: If two persons contributed to a joint fund,¹²  one of them a maneh, and the other, two hundred zuz, the profit is to be equally divided.¹³  Does not this refer to an ox [bought] for ploughing and used³  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.⁹  What, however, [is the law where] an ox [was bought] for ploughing and used³  for killing? Does each partner⁷  [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 money¹⁴  and the animals were mixed up, each partner⁷  receives a share in proportion to his capital',¹⁵  could not a distinction have been made in the very same case,¹⁶  [thus:] 'This¹⁷  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, that¹⁸  was implied: 'This¹⁹  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?²⁰  — R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: No; they made 'A PROFIT' [owing to the issue of] new coins²¹  and THEY MADE A LOSS' [by the deterioration of a coin into] an istira²²  that was only suitable for application to a bunion.²³

MISHNAH. IF A MAN WHO WAS MARRIED TO FOUR WIVES DIED, HIS FIRST WIFE²⁴  TAKES PRECEDENCE²⁵  OVER THE SECOND, THE SECOND TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE THIRD AND THE THIRD OVER THE FOURTH. THE FIRST MUST TAKE AN OATH²⁶  [IN ORDER TO GIVE SATISFACTION] TO THE SECOND,²⁷  THE SECOND TO THE THIRD,²⁸  AND THE THIRD TO THE FOURTH,²⁸  WHILE THE FOURTH RECOVERS PAYMENT WITHOUT AN OATH.²⁹  BEN NANNUS SAID: SHOULD SHE³⁰  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,³¹  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 MORE³²  THAN A MANEH [THE WOMEN] RECEIVE EQUAL. SHARES.

GEMARA. On what principle do they³³  differ? — Samuel replied:

1. Lit., 'for the middle'.
2. With the joint capital.
3. Lit., 'stands'.
4. So that the share of one partner in the ox is as essential as that of the other, the animal being useless for work unless it is whole.
5. And much more so if it was purchased for slaughter. (Cf. infra note 7.)
6. Its value in flesh having in the meantime increased.
7. Lit., 'this … this'.
8. Since the carcase can be well divided. The original intention to use the animal for ploughing only (cf. supra note 3) does not alter the fact that in the end it was used for the purpose which admitted of division.
9. V. supra nn. 3 and 7'
10. Cf. supra n. 4 mutatis mutandis.
11. Lit., 'for the middle'.
12. Cf. supra p. 590 n. 10.
13. Tosef. Keth. X.
14. One party having bought more expensive and, therefore, much stronger animals than the other.
15. Tosef. I.e.; since stronger animals are capable of more work.
16. Spoken of in the first clause, where the two men bought an ox jointly.
17. That profits are equally divided.
18. Lit., 'thus also'.
19. That profits are equally divided.
20. Which is in contradiction to Samuel's ruling (Rashi). Aliter: Since it is self-evident that profits on an ox that was both bought and used for slaughter are to be divided proportionally, this ruling, being superfluous in such a case, must refer to that of an ox that was originally bought for ploughing and was only subsequently used for slaughter. Thus an objection arises against R. Hamnuna (v. Tosaf, s.v. [H] a.l.).
21. The older currency which the men originally invested being worth more than the new currency. so that the profit in the terms of the new currency was not made on any business transactions but on the actual coins. Since then it is the original investments that are returned to their owners the return must be in proportion to the respective original investments. Any profit, however, that is the result of business transactions is equally divided, (V. Rashi. Cf., however, Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.)
22. A coin (v. Glos.).
23. As a cure. I.e., coins that have been withdrawn from circulation and, having lost their monetary value, are of no more use than a piece of metal. Such a loss (cf. supra note 4) must be borne by the two men in proportion. A trading loss, however, is, as Samuel ruled, to be equally divided.
24. I.e., the woman whose kethubah bears the earliest date.
25. In respect of her claim to her kethubah,
26. That she had received no payments from her husband, on account of her kethubah, prior to his death,
27. Who might lose all her kethubah should no balance remain after the first had collected her due,
28. Cf. supra n. 4 mutatis mutandis,
29. If the orphans are of age. In the ease of orphans who are still in their minority no one may exact payment from them except with an oath; v. supra 87a.
30. The fourth.
31. Provided the hour had been entered in the document.
32. Lit., 'and there is not there',
33. Ben Nannus and the first Tanna.