Kommentar zu Ketubot 10:4

של זו מנה ושל זו מאתים כו' – and the [Ketubot of the] three of them were signed on one day, for if it were on three [separate] days, the earliest one with a document comes first in collection, or if he didn’t leave anything other than movable possessions, for there is no law of precedence in movable possessions.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a man who married three women at the same time, and gave one of them a ketubah worth one maneh (100 zuz), the second a ketubah worth 200 and the third a ketubah worth 300. When he dies, and does not leave enough to cover all three, the question is how do they divide up his estate. I am explaining this mishnah according to Albeck’s explanation, who uses R. Saadiah Gaon’s explanation to the mishnah as his basis. The Talmud offers a different, more complicated explanation.

חולקות בשוה – for the power of them three of them similar with the hypothecary obligation of the Maneh and for all of them there is a Maneh.

The general rule is that any maneh (100 zuz) that is “responsible” for all three ketuboth, they divide equally. In our case, 100 zuz is “responsible” for all three, because all three have at least one maneh of a ketubah. Any maneh that is not responsible for all of the ketuboth is divided according to the percentage that they deserve from the total amount of ketubah money the man owes. In our case the total amount is 600 zuz; the first woman owns 1/6, the second 1/3 and the third 1/2. This shall be illustrated as we proceed.

היו שם מאתים – there isn’t for the person who has hypothecary obligation for a Maneh other than a Maneh, but the second Maneh there is no hypothecary obligation for a document of the owner of the Maneh.

If a man who was married to three wives died, and the kethubah of one was a maneh, and of the other two hundred zuz, and of the third three hundred zuz and the estate [was worth] only one maneh they divide it equally. If the estate was worth only one maneh, each woman has an equal right to this maneh. This is because the maneh is “responsible” for all three ketuboth. Therefore they divide it equally.

של מנה נוטלת חמשיםי – In the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 93a), the question is raised that one-third of a Maneh was appropriate to be taken, and how does she take “fifty” which is one-half of a Maneh and it answers that the our Mishnah is speaking about when the owner of the two hundred said to the owner of the Maneh: I have no claim and I don’t have anything to do with the Maneh that is subjugated to you, and your portion will not be reduced on my account; therefore, she and the owner of the three hundred divide it, and because the portion of owner of the two hundred was not given to the owner of the portion of the Maneh as a gift, but rather she said to her that she would not quarrel with her, and because of her, her portion would not be reduced after the owner of the Maneh took fifty, there remained the merit of the owner of the “two hundred” as equal with the merit of the owner of the “three hundred,” and each of them take three golden Denarim, which are seventy five silver Denarim as every golden Denare is twenty-five silver Denarim.

If the estate [was worth] two hundred zuz [the woman whose ketubah] is a maneh receives fifty zuz [and the woman whose ketubah] was two hundred and [the woman whose ketubah] was three hundred [receive each] three gold denarii (=seventy-five. If the estate was worth 200, the first maneh is divided equally, as above. The second maneh is not “responsible” for all three ketuboth, hence it is not divided equally but rather by percentages. The first woman takes 1/6 of 100, leaving her with a total of 50 zuz. There is now 150 zuz left, all of which is subject to the ketuboth of the second and third widows. Therefore it is divided equally, both women taking 75 zuz.

היו שם שלש מאות – the first Maneh is subjugated to everyone and the second is to the owner of the “two hundred” and to the owner of the “three hundred,” and the third to the owner of the “three hundred” alone.

If the estate [was worth] three hundred zuz, [the woman whose ketubah] was a maneh receives fifty zuz and [the woman whose ketubah] was two hundred [receives] a maneh and [the woman whose ketubah] was worth three hundred [receives] six gold denarii (=one hundred and fifty. In this case all three divide according to their percentages. The first woman takes 1/6 which is 50 zuz, the second woman takes 1/3 which is 100 zuz, and the third woman takes 150 zuz, which is 1/2. In such a scenario, each woman takes one-half of her ketubah. [Note that this division seems to work according to a different system from the previous two clauses.]

של מנה נוטלת חמשים ושל מאתים מנה – such as the example where the owner of three hundred said to the owner of the Maneh and to the owner of the “two hundred”: “I have no claim against you with the Maneh.” Therefore, the first Maneh the owner of the “two hundred” and the owner of the Maneh divide; it is found that the owner of the Maneh takes “fifty” and the second Maneh, the owners of the “two hundred” and the “three hundred”; it is found that the owner of “two hundred” takes a Maneh – fifty that was divided from the first Mnaeh with the owner of the Maneh and fifty from the second Maneh that she divided with the owner of the “three-hundred,” and third Maneh – the owner of the “three hundred” takes it all; it is found that she takes six golden Denars which a Maneh and one-half of the entire third Maneh that remains to her and one-half of the Maneh that she divided with the owner of the “two hundred.” And in the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 93a) reaches the conclusion that our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Natan and is not the Halakha, for Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] sai: I do not approve (literally, “see”) of Rabbi Natan’s views in these cases for [the three wives] take equal shares, for since all of his landed property is pledged to the Ketubah, all three of the Manehs are subjugated to the owner of the Maneh like the rest of her colleagues until she collects all of the Ketubah settlement; therefore, they divide it equally, and as such, the owner of the Maneh takes like the owner of the “two hundred and the “three hundred.” But the three who put their money into a single purse, this one of Maneh, and that one of “two hundred” and the other of “three hundred,” the profit in their monies that was grew in value, they take a Denar – for each one takes according to his funds. And specifically, when they grew in value as a result of the monies themselves, such as the coinage changed or they added to it or subtracted from it, then they divide the prophet or the loss according to the money, but if they purchased goods from the monies that they placed into the purse and they earned in value through the goods or lost, they do not divide the gain or the loss other than according to the number of partners, not according to the money and as such they take in the loss and/or in the gain – whomever placed in a small amount of money in the purse is like that individual that placed a lot of money, if they not make a condition from the beginning that they would divide it according to thej money. And such is how they judge in all the Jewish courts.

Similarly, if three persons contributed to a joint fund and the fund lost or gained they share in the same manner. If three or more people invest together, each investing a different percentage, when they divide up the profits or losses, they are divided in the same manner.