Ketubot 93a — the Talmud in English

And they brought claims against it -

against the field that Shimon bought from Reuven -

claims

claimants who asserted that the field belonged to them, while the court had still not determined with whom the justice lay.

Behold,

before he took possession of it

the purchaser, who had not performed the act of taking possession that effects acquisition of land,

can

he

retract.

But

once he took possession of it

the purchaser and acquired the field through taking possession, he

can no longer retract.

Because he said to him

the seller said to the purchaser: Since you agreed to buy without a warranty,

you considered it a sack of knots and accepted it

you agreed to accept a small sack filled with knots, that is: you agreed to place yourself in the uncertainty and risk of your money; and once the acquisition has already taken effect, you can no longer retract.

The Gemara explains

: And from when

[from when] is it considered that the purchaser

takes possession of it,

so that he can no longer retract?

From when he treads the borders,

from the time that he repairs the boundaries of the field and raises them.

And this is specifically when Reuven sold to Shimon without a warranty. But if he sold it with a warranty, since ultimately, when they remove the field from him, Shimon will return to Reuven, why should we trouble the court to remove the land from Shimon and then again require Shimon to pursue Reuven concerning his warranty? It is preferable that the land return to Reuven, and that the claimants litigate with Reuven.

And

there are those who say:

Even with a warranty as well,

even if Reuven sold it to Shimon with a warranty, Shimon cannot retract [after he took possession of it] because of one who came and claimed against the field, while the court had not yet determined that the law was with him, because

he said to him

Reuven said to Shimon:

Show me your writ of seizure and I will pay you,

that is: Until you bring before me the “writ of seizure” issued to you by the court, establishing that the field has left your possession and that you have the right to seize property from my fields because of the warranty that I owe you, until then I will not pay you, for many claimants litigate and do not prevail.

Mishna:

One who was married to three women and died,

and

the marriage contract of this one was one hundred, and of this one two hundred, and of this one

three hundred -

three hundred –

a.

And there are no

assets from the father’s inheritance

except

approximately

one hundred

alone:

These three women

divide equally,

for each of them has a right to this one hundred.

b.

If there were

from the father’s inheritance

two hundred

zuz; since the woman whose contract is one hundred has no lien upon the second hundred, for her contract is only one hundred, she does not divide it. Therefore:

This one

whose contract is one hundred takes fifty

from the first hundred alone, while those

whose contracts are two hundred and three hundred

divide between themselves the half of the first hundred that remained, and they alone also divide the entire second hundred, upon which the woman whose contract is one hundred has no right. Thus each of them has one hundred and fifty zuz, namely:

three each

dinars

of gold

for each of them, since a gold dinar is worth twenty-five silver dinars. If

there were

assets from the father’s inheritance

three hundred

zuz, and there is one hundred over which neither the woman whose contract is one hundred nor the woman whose contract is two hundred divides:

This one

whose contract is one hundred takes fifty.

And

this one

whose contract is two hundred

takes

one hundred.

And

this one

whose contract is three hundred

takes the remainder, which is one hundred and fifty zuz, namely

six gold.

And likewise

three

men

who put money into a purse

money in order to profit through it, if they

lost or gained

[lost or profited] -

so do they divide,

that is: the loss or the profit is divided according to each one’s proportional share in the money invested in the enterprise; and we do not say that the loss or profit is divided equally among them all.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: There were two hundred, the woman whose contract is one hundred takes fifty:

The Gemara is astonished at this: Is that so, that

the woman whose contract is one hundred takes fifty!?

But only

thirty-three and one-third

[thirty-three zuz and one-third]

is what she has,

for since the woman whose contract is one hundred has a lien only upon one hundred, corresponding to the sum of her contract, and she needs to divide only in that amount, she should divide it equally with the other two women!?

Said

he explained:

Shmuel:

Our Mishna is dealing

with the woman whose contract is two hundred writing

the

to the woman whose contract is

one hundred: “I have no legal claim or dealings with you concerning the hundred”!

That is: When you come to court, I will not contend with you concerning the hundred to which you have a lien, and your share will not be reduced on my account. Therefore, at first the woman whose contract is three hundred divides with the woman whose contract is one hundred alone, equally; then the woman whose contract is two hundred returns to the woman whose contract is three hundred to divide with her the half of the hundred that she took, and each takes one-quarter of a hundred; and the second hundred, which the women whose contracts are two hundred and three hundred alone claim, they divide equally. And we challenge this:

one hundred: “I have no legal claim or dealings with you regarding the hundred”!

Meaning: When you come to court, I will not litigate with you over the hundred to which you have a lien, and your share will not be reduced on my account. Therefore, at first the woman whose contract was for three hundred divides only with the woman whose contract was for one hundred, equally. Then the woman whose contract was for two hundred returns to the woman whose contract was for three hundred to divide with her the half of the hundred that she received, and each receives one-quarter of a hundred. The second hundred, which only the women whose contracts were for two hundred and three hundred claim, is divided equally between them.

