## Talmud problem

Posted on: February 10th, 2014 by
3

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?

#### 3 Responses to Talmud problem

1. Jay Karnik had this to say about that:

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.

• Sid Hollander had this to say about that:

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)

• Sid Hollander had this to say about that:

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. ;>)

{"result":"error", "message":"You can't access this resource as it requires an 'view' access for the website id = 1."}