Ketubot 93b — the Talmud in English

Behold,

the profit is in the middle

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

Rabba said

to explain Shmuel’s words:

Shmuel’s statement is reasonable

, that they do not divide according to their money,

in

a case in which they purchased with money

an ox

for the purpose of

plowing

and to divide the profit that comes from the plowing—

and it stands

for

plowing

, that is: indeed, they plowed with it and profited from the plowing; and since the share of one is of no benefit at all without the share of the other, they therefore divide equally.

But in

a case in which they purchased with money

an ox for

the purpose of

plowing, but it stands for slaughter

, that is: ultimately, the profit did not come because they plowed with it, but because its flesh increased in value and they slaughtered it; and all the more so if they initially purchased it for slaughter, for then: See what he wrote here in the Penei Yehoshua.

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

, and the reason for the distinction is: the increase from plowing cannot come through the share of one without the share of the other, and therefore the profit is also in the middle; but the increase in the value of the flesh is divided among its limbs, and each one has a share in the ox and in its increase according to his money.

And Rav Hamnuna said

to explain Shmuel’s view:

Even

in

an ox for plowing that stands for slaughter

, for

the profit is in the middle.

He raised an objection to Rabba, who holds that in the case of an ox for plowing that stands for slaughter they divide according to their money:

two who contributed money to a purse, this one one hundred dinars and that one two hundred,

the profit is in the middle.

And the Gemara infers:

Is it not

the case that the beraita is discussing

a

case in which they purchased

an ox for plowing that stands for slaughter, and

if so,

a refutation of Rabba

, who said 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 for plowing that stands for plowing

, and therefore the profit is in the middle.

And we challenge:

But an ox for plowing that stands for slaughter—what

will the law be according to your words, 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 he teach in the latter clause:

We have said that the profit is in the middle only when they purchased one animal with their money—

but

if this one took

the first one

with

money

of his own

healthy oxen worth two hundred, and

that

the second one took

with

money

of his own

lean oxen worth only one hundred, and

they became mixed

—these oxen with those—and 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 according to his investment in the oxen, for the lean oxen of one did not increase in value as did the healthy oxen of the other.

And according to your words, that even when they purchased one animal for plowing and set it aside for slaughter they take according to their money, if so:

let him distinguish and teach it in that case itself

, let the tanna distinguish concerning the 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 in the middle?

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

but in the case of an ox for plowing that stands for slaughter, this one takes according to his money and that one takes according to his money;

and necessarily, even in the case of an ox for plowing that stands for slaughter, the profit is in the middle; it is found that the profit is according to their money only in the case of two animals.

And we answer; Rabba could say to you:

This is also what he said

, indeed the tanna distinguished concerning one animal, and this is what he said:

In what case is this statement said

that the profit is in the middle?

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

But in the case of an ox for plowing that stands for slaughter, it becomes

like a case in which this one took with his own, and that one with his own, and they became mixed

, so that

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

We learned

in our Mishna:

And likewise, in the case of three who contributed money to a purse, whether they lost or increased, so do they divide

according to their money.

What, is not “they lost”

referring to

an actual loss

, that they lost from that business venture in which they invested, and

“they increased”

referring to

an actual increase

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

It follows from our Mishna that in every case the profit is divided according to their money, even in the case of an ox for plowing that stands for plowing; and if so, this is a refutation of Shmuel, both according to Rabba’s explanation of his words and according to Shmuel’s explanation of his words.

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha:

“No,”

No

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

“They increased” refers to a case in which the money they gave consisted of old coins, and they traded with them until they became new and were accepted for expenditure; therefore they divide according to the money, “for each one takes whatever he gave.” But if they increased beyond the amount they gave for the business venture, the profit is in the middle.

“They lost” refers to a case in which the coin was disqualified, and today it is fit to be

a coin of Tzunitai

[a person who has an injury on the underside of his sole ties these coins there; their rust and their shape are beneficial for the injury]. Since the coins they gave are still physically present, each one loses according to the calculation of what he gave; but in the case of any other loss, where the money is no longer physically present, they lose equally.

a. It was explained in the Mishna above, 83a, that the Sages enacted concerning a woman who comes to collect her ketuba from encumbered property in the hands of purchasers, or from the property of orphans, that she may collect only by an oath that she has not already been paid.

b. In the following Mishna and in our sugya, the law will be explained concerning a woman whose ketuba has priority over that of her fellow: how she takes 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 made only concerning minor orphans.

Mishna:

If one was married to four women and died

, and his property became liable for a ketuba to each 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 takes an oath to the second

, that is: if the second claims, “Since you are coming to take first, swear to me that you collected nothing from my husband, for perhaps no property will remain to the amount of my ketuba,” the first must take an oath.

And

even

the second

takes an oath

to the third

if the third makes the same claim as the second.

And the third to the fourth, and

if only

the fourth collects without an oath.

Ben Nanas says: Is it because she is last

—does she profit

by collecting without an oath!?

Rather,

she too,

the fourth,

may collect only by an oath.

If the

ketubot

all emerged on one day

, that is: if all the ketubot appeared before us and showed that they had all been written on the same day—

whoever precedes her fellow even by one hour

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

has acquired the right.

And this is how they used to write in Jerusalem: the hours.

If they all emerged at one hour, and there was only one hundred dinars

, then all of them

divide equally.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And the fourth collects without an oath; Ben Nanas says: And because she is last, does she profit?

And the Gemara explains: It is certainly obvious that if the first, the second, and the third have already collected, there is no reason to administer an oath to the fourth, in accordance with the words of the tanna kamma, for the entire oath is lest the assets not suffice for the collection of the women who have not yet collected; but if the first ones have already collected their ketubbot, why should the fourth swear?

And

in what do they disagree,

that is: In what manner do the tanna kamma and Ben Nanas disagree, and what is the reason for their disagreement?