And we object:

If so -

since the woman whose contract is two hundred has withdrawn from the first hundred -

say the final clause: “Those whose contracts are two hundred and three hundred, three gold each,”

meaning that they divide equally between themselves the remainder, which is one hundred and fifty zuz. But if it is as you say, that the woman whose contract is two hundred withdrew from the hundred, this is difficult:

She should say to her, the woman whose contract is three hundred should say to the woman whose contract is two hundred -

“You have withdrawn yourself from it,”

behold, you withdrew yourself from the first hundred, so that you will take no share in it at all; and in the second hundred alone, you and I will take equal shares. It follows that I take one hundred, while you and the woman whose contract is one hundred take fifty each. And we answer:

Because she said to her,

the woman whose contract is two hundred said to the woman whose contract is three hundred:

From legal claims and dealings

alone

is it that I withdrew myself

[it is only from legal claims and dealings that I withdrew myself].

That is: “I did not give my share as a gift, and what the woman whose contract is one hundred collected, she did not collect as my agent, so that you could say to me, ‘The woman whose contract is one hundred took your share.’ For I withdrew myself from contending with her and from reducing her share of the hundred, and her hand prevailed to collect half of the hundred through the lien of her document. Now I come to divide with you what remains, for I did not withdraw myself from contending with you, and my lien and your lien are equal.” We learned in the Mishna:

There were three hundred,

the woman whose contract is one hundred takes fifty, the woman whose contract is two hundred takes one hundred, and the woman whose contract is three hundred takes six gold dinars:

And the Gemara is astonished:

Is it so that this one

whose contract is two hundred

has to take

one hundred!?

But even if she had not withdrawn through “legal claims and dealings” from the first woman, she should take only one-third of the first hundred and half of the second hundred, and she has nothing in the third hundred, namely eighty-three zuz and one-third, and not one hundred; and all the more so, she necessarily withdrew through “legal claims and dealings” from the first woman, for otherwise the woman whose contract is one hundred would take only one-third of a hundred and not fifty [and on account of this we had to say in the first clause that she withdrew]. It follows that the woman whose contract is two hundred additionally loses eight zuz and one-third [which is the difference between one-third of a hundred without the withdrawal and one-quarter of a hundred, which she takes after the withdrawal]. If so:

Seventy-five

zuz alone

is what she has

the woman whose contract is two hundred!?

Said

he explained:

Shmuel:

The final clause, “If there were three hundred,” does not concern the second woman writing to the first. But if so, one might ask: Why does the woman whose contract was for one hundred receive fifty, when she should receive only one-third? And why does the woman whose contract was for two hundred receive an entire hundred, when she should receive only eighty-three dinars and one-third? -

The final clause, “There were three hundred,” does not deal with the second woman’s writing to the first. And if you say: If so, why does the woman whose contract is one hundred take fifty, when she should take only one-third; and why does the woman whose contract is two hundred take a full hundred, when she should take only eighty-three and one-third - end.

I tell you: the latter clause deals

with one possessing

a

three-hundred

and

a two-hundred

also

with one possessing

a

hundred: “I have no claim or dealing with you concerning the hundred

first.

And because the third woman removed herself from the woman possessing the hundred, the woman possessing the hundred takes half a hundred from the first hundred, which is fifty zuz; and since the woman possessing the three hundred removed herself—in that first hundred—also from the woman possessing the two hundred, the woman possessing the three hundred will again take nothing from the first hundred. Rather, the entire half-hundred remains in the hands of the woman possessing the two hundred. Thus, the woman possessing the two hundred has half of the first hundred; and since the two divide the third hundred equally, the woman possessing the two hundred has a hundred; while the woman possessing the three hundred has half of the second hundred, and the entire third hundred, which is three gold dinars.

a. This that we said: if there were assets from the father’s estate worth two hundred zuz [without withdrawal], we do not divide them equally among the three women. Rather, the first hundred, which all of them claim, is divided among all of them, whereas the second hundred is divided only between the woman possessing the two hundred and the woman possessing the three hundred, who initially had a lien upon the entire two hundred. The woman possessing the hundred takes nothing from the second hundred, even though she has still been paid only one-third of her marriage settlement and has a claim to seventy-five zuz from the additional hundred—

This law applies only when two hundred zuz came at one time for division. But if at first only a hundred zuz came for division—for example, the court did not know of the existence of additional assets—and the three women divided the hundred equally among themselves, and then an additional hundred came for division, the woman whose remaining debt after the first division amounts to seventy-five zuz also divides the seventy-five zuz equally with the other two women, while only the remaining twenty-five zuz is divided by the other two women alone.

b. Even though movable property does not become subject to a lien for a marriage settlement, nevertheless, if the widow seized movable property for her marriage settlement during his lifetime, she collects her marriage settlement even from the movable property. c. According to Rav Yaakov of Nehar Pekod, our Mishna is explained as referring to women who waived nothing for one another, but all the assets did not come for division at one time. Rather, at first part of the assets came and they divided them according to the rule of the division; then additional assets came for division, and they make a renewed division of the assets that came the second time, as was explained in section a: there is a difference in the law of division between one large division and two small divisions of the same assets.

