(Mishnah - R. Meir): If Reuven's ox gored four or five oxen, of (Shimon,) Levi, Yehudah, Gad and Asher, he pays the damage to Asher's ox [up to the value of Reuven's ox].

If there is money left over (Reuven's ox is worth more than the damage), he uses it to pay Gad (and if there remains, Yehudah, Levi, and Shimon). The last victim always collects first.

R. Shimon says, if David's ox gored Moshe's ox, and both were worth 200, and the carcass is worthless, David and Moshe each end up with 100.

If the ox then gored Kalev's ox, Kalev gets 100, and David and Moshe each end up with 50.

If it then gored Aharon's ox, Aharon gets 100, Kalev gets 50, David and Moshe each end up with a gold Dinar (25 silver Dinarim).

(Gemara - R. Yanai): R. Meir holds that [the last victim receives his full damage] because he comes from two sides. Mi'Mah Nafshach (no matter what you will say, he collects before previous victims);

[He can say] if it is yours, give it to me. (Since it was like a security for you to collect damages, you are like a Shomer Sachar, so you are liable for its later damages);

If it is not yours, let me collect it!

Question: Did not R. Lazar teach that Mesirah for Nezikin is like Mesirah for Kinyan! (HAGAHOS R. DINAR. Since there was no Mesirah for Kinyan, the previous victim is not liable for damage.)

Answer (R. Yudan): They handed it over to [the previous victim, to collect] his damages. Is it not like a security in his hand?! (He is like a Shomer Sachar, so he is liable for its later damages.)

Question: [R. Meir holds like R. Yishmael, that there is a mere debt to the victim. R. Shimon holds like R. Akiva, that the victim becomes a partial owner of the ox that gored. Practically,] what is the difference between?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): [They argue about who] can be Makdish [the damager]. According to R. Meir, the first [owner] can be Makdish it. According to R. Shimon, both of them can be Makdish it.

Answer #2: [They argue about if the damager] increased in price. According to R. Meir, it increased for the first. According to R. Shimon, it increased for both of them.

Answer #3: [They argue about if] it earned wages. According to R. Meir, the first gets the wages. According to R. Shimon, both of them get the wages.

Answer #4: [They argue about if] it improved [automatically, without investing to fatten it]. According to R. Meir, it improved for the first. According to R. Shimon, it improved for both of them. (We explained this entire Sugya like NESIVOS YERUSHALAYIM, based on MILCHAMOS HASH-M.)

(R. Yochanan): R. Yehudah [who said in Mishnah 3:9 that each gets half the live ox and half the dead ox] and R. Shimon said the same matter. Just like R. Yehudah says that he acquired [part of the damager, like R. Akiva], so R. Shimon says that he acquired;

However, R. Yehudah says that he acquired the live animal (the damager) and the dead (victim), and R. Shimon says that he acquired only the live animal.

(Mishnah): (If a man married three women on the same day, and died, and their Kesuvos are for 100, 200 and 300, if the estate is 100, they divide it equally.) The same applies to three people who invested money together. If there was a loss or profit, they share this way.

(R. Bun): It seems that this is when they bought a pearl [each gets a third of the profit or loss. The smaller investor] can say to [the other investor(s)] 'if not for my 10 Dinarim, you would not have bought anything'!

However, something that is normally divided (one can buy as much of it as he wants), [the profit or loss] comes to the middle and they divide [according to how much each invested].

(R. Lazar): Even something that is normally divided, [the smaller investor] can say to him [your merchandise (what we bought with your money) is great. You would need much time to sell it. My merchandise is small. I could engage with my [money] and [after selling for a profit,] invest again [and again, and profit] as much as you (in the same time).

Question: This is [a proper claim] when the merchandise was here. If the merchandise was in Romi (far away, the small investor could not go back many times to invest again and profit more)!

Answer: He can say to him, in the time that you go to Romi, I could engage with my [money] here, and invest again [and again, and profit] as much as you.

(Beraisa): If three invested money together and some was stolen, so they divide [according to how much each put in].

Question (Beraisa): Regarding these rocks, some was stolen, each gets half!

Answer (R. Shamai): Rocks are big - each one, it is not known if [the thief] took from this or from this. Due to Safek, this one gets half and this one gets half (each is considered a Safek Kavu'a);

However, coins are small. It is possible to mix them uniformly and take from all of them. (We assume that the thief took proportionally to each one's amount.) Everyone takes according to his investment.

Question: (The Beraisa said that stolen rocks are judged half-half.) Why do you say that this refers to what was taken? Perhaps it refers to what remains (each gets half of what remains)!

Answer (R. Yosi bei R. Bun): You must say that it refers to what was taken. If not, it is unjust;

Exert yourself [and you will find the answer] If this one had 50, and this one 150, and 50 were stolen, [if you will say that it refers to what remains,] it turns out that the one who had 50 does not lose anything!

(Mishnah): The last one receives 100 [Zuz], the one before him receives 100, and the first two one receive a gold Dinar (25 Zuz) each.

(R. Shmuel citing R. Ze'ira): The same applies to Sechar (if the damager increased in value, each receives according to his share).

Note: Seemingly, it would be more appropriate to call this Shevach! Perhaps he refers to rental income. (PF)

(R. Yosi): R. Ze'ira's teaching argues with R. Lazar [who said that all investors share the profit equally].

(R. Mana): I asked this to R. Yudan. He told me, doesn't R. Lazar agree that it they stipulated among themselves, each receives according to his investment. Oxen are is if they stipulated. (Each who seized the damager acquired to be liable for future damage according to his share. R. Lazar's reason (I could engage with my money, sell for a profit and invest again...) does not apply.

R. Mana returned and told R. Yosi. R. Yosi said, they explicitly argue! R. Lazar said Stam (without stipulating), they divide equally. R. Ze'ira said Stam, this one receives according to his investment and this one receives according to his investment. (We explained this like MAHARA FULDA.)