הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע.

the earnings are divided equally.

אֲמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִילְּתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה, אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה – זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו. וְרַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה – הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע.

Rabba said: Shmuel’s statement stands to reason in a case where they bought an ox for plowing and it was used for plowing, and now they wish to divide the earnings from the work of the ox. Since each part of the ox is necessary in order to plow, each partner’s contribution is equally necessary. However, in a case where they purchased an ox for plowing, but it was used for slaughter and they wish to divide their income from the sale of the meat, this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment. And Rav Hamnuna said: Even in a case where they purchased an ox for plowing and used it for slaughter, the earnings are divided equally.

מֵיתִיבֵי: שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לַכִּיס, זֶה מָנֶה וְזֶה מָאתַיִם – הַשָּׂכָר לָאֶמְצַע. מַאי לָאו – בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבָּה! לָא, בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabba’s statement from the following Tosefta : In the case of two individuals who deposited money into a purse, i.e., invested in a joint business venture, this one invested one hundred dinars and that one invested two hundred, the earnings are divided equally. The Gemara comments: What, is it not referring to the case of an ox that was purchased for plowing and was used for slaughter, and it is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabba? The Gemara responds: No, the Tosefta is referring only to the case of an ox that was purchased for plowing and used for plowing.

אֲבָל שׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה מַאי – זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו? אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא ״לָקַח זֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ – זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו״,

The Gemara asks: But in the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for slaughter, what is the opinion of the Tosefta ; is it that this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment? If so, rather than teaching the latter clause of that same Tosefta , which reads as follows: If this partner purchased oxen with his own funds and that partner also purchased oxen with his own funds, and they became mixed when the two owners entered a joint business venture, this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment, it should teach a different case.

לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידֵיהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים: בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה, אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה – זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו!

The Gemara explains: Let the Tosefta distinguish and teach within the case of the first clause itself, as follows: In what case is this statement said, that the earnings are divided equally? In the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for plowing, but in the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for slaughter, this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment. Since the Tosefta did not make that distinction, it appears that it is dealing with both cases.

הָכִי נַמִי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לַחֲרִישָׁה, אֲבָל בְּשׁוֹר לַחֲרִישָׁה וְעוֹמֵד לִטְבִיחָה – נַעֲשֶׂה כְּמִי שֶׁלָּקַח זֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְזֶה בְּשֶׁלּוֹ וְנִתְעָרְבוּ, זֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו וְזֶה נוֹטֵל לְפִי מְעוֹתָיו.

The Gemara answers: That is indeed what the Tosefta is saying: In what case is this statement said? In the case of an ox purchased for plowing and used for plowing, but in the case of an ox purchased for plowing but used for slaughter, it becomes like a case where this partner purchased oxen with his own funds and that partner purchased oxen with his own funds, and they became mixed when the two owners entered a joint business venture. The halakha in such a case is that this partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment and that partner takes his portion according to his monetary investment.

תְּנַן: וְכֵן שְׁלֹֹשָׁה שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לַכִּיס, פָּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ – כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין.

The Gemara presents another proof: We learned in the mishna: Similarly, three individuals who deposited money into a purse, i.e., invested different amounts of money into a joint business venture: If they incurred a loss or earned a profit and now choose to dissolve the partnership, they divide the assets in this manner, i.e., based upon the amount that each of them initially invested in the partnership.

מַאי לָאו, פָּחֲתוּ – פָּחֲתוּ מַמָּשׁ, הוֹתִירוּ – הוֹתִירוּ מַמָּשׁ!

What, is it not that when the mishna says: They incurred a loss, it means that they incurred an actual loss, and when it says: They earned a profit, it means that they earned an actual profit, and it says that they divide the assets proportionally and not equally? This poses a difficulty for Shmuel, who is of the opinion that they should divide the assets equally.

אֲמַר רַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לָא, הוֹתִירוּ – זוּזֵי חֲדָתֵי, פָּחֲתוּ – אַסְתֵּירָא דְּצוּנִיתָא.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: No, when the mishna says they earned a profit, it means that they received new dinars, i.e., coins, in place of the old ones they had started with, and these new coins were of greater value than the original ones. Similarly, when it says that they incurred a loss, it means that they received defective coins useful only for a wound. When they were dividing the money between themselves, they found some old coins, which had become rusty or invalidated by the government and therefore lost some or all of their value and were good for nothing other than scrap metal. When dividing the coins they are left with, they do so in proportion to their monetary stakes, but this does not apply to the actual profits they earned.

מתני׳ מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים וּמֵת – הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּשְׁלִישִׁית לָרְבִיעִית. וְרִאשׁוֹנָה נִשְׁבַּעַת לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּשְׁלִישִׁית לָרְבִיעִית, וְהָרְבִיעִית נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה. בֶּן נַנָּס אוֹמֵר: וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אַחֲרוֹנָה נִשְׂכֶּרֶת? אַף הִיא לֹא תִּפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

In the case of one who was married to four women and died, the woman he married first precedes the woman he married second in claiming her marriage contract, the second precedes the third, and the third precedes the fourth. And the first wife takes an oath to the second that she has taken nothing from the jointly owned properties of the estate in an unlawful manner, and the second takes an oath to the third, and the third to the fourth. The fourth wife is paid her share without having to take an oath. Ben Nanas says: Should she gain this advantage merely because she is last? After all, she too is being paid from property that would otherwise go to the orphans. Rather, she too is not paid without an oath.

הָיוּ יוֹצְאוֹת כּוּלָּן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד – כָּל הַקּוֹדֶמֶת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אֲפִילּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת – זָכְתָה. וְכָךְ הָיוּ כּוֹתְבִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שָׁעוֹת. הָיוּ כּוּלָּן יוֹצְאוֹת בְּשָׁעָה אַחַת, וְאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מָנֶה – חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה.

However, if all of the marriage contracts were issued on the same day, whichever wife’s marriage contract precedes that of another, even by a single hour, has acquired the right to be paid first. And so, the practice in Jerusalem was that they would write the hours when the documents had been signed on the documents, in order to enable the document holder to demonstrate that his or her document preceded that of another. If all the contracts were issued in the same hour and there is only one hundred dinars from which to pay all of them, all of the women divide the money equally.

גמ׳ בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל:

The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the first tanna and ben Nanas disagree? Shmuel said: