Ketubot 93B

השכר לאמצע.

the earnings are divided equally.

אמר רבה: מסתברא מילתיה דשמואל בשור לחרישה ועומד לחרישה, אבל בשור לחרישה ועומד לטביחה ⁠— זה נוטל לפי מעותיו וזה נוטל לפי מעותיו. ורב המנונא אמר: אפילו שור לחרישה ועומד לטביחה ⁠— השכר לאמצע.

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.

מיתיבי: שנים שהטילו לכיס, זה מנה וזה מאתים ⁠— השכר לאמצע. מאי לאו, בשור לחרישה ועומד לטביחה, ותיובתא דרבה? לא, בשור לחרישה ועומד לחרישה.

The Talmud 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 100 dinars and that one invested 200, the earnings are divided equally. The Talmud 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 Talmud responds: No, the Tosefta is referring only to the case of an ox that was purchased for plowing and used for plowing.

אבל שור לחרישה ועומד לטביחה מאי ⁠— זה נוטל לפי מעותיו וזה נוטל לפי מעותיו. אדתני סיפא: לקח זה בשלו וזה בשלו ונתערבו ⁠— זה נוטל לפי מעותיו, וזה נוטל לפי מעותיו,

The Talmud 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.