Rav Yaakov of Nehar Pekod said in the name of Ravina,

to resolve the difficulties both on the first clause and on the latter clause: our Mishna is in fact never dealing with one who writes—

And concerning what we challenged on the first clause [when two hundred came]: Why does the woman possessing the hundred take fifty zuz, when she should take only thirty-three zuz and one-third? Say to you:

the first clause concerns two seizures,

that is, two divisions of movable property that was seized, as he proceeds to explain.

And concerning what we challenged on the latter clause [when three hundred came]: Why does the woman possessing the hundred take fifty zuz and not one-third of a hundred? And likewise, why does the woman possessing the two hundred take a hundred, when she should have taken only one-third of a hundred from the first hundred and half a hundred from the second hundred, which are eighty-three zuz and one-third? Say to you:

and the latter clause

also

concerns two seizures!

That is: our Mishna deals with the division of movable property, from which a marriage settlement can be collected only if the women seized the movable property during his lifetime, and here, indeed, the women seized it during his lifetime. These movable assets did not all come for division at one time. Rather, at first they brought one part before the court to divide it, and the court did not know of the existence of other movable assets that had been seized; they ruled on the first division, and then they again brought before the court additional movable assets—seized during his lifetime—to divide those as well among all the women who still had a debt against the inherited estate.

And the Gemara explains:

The first clause

which came to divide two hundred deals with a case in which those two hundred came to them

in two seizures:

For example,

they came

for division through seizure during his lifetime:

seventy-five

zuz

at one time [

at one time], and all three divided them equally, so each of them received twenty-five zuz. At the time of this division, the rest of the assets that had already been seized were not brought for division, and the court did not even know of the existence of additional assets.

And then they again came for division through seizure during his lifetime:

a hundred and twenty-five

zuz

at one time.

Remove from them seventy-five zuz, which all three claim at the time they came, even the woman possessing the hundred, whose remaining debt after the first division is seventy-five zuz, and divide them equally among all the women, since all of them claim them—twenty-five zuz for each. When this is added to what they took in the previous division, each of the three women has fifty zuz.

There remain in your hands fifty zuz, which at the time of the second arrival were claimed only by the woman possessing the two hundred and the woman possessing the three hundred. Divide them equally, twenty-five zuz for each of them. Thus, for each of them, together with what they took in the previous divisions, the total is seventy-five zuz.

And this is what we learned: “If there were two hundred there: the woman possessing a hundred takes fifty; the woman possessing two hundred and the woman possessing three hundred take three gold dinars each.”

The latter clause,

which came to divide three hundred, also deals with a case in which three hundred came

in two seizures:

For example,

seventy-five came at one time,

and all three divided them equally, so each received twenty-five zuz. The woman possessing the hundred is thus claiming another seventy-five zuz; the woman possessing the two hundred, another hundred and seventy-five zuz; and the woman possessing the two hundred, another two hundred and seventy-five zuz.

And

then

two hundred and twenty-five came at one time—

remove from them seventy-five zuz, which all three claim at the time they came, and divide them equally; thus, for each, together with the previous division, the total is fifty zuz.

Remove from them another hundred zuz, which at the time they came were claimed only by the woman possessing the two hundred and the woman possessing the three hundred, and divide them equally between the two. Thus each of them has fifty zuz, and together with the two previous divisions, the total is a hundred zuz.

There remain in your hands fifty zuz, which at the time they came were claimed by the woman possessing the three hundred alone, and she takes them. When added to what she had already taken in the previous divisions, she has a hundred and fifty zuz—

And this is what we learned: “If there were three hundred there: the woman possessing a hundred takes fifty, the woman possessing two hundred takes a hundred, and the woman possessing three hundred takes six gold dinars.”

It was taught: This

which we learned in our Mishna—that the woman possessing the hundred divides with the others only in that portion of the inheritance that she claims before the division, but after that portion has been divided among all three, she has no claim at all upon the remainder of the inheritance, even though her marriage settlement has still not been paid in full —

is the teaching of Rabbi Natan

!

Rabbi says: I do not see the words of Rabbi Natan as applying in these cases; rather,

if up to three hundred zuz came to the three women, then all of them

divide equally,

and the woman possessing the hundred receives her entire marriage settlement, the woman possessing the two hundred only two-thirds, and the woman possessing the three hundred only one-third of her marriage settlement, since all three hundreds are subject to a lien for the woman possessing the hundred until she takes her entire marriage settlement.

We learned in the Mishna:

And likewise, three who placed

money into a purse—if they diminished or increased, so do they divide: The following discussion is explained according to Rashi’s method, as understood by the Maharsha, the author of the Shita Mekubetzet, and the Penei Yehoshua in his words.

Shmuel said:

Two who placed

money

into a purse, this one

placed

a hundred and this one

placed

two hundred—