TheWholeTorah.aiBeta

Kesuvos Chapter 10, Mishnah 4: Dividing an Estate Among Three Wives

Chavrusa Learning
Listen0:00 / 0:00

Before us is Mishnah 4 in the tenth chapter of Maseches Kesubos. The Mishnah discusses a case in which a man married three women, and all of them married him at the same time or on the same day, so that their liens and their claims against the estate are all based on a single date. None of them precedes the other, and none has a claim that comes before that of her fellow, but the sum of money in the estate is limited and does not suffice for them all.

The first case - "ve'ein sham ela maneh":

"Mi shehayah nasui shalosh nashim umeis, kesubasah shel zo maneh v'shel zo masayim v'shel zo shelosh me'os, v'ein sham ela maneh - cholkin b'shaveh" - a man married three women and died. The kesubah of one is one hundred zuz, of the second two hundred, and of the third three hundred, while the estate contains only a maneh, one hundred zuz. In this case all three divide equally, since with regard to the first hundred zuz the claim of all of them is identical: the estate owes each of them at least one hundred.

The next two cases are more complex, for the Gemara explains that they deal with a situation in which one of the women announced that she does not intend to contest the claim of one of her fellow wives. Let us see how this affects the division of the estate.

The second case - "hayu sham masayim":

"Hayu sham masayim - shel maneh noteles chamishim, v'shel masayim v'shel shelosh me'os shelosha shelosha shel zahav" - when the estate contains two hundred zuz, the one whose kesubah is one hundred takes fifty zuz, while the one with two hundred and the one with three hundred each take three gold dinars. A gold dinar is worth twenty five silver zuz, so each of them receives seventy five zuz.

How does this calculation work? The Gemara explains that this is a case in which the woman whose kesubah is two hundred said to the woman whose kesubah is one hundred: "I am not competing with you over the first hundred zuz." With regard to that first hundred she steps out of the picture, but with regard to the woman with three hundred she continues to compete.

It emerges that over the first hundred only two claimants remain: the one with one hundred and the one with three hundred. They divide it between them, and each takes fifty.

After the woman with one hundred has taken her fifty zuz, one hundred and fifty zuz remain in the estate: fifty from the first hundred, plus the entire second hundred. The woman with one hundred has no claim at all on the second hundred, since her claim is limited to the first hundred alone. Only the woman with two hundred and the woman with three hundred therefore compete over this remainder: both of them claim the second hundred, and they also divide the remaining fifty zuz of the first hundred, for the woman with two hundred waived competition only against the woman with one hundred, and not against the woman with three hundred. Accordingly, the two of them divide the one hundred and fifty zuz, and each takes seventy five.

The third case - "hayu sham shelosh me'os":

Bear in mind the foundation of the division: the woman whose kesubah is one hundred zuz has a claim only on the first hundred; the woman whose kesubah is two hundred zuz has a claim only on the first two hundred; while the last hundred is the exclusive domain of the woman whose kesubah is three hundred.

In this scenario, the Gemara explains, unlike the previous case, we are dealing with the woman with three hundred, who wrote to the woman with two hundred and to the woman with one hundred: "I am not litigating with either of you over the first hundred" - with regard to the first hundred she steps out of the picture with respect to both of them.

And from here comes the Mishnah's division:

  • "Shel maneh noteles chamishim" - the one whose claim is one hundred takes fifty, since over the first hundred only two contenders remain: she and the woman with two hundred.

  • "V'shel masayim maneh" - the woman whose kesubah is two hundred takes one hundred zuz: fifty from the first hundred, plus fifty from the second hundred, since the woman with three hundred waived only the first hundred, whereas over the second hundred she competes with her.

  • "V'shel shelosh me'os shishah shel zahav" - the holder of the document of three hundred takes six gold dinars, which are one hundred and fifty zuz: the third hundred belongs entirely to her, plus fifty zuz from the second hundred.

"V'chen shelosha shehitilu lakis":

The Mishnah adds that the same law applies to a partnership as well: three men who put money into a common purse, one contributing one hundred, the second two hundred and the third three hundred, and they entered a venture together to buy produce and merchandise and sell it for a profit - "pachasu o hosiru, kach hen cholkin" - whether the value of the money went down or up, the division is made according to that very same formula.

The Gemara qualifies this and distinguishes between two situations:

  • When the value of the coins themselves rose or fell: if the coins themselves acquired a higher or lower value, they divide according to the number of coins each one contributed, following the Mishnah's formula.

  • When they bought merchandise with the money: if they purchased merchandise and its price rose or fell in accordance with the market and the like, they divide equally.

In summary: in this Mishnah we learned the law of dividing an estate among three women whose kesubah liens are of equal date: when the estate contains only a maneh, they divide equally, since the claim of all of them is identical with regard to the first hundred. The case of two hundred and the case of three hundred deal, as the Gemara explains, with a woman who waived her competition over part of the sum, and from this comes the calculation of the division: fifty, seventy five and seventy five in the case of two hundred; and fifty, a maneh and one hundred and fifty in the case of three hundred. Finally we learned that the same formula applies to three who put money into a common purse, provided that the change occurred in the value of the coins themselves, whereas with merchandise that rose or fell in value, they divide equally.