Bava Metzia

— The writing [of that clause] serves to countervail depreciation. R. Jose interpreted common terms. For it has been taught: R. Jose said: Where it is the practice to treat the kethubah as an ordinary debt,  he [the husband] can collect it [from her father] likewise as a debt.  [When it is the local usage] to double [the dowry],  he [the husband] can collect [from her father] only half [the Written sum]. The Neharbeleans  used to collect a third.  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;  in the other, it was not. 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. A certain man once said, 'Give my daughter four hundred zuz as her kethubah.' R. Aba, son of R. Awia, sent an enquiry to R. Ashi: Does it mean, four hundred zuz [as the actual dowry], hence eight hundred [to be written]; or four hundred zuz [as the sum to be recorded], the equivalent of two hundred zuz [the real dowry].  R. Ashi replied: We see: if he said, 'Give her four hundred zuz,' 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 kethubah,' it is four hundred actual, and eight hundred [written]; if he said, 'In her kethubah,' it means four hundred [written], which is two hundred actual. Yet that is incorrect: whether he said, 'For her kethubah,' or, 'In her kethubah,' it means four hundred [written], which is two hundred [actual]. Unless he says, 'Give her', without further qualifications. A certain man once leased a field from his neighbour and stated: 'If I do not cultivate it, I will give you a thousand zuz.'  Now, he left a third uncultivated. Said the Nehardeans: It is but just that he should pay him three hundred thirty-three one-third zuz. But Raba said: It is an asmakta,  and an asmakta 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?'  — 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]. A certain man once leased a field  for sesame. He sowed wheat instead, but the wheat appreciated to the value of sesame.  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.' 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.  Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: Was he [the tenant] the only cause of the higher value, and the earth not at all? The Nehardenas said: An 'iska  is a semi loan and a semi trust, the Rabbis having made an enactment which is satisfactory to both the debtor and the creditor.  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.  Raba said: [No.] It is therefore called 'iska [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.  Raba said: It is therefore called 'iska, that if he dies, it shall not rank as movable property in the hands of his heirs. Raba said: If there is one 'iska and two bonds, it is to the investor's disadvantage.