Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 93 - Highlights

Mishna

The Mishna states: If someone was married to three wives, and died, this one's kesuvah is a maneh, and this one’s two hundred, and this one’s three hundred, and there is only a maneh (and each of their kesuvah’s were signed on the same day), they all share equally (since they all have a lien of one hundred on his property).

If there were two hundred (in his estate), the one of a maneh takes fifty, whereas the one’s of two hundred and three hundred each receives three gold dinars (seventy five zuz; they all have a lien on the one hundred, but only two of them have a lien on the remainder).

If there were three hundred, the one of a maneh takes fifty; the one of two hundred takes a maneh; and the one of three hundred, takes six gold dinars.

And similarly, if there were three people who put money in a fund, and it diminished or increased, they divide it in the same manner. (93a)


Explanation of the Second Ruling
The Gemora asks (on the Mishna’s second ruling): Why does the first one receive fifty; the one hundred should be divided amongst the three of them and she should only take thirty-three and a third?

Shmuel answered: The Mishna is referring to a case where the one who is entitled to the two hundred zuz wrote to the woman who was entitled to one maneh, “I have no claim whatsoever upon the maneh.”

If so, asks the Gemora, let us examine the latter part of the ruling: Whereas the one’s of two hundred and three hundred each receives three gold dinars. Why, let the third woman tell the second one, “You have removed yourself from the first maneh” (and therefore, the second woman should only receive fifty)?

The Gemora answers: She only removed herself from any claim upon the first maneh (she did not remove herself from the kesuvah itself; she didn’t remove herself from any claim regarding the third woman either; she, therefore, receives an amount equal to that of the third woman). (93a)

Explanation of the Third Ruling
The Mishna had stated: If there were three hundred, the one of a maneh takes fifty; the one of two hundred takes a maneh; and the one of three hundred, takes six gold dinars.

The Gemora asks: Why does the second one receive a maneh, she should only be entitled to seventy-five zuz (since we are discussing a case where the second woman wrote to the first woman, “I have no claim whatsoever upon the maneh”)?

Shmuel answered: The Mishna is referring to a case where the one who is entitled to the three hundred zuz wrote to the woman who was entitled to the two hundred zuz and to the one who was entitled to one maneh, “I have no claim whatsoever upon the first maneh.” (The second woman, however, did not waive any of her rights; therefore, the first two women divide the one hundred equally and the second two women divide the second hundred equally; the third woman takes the third hundred herself.) (93a)

An Alternative Explanation
Rav Yaakov from Nehar Pekod offers an alternative explanation to the Mishna: The first case (the second ruling) is referring to a case of two seizures (of moveable, mortgaged property by the wives) and the latter case is referring is referring to two cases of seizures.

He explains: They initially seized seventy-five zuz (and therefore, they each received twenty-five zuz). Then, they seized one hundred and twenty-five zuz (and now, we consider again the debt owed to each woman; hence, they divide the seventy-five zuz owed to them, with each receiving twenty-five, and the remaining fifty is divided amongst the last two women).

The latter case is explained as follows: They initially seized seventy-five zuz (and therefore, they each received twenty-five zuz). Then, they seized two hundred and twenty-five zuz (and now, we consider again the debt owed to each woman; hence, they divide the seventy-five zuz owed to them, with each receiving twenty-five; the next hundred zuz is divided equally amongst the last two women and the remaining fifty zuz belongs to the third woman). (93a)
Dissenting Opinion
The Gemora cites a braisa: The Mishna’s rulings follow the opinion of Rabbi Nosson; however, Rebbe says: I do not agree with Rabbi Nosson regarding this and I hold that all the monies are divided equally (the estate being equally mortgaged to all three women, 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). (93a)
Money in a Fund
The Mishna stated: And similarly, if there were three people who put money in a fund, and it diminished or increased, they divide it in the same manner.

Shmuel said: If two people put money into a fund, one gave a maneh and the other gave two hundred zuz, the profit is shared equally.

Rabbah said: It stands to reason that Shmuel’s ruling applies where an ox was jointly purchased for plowing and was used for plowing (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); where, however, an ox was purchased for plowing and was used for slaughter, each of the partners receives a share in proportion to his investment (since the animal can be divided).

Rav Hamnuna, however, ruled: Where an ox was jointly purchased for plowing, even if it was used for slaughter, the profit must be equally divided.

The Gemora asks on Rabbah from the following braisa: If two people put money into a fund, one gave a maneh and the other gave two hundred zuz, the profit is shared equally. Is this not referring to a case where the ox was purchased for plowing and was used for slaughter? It would then be a refutation to Rabbah!

The Gemora deflects the challenge: It is referring to a case where the ox was jointly purchased for plowing and was used for plowing.

The Gemora asks: But we may then infer that if the ox was purchased for plowing and was used for slaughter, the halacha would be that each of the partners receives a share in proportion to his investment. Then, we could have learned that case in the end of the braisa instead of the following case which was taught: If one person purchased healthy oxen for two hundred zuz and the other person purchased weak oxen for a hundred zuz and afterwards, they formed a partnership, each of the partners receives a share in proportion to his investment (since weak oxen do not perform work equal to that of healthy oxen). The braisa should have made a distinction in the first case itself? The following is what the braisa should have taught: When do these words (the profit is shared equally) apply? It applies only when the ox was purchased for plowing and was used for plowing; however, if it was purchased for plowing and used for slaughter, the halacha would be that each of the partners receives a share in proportion to his investment.?

The Gemora answers: That is actually what the braisa was in fact saying. When do these words (the profit is shared equally) apply? It applies only when the ox was purchased for plowing and was used for plowing; however, if it was purchased for plowing and used for slaughter, it is as if one person purchased healthy oxen for two hundred zuz and the other person purchased weak oxen for a hundred zuz and afterwards, they formed a partnership, and the halacha would be that each of the partners receives a share in proportion to his investment.

The Gemora asks from our Mishna which states: And similarly, if there were three people who put money in a fund, and it diminished or increased, they divide it in the same manner. Now, if the Mishna means that they suffered a loss or that they generated a profit, and nevertheless, the Mishna rules that each of the partners receives a share in proportion to his investment. This would be inconsistent with Shmuel’s opinion!

Rav Nachman answers in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: No! The Mishna is referring to a case where they now have new coins (which are easier to spend) or they now have coins that were voided by the government, and are now only suitable to be used as an application upon a wound on the bottom of one’s foot (since the face value of the coins are still the same, they each would receive a share in proportion to their investment). (93a – 93b)

[END]