Ketubot 93b (צג:) — the Talmud in English

Behold,

the profit is divided equally

, it is divided equally between the two of them, even though one invested only half as much as the other.

Rabba said

in explanation of Shmuel’s statement:

Shmuel’s statement is reasonable

, that they do not divide according to the amounts of money they contributed,

in

the case where they purchased with money a

ox

for the purpose of

plowing

and to divide the profit resulting from the plowing—

and it stands

as an ox

for plowing

, meaning: indeed, they plowed with it and profited from the plowing. Since the share of one is entirely ineffective without the share of the other, they therefore divide the profit equally.

But in

the case where they purchased with money an

ox for

the purpose of

plowing, but it stands to be slaughtered

, meaning: ultimately, the profit did not result from plowing with it; rather, its flesh increased in value and they slaughtered it. And all the more so if they initially purchased it for the purpose of slaughter, for then:

This one takes according to his money, and that one takes according to his money

and the reason for the distinction is as follows: The increased value resulting from plowing cannot come through the share of one without the share of the other, and therefore the profit is divided equally. But the increased value of the flesh is divisible among its limbs, and each one has a share in the ox and in its increased value corresponding to the amount of money he contributed.

And Rav Hamnuna said

in explanation of Shmuel’s position:

Even

in the case of an

ox purchased for plowing that stands to be slaughtered

, for

the profit is divided equally.

Meytivi

to Rabba, who holds that in the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands to be slaughtered, they divide according to the money they contributed:

If two people contributed money to a common fund, one contributing a maneh and the other two hundred zuz

, behold,

the profit is divided equally.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

the case that the beraita is discussing

the

case where they purchased an

ox for plowing that stands to be slaughtered, and

if so, there is

a refutation of Rabba

, who said that in such a case: “This one takes according to his money, and that one takes according to his money”?

And we answer:

No

, it is not as you explained. Rather, the beraita is discussing

an ox purchased for plowing that stands for plowing

, and therefore the profit is divided equally.

And we challenge this:

But in the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands to be slaughtered, what

according to your statement will the law be, that

this one takes according to his money and that one takes according to his money—

and if so, the following difficulty arises:

Why did the latter clause teach:

We said that the profit is divided equally only when they purchased one animal with their respective funds—

but

if this one took

the first partner

with

funds

of his own

healthy oxen worth two hundred [zuz], and

the other

the second partner took

with

funds

of his own

lean oxen worth only one hundred, and

they were mixed together

and they plowed with them—

This one takes according to his money

two-thirds of the profit, and

that one takes according to his money

one-third of the profit, corresponding to his investment in the oxen, since the lean oxen of one partner did not increase in value through plowing as did the healthy oxen of the other.

And according to your statement, that even when they purchased one animal for plowing and designated it for slaughter they take according to their respective investments, if so:

Let him distinguish and teach it with regard to that very case

, distinguishing in the case of one animal discussed in the first clause, and say as follows:

In what case is this statement said

that the profit from one animal is divided equally?

In the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands for plowing—

But in the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands to be slaughtered, this one takes according to his money and that one takes according to his money;

and it necessarily follows that even in the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands to be slaughtered, the profit is divided equally, and that the profit is apportioned according to their respective investments only in the case of two animals.

And we answer; Rabba could say to you:

This is also what he is saying

—indeed, the tanna distinguished in the case of one animal, and this is what he is saying:

In what case is this statement said

that the profit is divided equally?

In the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands for plowing.

But in the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands to be slaughtered, it becomes

like one partner taking with his own funds and the other with his own funds, and they were mixed together

, so that

this one takes according to his money and that one takes according to his money.

We learned

in our Mishna:

And similarly, in the case of three who contributed money to a common fund, if they lost or gained, they divide it in this manner

according to the money they contributed.

Is it not “they lost”

—that is

they actually lost

, meaning that they profited from the very business venture in which they invested, and

“they gained”

means

they actually gained

, meaning that they profited from the very business venture in which they invested!?

And it would follow from our Mishna that in every case the profit is apportioned according to the money contributed, even in the case of an ox purchased for plowing that stands for plowing. If so, this is a refutation of Shmuel, both according to Rabba’s interpretation of his statement and according to Shmuel’s own interpretation.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

No

, our Mishna is not to be understood as you explained it; rather, explain it as follows:

“They gained”

means that the money they contributed consisted of old coins, and they conducted business with them until they became new coins that were accepted for expenditure. Therefore, they divide according to the money contributed, “for each takes whatever he gave.” But if they gained more than the amount they contributed to the business venture, the profit is divided equally.

“They lost”

means that the coinage became invalid, and today it is fit to be

a coin used for a foot sore [that is, one who has a wound on the underside of his foot ties these coins there, because their rust and their shape are beneficial for the wound]. Since the coins they contributed are still physically present, each one loses according to the amount he contributed. But in the case of any other loss, where the money is no longer present, they lose equally.

a. It was explained in the Mishna above, 83a, that the Sages instituted that a woman who comes to collect her ketuba from property liened to a creditor and held by purchasers, or from the property of orphans, may collect only upon taking an oath that she has not already been paid.

b. In the following Mishna and in our sugya, the law concerning a woman whose ketuba has priority over that of her fellow will be explained: how she must take an oath to her fellow when she collects before her.

c. It will likewise be explained in the Mishna and in our sugya whether the oath of one who comes to collect from the property of orphans applies both to minor orphans and to adult orphans, or whether this enactment was instituted only with regard to minor orphans.

Mishna:

If one was married to four women and died

, and his property became obligated for the payment of the ketuba of his four wives.

The first has priority over the second, and the second over the third

, and the third over the fourth.

And the first must take an oath to the second

, meaning: If the second claims, “Since you are coming to collect first, take an oath to me that you collected nothing from my husband, for perhaps no property will remain in an amount sufficient for my ketuba,” the first must take an oath.

And

also the

second

must take an oath

to the third

if the third makes the same claim as the second.

And the third to the fourth, and

if

the fourth were to collect without taking an oath.

Ben Nannos says: Is it because she is last

that she profits

by being able to collect without taking an oath!?

Rather,

she too

, the fourth,

may collect only upon taking an oath.

If the

ketubot

were all issued on the same day

, meaning: If all the ketubot were presented before us and showed that they were all written on the same day—

whoever precedes her fellow even by one hour

, for example, if the hours are specified in the ketuba—

has acquired the right.

And this is how they would write the hours in Jerusalem.

If they were all issued at the same hour, and there was only one maneh

, they all

divide it equally.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And the fourth collects without an oath; Ben Nannas says: Is she favored merely because she is last:

And the Gemara explains: It is certainly obvious that if the first, second, and third women have already collected their dues, there is no reason to require the fourth to take an oath, as the first tanna says. For the entire basis of the oath is the concern that the property may not suffice to pay the women who have not yet collected their dues; but if the earlier women have already collected their marriage settlements, why should the fourth woman take an oath?

And

in what do they disagree,

meaning: In what circumstance do the first tanna and Ben Nannas disagree, and what is the reason for their disagreement?