The case is where it is discovered that one of the fields in the estate is not his field, e.g., the husband had stolen it from someone else. Consequently, it is likely that the field will be repossessed, and if it is used to pay the marriage contract of one of the first three wives, that wife stands to lose out. And they disagree with regard to a creditor whose promissory note was dated later than that of another creditor, and yet he collected his debt before the other creditor, leaving nothing for the other creditor to collect. This is parallel to the case of the wives if the fourth wife collects her marriage contract and then one of the earlier wives loses the field she has been paid.

The first tanna holds that what the creditor has collected, he has not fully collected, i.e., he will have to give up the property he collected so that the creditor with the earlier promissory note can collect his debt. Similarly, if the property given to one of the first three wives is repossessed and there is nothing left for her to collect, the fourth wife will have to relinquish the property that she had been paid to accommodate the wife who preceded her.

And ben Nanas holds that what the creditor has collected, he has collected, i.e., it is not taken from him in order to pay the earlier creditor. Consequently, according to the first tanna, there is no need for the fourth wife to take an oath before she collects the property, because whatever she collects can be taken from her in order to pay the other wives. According to ben Nanas, since the property the fourth wife collects cannot be taken from her, she must take an oath that she is collecting this property legally in order to ensure that none of the other wives will lose out because of what she collects.

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Everyone agrees that what the later creditor has collected, he has not collected, i.e., it may be repossessed by the earlier creditor. Rather, they disagree here as to whether we are concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field and cause its value to depreciate.

One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that we are concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field. If she is not required to take the oath, she will understand that her hold on the land is uncertain, as it is possible that one of the other wives will repossess it. Consequently, she will try to reap the maximum benefit from the field in the short term without investing in the field for the long term, and thereby depleting the field. The Sages therefore imposed an oath upon the fourth wife. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that we are not concerned that perhaps she will deplete the field and we can assume that it will retain its original value. Therefore, there is no reason to impose an oath upon the fourth wife.

Abaye said: There is a practical difference between them, the first tanna and ben Nanas, with regard to the ruling of Abaye the Elder, as Abaye the Elder taught: The orphans with regard to whom the Sages said that one cannot collect property from them without taking an oath include adult orphans, and, needless to say, orphans who are minors. Even adult orphans are not necessarily aware of the business affairs of their parents, and one can easily press claims against the estate that take advantage of their ignorance. Therefore, anyone who wishes to collect money from the estate is required to take an oath.

The first tanna does not accept the ruling of Abaye the Elder and therefore holds that the fourth wife does not have to take an oath when collecting her marriage contract. And ben Nanas accepts the ruling of Abaye the Elder and therefore holds that the fourth wife must take an oath before collecting part of the estate.

§ Rav Huna said: In a case of two brothers or two partners who have legal proceedings against another individual, and one of them went to attend to the legal proceedings against him and lost, the other brother or partner cannot say to the litigant: I am not legally answerable to you, i.e., I am not bound by the verdict because I was not represented in the legal proceedings. Rather, the brother or partner who appeared in court is considered to have acted as his agent.

The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman once happened to come to Sura. They asked him: What is the halakha in a case like this one presented by Rav Huna, where only one of the two brothers or partners attends the court proceedings?

He said to them: It is taught in a mishna: The woman he married first takes an oath to the woman he married second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth. But it does not teach that the first wife takes an oath to the third or the fourth. What is the reason? Is it not due to the fact that when the second wife requires the first to take an oath, she is acting as the third wife’s agent as well, since they both share the same concern regarding the first wife?

The Gemara responds: Is it comparable? There, in the case of the mishna, an oath to one is equal to an oath to one hundred, and there is no need for the first wife to take multiple oaths about the same matter. Here, however, in the case of the brothers or business partners, the second brother or partner can say: Had I been there, I would have presented a more convincing claim.

The Gemara notes: We said that this doubt is taken into account only if the second brother or partner is not in town when the legal proceedings take place. However, if he is in town, he should come to court to participate in the legal proceedings, and if he fails to do so, it is clear that he is content to allow his brother or partner to represent him in court.

§ It was stated that in a case of two deeds that are issued, i.e., dated, on the same day, e.g., where an individual gave or sold the same item to two different people, Rav said: They divide it between them, as it is impossible to determine who it belongs to, and Shmuel said: The item is awarded according to the discretion [shuda] of the judges.

The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said that signatory witnesses on the document effect the transaction? Here, since the seller or the giver of the field did not ask the signatory witnesses to note the exact time, it implies that he wished to give it to two people, but did not want to reveal that he was giving it to both of them.