"Let’s split it fairly."

Sounds simple, yes? But what if your idea of "fair" is completely different from someone else’s?

In negotiations, fairness isn’t just about dividing the pie—it’s about understanding what’s actually being negotiated.

Recently, I shared a negotiation challenge in a poll asking how you would fairly split funds between two creditors when there isn’t enough to cover both debts (Link to Poll post)

Many responses leaned toward a proportional split, which seems logical at first glance.

But what if I told you that a 2,000-year-old negotiation principle offers a different—and arguably fairer—solution?

It’s not just about splitting money—it’s about understanding what’s truly being negotiated.

I promised I'd break it down, so lets unpack why the 75/25 rule is the fairest solution when dividing money, assets, or even responsibilities. N

When a company owes:

• $100 to one creditor
• $50 to another
• Only has $100 total to distribute

Most people instinctively suggest a proportional split (66% to the first creditor and 33% to the second creditor).

However, a smarter, fairer solution comes from the 2,000-year-old principle known as the Talmudic Split—leading to a 75/25 division instead.

Why?

Because this approach challenges our assumptions about fairness and forces us to redefine what’s truly being negotiated.

I'll break this down step by step here.

To fully grasp why the 75/25 split is the correct answer, we must shift our mindset from “splitting money” to understanding "what’s actually in dispute."

Let's go!

Firstly- Identify the “Pie” (What’s being negotiated)

• The company owes $100 to Creditor A and $50 to Creditor B
• The company only has $100 to pay
• Total claims = $150 - but only $100 exists

Most people make a crucial mistake: They assume the entire $100 is up for negotiation. But IT'S NOT!

Next we'll break the debt into two parts: (The Undisputed & the Disputed)

To properly divide the money, we must separate the undisputed amount:

• Creditor B is owed $50, and nobody contests this
• This MUST be paid first

• What remains? $50 (since Creditor A was owed $100 but already got $50).
• This is the true “Negotiation Zone.”

The key insight here is that Creditor A and Creditor B are:

• Only negotiating over the remaining $50, NOT the full $100

Now let's apply the Talmudic Division Principle!

The Talmudic Rule states:

• Each party first receives whatever is "uncontested"
• The remaining disputed amount is split evenly

Step 1: Pay the Undisputed Amount- Creditor B immediately receives their uncontested $50.

Step 2: Split the Disputed Amount- Now, the remaining $50 is split 50/50:

• Creditor A gets $50 (from the disputed amount).
• Creditor B gets $0 more (because their claim has already been satisfied).

Final Payment Breakdown:

• Creditor A gets $75 ($50 from the dispute + $25 conceded by Creditor B)
• Creditor B gets $25 (from the disputed amount since they already got their uncontested $50)

The reason why this is a more fair approach than Proportional Division is that it

1 . Respects each party’s original claim:

• Creditor B never claimed the full $100—only their $50
• A proportional split unfairly dilutes their guaranteed share

2 . It acknowledges what’s truly being negotiated:

• Instead of blindly splitting everything, it separates the uncontested from the contested amounts
• This prevents overcompensation for parties who claim larger amounts.

3 . It holds up under any claim structure:

• If Creditor A had claimed $1,000, while Creditor B only claimed $50, a proportional split would still give 'A' an unfair advantage.
• The Talmudic Method ensures fairness regardless of claim size.

This method is still relevant today—especially in settlements, business partnerships, and even salary negotiations.

My final words for negotiators.

The 75/25 rule isn’t just an old idea—it’s a powerful strategy for modern negotiations.

Next time you negotiate, ask yourself:

• What is the real pie? Are we actually disputing everything, or just part of it?
• What’s already “owned” by the other party?
• Am I assuming a proportional split when a fairer solution exists?

Does this shift how you think about fairness in negotiations?

• Yes?
• No?
• I need to rethink my approach?

Please Drop a comment—I’d love to hear your thoughts- and reshare this if you think it will help anyone else ?

Until next time!

Your Apex Negotiator

Scott