Joe owes $100 to creditor A, $200 to creditor B and $300 to creditor C. Joe dies, leaving behind an estate. Unfortunately, Joe's estate has insufficient funds to repay his creditors (yes, that's a very small estate). The question is how does one split the estate among the contestants. Here are three situations and the action by a certain judge in each situation:

1. If the estate is worth $100, split equally giving $33 1/3 to each creditor.

2. If the estate is worth $200, give $50 to A and $75 each to B and C.

3. If the estate is worth $300, give $50 to A, $100 to B and $150 to C (proportional split).

Can you find a logic that justifies this splitting?

- via Mind your decisions video

The explaination in the video is not satisfactory

Case 2 as per the video should give 33 1/3 to A and 83 1/3 each to B and C

Case 3 should give 33 1/3 to A and 83 1/3 to B and and 183 1/3 to C. There is something which the video is missing out on.

Using the logic of the video i.e. "If two parties have claims over an amount, you split that "contested" amount evenly.

There are 3 steps in this Algorithm:

1. Determine Contested portion

2. Split it Equally

3. Assign any uncontested portion to the person claiming it."

Assigning A,B)

Continuing using A,B,C to represent the 100,200,300 contestants. A vrs B has $100 disputed results in A(50) B(50+100 non-contested). Likewise A vrs C results in A(50) C(150). Now B& C have 150 contested so they have to split B(75), C(75). Talmud is justified. ;>)