Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
400
450
500
550
600
662/3
831/3
100
50
50
1662/3
1831/3
125
150
200
2662/3
2831/3
225
250
300
Fig.1.TheContested-GarmentconsistentdivisionsinKetubah93a
Aswecansee,theapplicationoftheTalmudicruleleadsinmany
variantsofourcasetosubstantiallydifferentresultsthanthe
applicationoftheruleofproportionality.Forinstance,ifthevalueof
theestateis100,thentheTalmudicruleleadstoequaldivisionand
theruleofproportionalitytothedivision162/3,331/3,50;ifthe
valueoftheestateis200,thentheTalmudicruleleadstothedivision
50,75,75,andtheruleofproportionalitytothedivision100/3;
200/3;300/3.Theresultsoftheapplicationofbothrulesarethesame
onlyintwoofthevariantsofCASE2:whenthevalueoftheestateis
300andwhenitis600.
Wehavementionedaboveaboutthemathematicaljustificationof
theTalmudicrule.However,itisnotentirelyclearwhatphilosophical
justificationstandsbehindit.Inordertofindsuchajustification,let
usfirstlookatthreecharacteristicsofthefunctioningofthisrule:
(a)ifa0issmallerthanthesmallestclaim,thentheTalmudicrule
awardsequalamounts;(b)ifa0islargerthanthelargestclaim,then
theTalmudicrulesawardsequallosses;(b)fortheothervaluesofa0,
itgivesthepersonswiththesmallestclaimhalfofthisclaim.[17]Now,
theregularity(a)isquiteintuitive:incaseinwhichthedividedsumis
smallerthanthesmallestclaim,equaldivisionamongtheclaimants
seemswelljustified:onecouldplausiblymaintainthatthereisno
reasonforgivingmoretothepersonwiththelargerclaim,ifthe
smallestclaimislargerthanthevalueofthedividedgood.This
shows,interestinglyenough,thattheTalmudicrule,unlikethe
proportionalityrule,doesnotexcludetreatingunequalcases(i.e.,
unequalclaims)equally.Thetworemainingregularitiesareless
intuitive,but,apparently,itcannotbesaidthattheyviolateour
