Bava Kamma

why give him anything at all?  And the Master thereupon said: No; the above law is applicable to cases where in the month of Nisan  property has a higher value, whereas in the month of Tishri  it has a lower value. People in general wait until Nisan and then sell, whereas this particular proprietor, being in great need of ready money, finds himself compelled to sell in Tishri at the existing lower price; he is therefore granted half because it is in the nature of property to drop in value up to a half, but it is not in its nature to drop more than that. Now a similar case may also be made out with reference to payment for damage which must be out of the best. If the plaintiff, however, says: 'Give me medium quality but a larger quantity', the defendant is entitled to reply: 'It is only when you take the best quality which is due to you by law that you may calculate on the present price; failing that, whatever you take you will have to calculate according to the higher price anticipated.'  But R. Aha b. Jacob demurred: If so, you have weakened the right of plaintiffs for damages in respect of inferior quality. When the Divine Law states out of the best,  how can you maintain that inferior qualities are excluded?  R — Aha b. Jacob therefore said: If any analogy could he drawn,  it may be made in the case of a creditor. A creditor is paid by law out of medium quality; if, however, he says: 'Give me worse quality but greater quantity,' the debtor is entitled to say, 'It is only when you take that quality which is due to you by law that you may calculate on the present price, failing that, whatever you take you will have to calculate according to the higher price anticipated.' R. Aha, son of R. Ika, demurred: If so, you will close the door in the face of prospective borrowers. The creditor will rightly contend, 'Were my money with me I would get property according to the present low price; now that my money is with you, must I calculate according to the anticipated higher price?' — R. Aha, son of R. Ika, therefore said: If any analogy could be drawn,  it is only with the case of a Kethubah  [marriage settlement]  which, according to the law, is collected out of the worst quality. But if the woman says to the husband: 'Give me better quality though smaller quantity,' he may rejoin: 'It is only when you take the quality assigned to you by law that you may calculate in accordance with the present low price; failing that, you must calculate in accordance with the anticipated higher price., But be it as it is, does the original difficulty  still not hold good? — Said Raba: Whatever article is being tendered has to be given out of the best [of that object].  But is it not written: 'The best of his field'?  — But when R. Papa and R. Huna the son of R. Joshua had arrived from the house of study  they explained it thus: All kinds of articles are considered 'best', for if they were not to be sold here they would be sold in another town;  it is only in the case of land which is excepted therefrom that the payment has to be made out of the best, so that intending purchasers jump at it. R. Samuel b. Abba of Akronia  asked of R. Abba: When the calculation  is made, is it based on his own [the defendant's] property or upon that of the general public? This problem has no application to R. Ishmael's view that the calculation is based upon the quality of the plaintiff's property;  it can apply only to R. Akiba's view  which takes the defendant's property into account.  What would, according to him, be the ruling? Does the Divine Law in saying, 'the best of his field' intend only to exclude the quality of the plaintiff's property from being taken into account, or does it intend to exclude even the quality of the property of the general public? — He [R. Abba] said to him:  The Divine Law states, 'the best of his field' how then can you maintain that the calculation is based on the property of the general public? He  raised an objection: [It is taught,] If the defendant's estate consists only of the best, creditors of all descriptions are paid out of the best; if it is of medium quality, they are all paid out of medium quality; if it is of the worst quality, they are all paid out of the worst quality. [It is only] when the defendant's possessions consist of both the best, the medium, and the worst [that] creditors for damages are paid out of the best, creditors for loans out of the medium and creditors for marriage contracts out of the worst. When [however] the estate consists only of the best and of the medium qualities, creditors for damages are paid out of the best while creditors for loans and for marriage contracts will be paid out of the medium quality. [Again] if the estate consists only of the medium and the worst qualities, creditors for either damages or loans are paid out of the medium quality whereas those for marriage contracts will be paid out of the worst quality.