Bava Metzia 208

אהני כתיבה לגירעון

— The writing [of that clause] serves to countervail depreciation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the pledge depreciated in value, the creditor would lose, but for that clause, which assures him that he will receive its full value as at the time he returns it, and in virtue of which he is empowered to seize other objects of the debtor's. ');">¹</span>

ר' יוסי היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא רבי יוסי אומר מקום שנהגו לעשות כתובה מלוה גובה מלוה לכפול גובה מחצה

R. Jose interpreted common terms. For it has been taught: R. Jose said: Where it is the practice to treat the <i>kethubah</i> as an ordinary debt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a woman is widowed, she is empowered to sue for her marriage settlement, part of which had formed in the first place the dowry given to her husband by her father or family, just as for an ordinary debt. ');">²</span>

נהרבלאי גבו תילתא מרימר מגבי נמי שבחא

he [the husband] can collect it [from her father] likewise as a debt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it will he subsequently reclaimed from him, he can legally claim it from the father at the time of marriage, or subsequently. ');">³</span>

א"ל רבינא למרימר והתניא לכפול גובה מחצה לא קשיא הא דקני מיניה הא דלא קני מיניה

[When it is the local usage] to double [the dowry],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' l.e., to state double the amount for the actual dowry in the kethubah to make it appear greater, whilst actually only half the stated amount is payable on widowhood or divorce. [This was inserted as a mark of honour to the bridal couple. v. Epstein. M. ap. cit., p. 104.] ');">⁴</span>

רבינא משבח וכתיב לברתיה אמרו ליה נקני מיניה דמר אמר להו אי מקנא לא מיכפל אי מיכפל לא מיקנא

he [the husband] can collect [from her father] only half [the Written sum]. The Neharbeleans<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nehar Bil, E. of Bagdad. v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 89, n. 1]. ');">⁵</span>

ההוא גברא דאמר להו הבו לה ארבע מאה זוזי לברתי בכתובתה שלח רב אחא בריה דרב אויא לקמיה דרב אשי ארבע מאה דאינון תמני מאה או ארבע מאה זוזי דאינון מאתן אמר רב אשי חזינן אי אמר הבו לה ארבע מאה זוזי דאינון תמני מאה אי אמר כתובו לה ארבע מאה זוזי דאינון מאתן

used to collect a third.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They used to state in the kethubah treble the actual amount. ');">⁶</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב אשי חזינן אי אמר לכתובתה ארבע מאה זוזי דאינון תמני מאה ואי אמר בכתובתה ארבע מאה זוזי דאינון מאתן

Meremar used to empower [the husband] to collect even the addition. Said Rabina to Meremar: But has it not been taught: [Where it is the usage] to double, he can collect only half? — There is no difficulty: In the one case, possession was formally effected;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of a kinyan (v. Glos.). The husband then acquires a title to the whole. ');">⁷</span>

ולא היא לא שנא דאמר לכתובתה ולא שנא דאמר בכתובתה ארבע מאה זוזי דאינון מאתן עד דאמר הבו לה סתמא

in the other, it was not.

ההוא גברא דקבל ארעא מחבריה אמר אי מוברנא לה יהיבנא לך אלפא זוזי אוביר תילתא אמרי נהרדעי דינא הוא דיהיב ליה תלת מאה ותלתין ותלתא ותילתא רבא אמר אסמכתא היא ואסמכתא לא קניא

Rabina was writing a large amount for [the dowry of] his daughter [more than he was actually giving]. Said they [the other side] to him, 'Let us effect a formal possession from you.' To which he replied, 'If a formal possession, then no doubling; if doubling, no formal possession.

ולרבא מ"ש מהא דתנן אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא התם לא קא גזים הכא כיון דקאמר מילתא יתירתא גוזמא בעלמא הוא דקגזים

A certain man once said, 'Give my daughter four hundred <i>zuz</i> as her <i>kethubah</i>.' R. Aba, son of R. Awia, sent an enquiry to R. Ashi: Does it mean, four hundred <i>zuz</i> [as the actual dowry], hence eight hundred [to be written]; or four hundred <i>zuz</i> [as the sum to be recorded], the equivalent of two hundred <i>zuz</i> [the real dowry].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was in a place where the amount was doubled. ');">⁸</span>

ההוא גברא דקביל ארעא לשומשמי זרעה חיטי עבדא חיטי כשומשמי סבר רב כהנא למימר מנכי ליה כחשא דארעא

R. Ashi replied: We see: if he said, 'Give her four hundred <i>zuz</i>,' eight hundred [are to be recorded]; but if he said, 'Write her four hundred zuz', he meant two hundred actual. Others state: R. Ashi replied, We see: if he said, 'For her <i>kethubah</i>,' it is four hundred actual, and eight hundred [written]; if he said, 'In her <i>kethubah</i>,' it means four hundred [written], which is two hundred actual. Yet that is incorrect: whether he said, 'For her <i>kethubah</i>,' or, 'In her <i>kethubah</i>,' it means four hundred [written], which is two hundred [actual]. Unless he says, 'Give her', without further qualifications.

אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא אמרי אינשי כחשא ארעא ולא לכחוש מרה

A certain man once leased a field from his neighbour and stated: 'If I do not cultivate it, I will give you a thousand <i>zuz</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A percentage lease is referred to. ');">⁹</span>

ההוא גברא דקביל ארעא לשומשמי זרעא חיטי עבדא חיטי טפי מן שומשמי סבר רבינא למימר יהיב ליה שבחא דביני ביני אמר ליה רב אחא מדפתי לרבינא אטו הוא אשבח ארעא לא אשבחה

Now, he left a third uncultivated. Said the Nehardeans: It is but just that he should pay him three hundred thirty-three one-third <i>zuz</i>. But Raba said: It is an <i>asmakta</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמרי נהרדעי האי עיסקא פלגא מלוה ופלגא פקדון עבוד רבנן מילתא דניחא ליה ללוה וניחא ליה למלוה

and an <i>asmakta</i> effects no title. But in Raba's view, wherein does it differ from what we learnt: 'SHOULD I NEGLECT AND NOT TILL IT, I WILL PAY OF THE BEST?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, as seen from the Mishnah, the statement is binding. ');">¹¹</span>

השתא דאמרינן פלגא מלוה אי בעי למשתי ביה שכרא שפיר דמי רבא אמר להכי קרו ליה עיסקא דאמר ליה כי יהבינא לך לאיעסוקי ביה ולא למשתי ביה שכרא

— In that case, there was no exaggeration; but here, since he stated such a large sum, it was a mere exaggeration [not to be taken seriously].

אמר רב אידי בר אבין ואם מת נעשה מטלטלין אצל בניו רבא אמר להכי קרו ליה עיסקא דאם מת לא יעשה מטלטלין אצל בניו

A certain man once leased a field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. I. ');">¹²</span>

אמר רבא חדא עיסקא ותרי שטרי פסידא דמלוה

for sesame. He sowed wheat instead, but the wheat appreciated to the value of sesame.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sesame crop is more valuable than a wheat crop; on the other hand, it exhausts the soil more. But in this case, owing to an advance in the price of wheat, the crop lost nothing through the change, and there was the further profit that the soil was less exhausted than it would otherwise have been. ');">¹³</span> Now, R. Kahana thought to rule: He [the tenant] can make a deduction [from the percentage due] on account of the [diminished] impoverishment of the soil. But R. Ashi said to R. Kahana: People say, 'Let the soil become impoverished rather than its owner.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he should have carried out his contract and not jeopardised the owner's receipts. He therefore cannot make a deduction now. ');">¹⁴</span> A certain man once leased a field for sesame. He sowed wheat, however, but the wheat subsequently exceeded the sesame in value. Now, Rabina thought to rule that he [the lessor] must give him [the tenant] the increased value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the lessor receives his percentage only on the potential sesame crop. ');">¹⁵</span> Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Was he [the tenant] the only cause of the higher value, and the earth not at all?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both contributed, hence both share. ');">¹⁶</span> The Nehardenas said: An <i>'iska</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹⁷</span> is a semi loan and a semi trust, the Rabbis having made an enactment which is satisfactory to both the debtor and the creditor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., half the capital value of the stock is a pure loan for which the trader bears full responsibility; the other half is a bailment, so that the investor bears all risks of depreciation. To avoid the charge of usury, however, the trader generally received two — thirds of the profit. V. supra 68b. ');">¹⁸</span> Now that we say that it is a semi loan and a semi trust, if he [the trader] wishes to drink beer therewith [i.e., for the loan part] he can do so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he need not use it for business at all. ');">¹⁹</span> Raba said: [No.] It is therefore called '<i>iska</i> [business] because he can say to him, 'I gave it to you for trading, not for drinking beer.' R. Idi b. Abin said: And if he [the trader] dies, it ranks as movable property in the hands of his children.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The half which is a loan is counted as movable chattels, which are not subject to seizure for debt from the heirs. Hence the investor loses it. ');">²⁰</span> Raba said: It is therefore called '<i>iska</i>, that if he dies, it shall not rank as movable property in the hands of his heirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is permanent trading stock, and therefore always available for the satisfaction of the investor's claims. ');">²¹</span> Raba said: If there is one '<i>iska</i> and two bonds, it is to the investor's disadvantage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated supra 68b, the investor generally received a third of the profits, but stood half the losses. Now, if he invests two bales of goods and draws up one bond: if there is a loss upon one and a profit upon the other, it is all counted as one investment, and he receives a third of the net profit upon both. But if he draws up a separate instrument for each, he bears half of the loss incurred on one, and receives only a third of the profit earned on the other, and so is at a disadvantage. ');">²²</span>