Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 331:2

זהב בדינרין אין פחות מבשני דינרין כסף זהב ואימא דהבא פריכא בתרי דינרי דהבא קאמר אמר אביי יד בעל השטר על התחתונה

If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' for this reading. v. Rashal, a.l. The printed texts contain the following in round brackets: The first (part) where it was taught 'silver for denarii' (signifies) silver for no less that, two gold denarii, why? I might say (that) he meant a bar of silver for two silver denarii. ');"><sup>4</sup></span> so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the bond is to be interpreted in terms advantageous to the borrower and disadvantageous to the creditor. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> [the same principles should be followed in] the former [cases] also!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of (a) the entry. 'silver denarii'; why should this be interpreted to mean 'silver for no less than two gold denarii' (which is in favour of the holder of the bond), and not, 'small silver coins for two silver denarii' (which would be in favour of the borrower)? And, again (b) in the entry. 'gold denarii' or 'denarii gold'; why should that be given the interpretation, 'no less than two gold denarii' (which also is in favour of the creditor) rather than, 'gold of the value of no less than two silver denarii' (which would be in favour of the borrower)? ');"><sup>6</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. The ketubah of a widow contained the following clause: "you shall collect whatever you have brought in, as your dowry, over and above the amount you are entitled to as your ketubah" without description of what the dowry consisted. The widow seized some articles stating that her late husband had given them to her as a present. Are we to believe her statement (in accordance with the rule of Miggo), since if she had wanted to lie she might have claimed that said articles were part of her dowry?
A. A mere claim to the effect that the articles had formed part of her ketubah would have been insufficient. Since her ketubah did not enumerate the articles and valuables that made up her dowry, she would have to prove what the dowry consisted of before she would be entitled to collect any part thereof. Therefore, we do not have to believe her statement.
SOURCES: L. 243.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A woman produced for collection a ketubah in which the sum of two hundred pounds was stipulated. But the ketubah did not specify whether the coin "pound" [the value of which differed in each locality] was meant, or the weight "pound" [which equalled two marks, or sixteen ounces of silver] was meant. How much is the woman entitled to collect?
A. It all depends upon the custom of the place where the woman married. In Würzburg and its surrounding country, the one hundred pounds of the ketubah are interpreted to mean two hundred marks. On the Rhine, there are places where the one hundred pounds of the ketubah are interpreted to mean one hundred pounds Heller. If the woman comes from a place where there is no established custom, she receives two hundred pounds of the coin current in her locality.
SOURCES: Pr. 284; Mord. Ket. 281; Tesh. Maim. to Nashim, 13.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse