כתובות י׳Ketubot 10

Mishnah 3ג׳

הָיוּ שָׁם נְכָסִים בָּרָאוּי, אֵינָן כְּבַמֻּחְזָק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ יֶשׁ שָׁם נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵינוֹ כְלוּם, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת יוֹתֵר עַל שְׁתֵּי הַכְּתֻבּוֹת דִּינָר:

If there were potential property [such as merchandise in the hands of others or a loan], it is not considered as "held." [It is not considered as if it were held in his (the father's) hand so that an "additional dinar" obtains. R. Shimon says: Even if there were unbound property [i.e., chattel] there, it is as naught — until there be bound property [land] worth a dinar more than the two kethuboth. [And the halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon. And even nowadays, when the chattel of orphans is held to be bound to the debtor, the "male-sons" kethubah obtains not with chattel, but with land.]

Mishnah 4ד׳

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים וּמֵת, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ מָנֶה וְשֶׁל זוֹ מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל זוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מָנֶה, חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה. הָיוּ שָׁם מָאתַיִם, שֶׁל מָנֶה נוֹטֶלֶת חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁל מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁל זָהָב. הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שֶׁל מָנֶה נוֹטֶלֶת חֲמִשִּׁים, וְשֶׁל מָאתַיִם, מָנֶה, וְשֶׁל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שִׁשָּׁה שֶׁל זָהָב. וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לְכִיס, פִּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ, כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין:

If a man were married to three women, and he died — if the kethubah of one were a manah; of the other, two manah; and of the third, three manah, [and all three were signed on the same day (for if they were signed on three different days, the first signed is the first to collect. Or (the instance may be one) where he left only chattel, there being no law of precedence with chattel)], and there were only a manah (of property), they share equally. [For the "strength" of all is equal vis-à-vis the manah, all of them being owed (at least) a manah.] If there were two manah (of property) [Only one manah is bound to the manah kethubah; but not the second manah], the manah woman takes fifty, and the two and three manah women take three golden (dinars) apiece. [The gemara asks: She (the manah woman) should take one third of a manah (a hundred). How does she take fifty, which is half a manah! And it answers that our Mishnah speaks of an instance in which the two manah woman says to the one manah: I shall not contest the manah that is bound to you. Your share shall not be diminished because of me — for which reason she and the three manah woman divide it. And because the two manah woman did not give the one manah woman her share as a gift, but only said to her that she would not contest it with her and that her share would not be diminished because of her — after the one manah woman takes fifty, the rights of the two manah woman remain equal to those of the three manah woman in the remaining manah and a half, and each one takes three golden dinars, which are seventy-five silver dinars, each golden dinar being worth three silver ones.] If there were three manah (of property) [The first manah is bound to all of them; the second to the two manah woman alone], the manah woman takes fifty; the two manah woman, one manah; and the three manah woman, six golden dinars. [This, in an instance in which the three manah woman says to the one and two manah women: I shall not contest the (first) manah with you. Therefore, the first manah is divided between the two manah woman and the one manah woman, so that the one manah woman takes fifty, and the second manah is divided between the two and three manah women. The two manah woman, then, emerges with one manah — the fifty that she took from the division with the one manah woman, and the fifty from the second manah that she took from the division with the three manah woman. And the third manah is taken entirely by the three manah woman, so that she emerges with six golden dinars, which are a manah and a half — the entire third manah which remained for her, and the half-manah from the division with the two manah woman.] Likewise, if three put money into a "pocket" (i.e., a joint venture), and it diminished or increased in value, they divide in the same manner. [The gemara concludes that our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Nathan. But it is not the halachah, for Rebbi says: I do not agree with R. Nathan in this, but they all share equally. For since all of his property is bound to the kethubah, all three manah are bound to the one manah woman as they are to the others, until she collects all of her kethubah. Therefore, they share equally, the one manah woman taking as much as the two and three manah women. But with "three who put money into a pocket"; one, one manah; a second, two manah; and a third, three manah, in which instance they take in accordance with the appreciation of their money, it is just that each take in accordance with his money (input). And it is only when the money appreciates in and of itself (as when there is a currency change, its value increasing or decreasing) that the profit or loss is distributed according to the money (input itself); but if they bought merchandise with the money they put into the "pocket," and they profited or lost on the merchandise, this profit or loss is divided only according to the number of partners and not according to the money (input) — so that the one who invested little takes as much as the one who invested much, unless they stipulated beforehand to divide in proportion to the investment. And this is how it is adjudged in all of our courts.]