Request from a tenant for the grant of a good cow
Another letter is apparently from a tenant, or serf, to his landlord:[850]
To my lord say, thus saith Ibgatum thy servant: As, my lord, thou hast heard, the enemy has carried off my oxen. Never before have I sent to thee, my lord. Now I have caused a letter to be brought to thee, my lord. Do thou, my lord, send me one young cow. I will weigh out and send five shekels of silver to thee, my lord. My lord, what thou sayest, under the command of Marduk, thy protector, what pleases thee, no one can hinder thee, my lord. My lord, do thou make her worth the five shekels of silver that I have weighed out and sent to thee. Do thou, my lord, treat seriously this request, do not trifle with my wish. Let my lord not wonder at this request, which I send my lord. I am thy servant. I will do thy will, my lord. As to the young cow, which thou, my lord, dost send, let her be on credit, and either to Baṣu, or wherever is convenient to my lord, do thou send. With Ili-iḳîsham, my brother, let the young cow come. And I, in order that my lord should quickly consent and send the young cow, will forthwith weigh out and send fifteen shekels of silver to thee, my lord.
Evidently, the wise man sent only five shekels on deposit with his brother, holding back the rest of the price, till he had seen what sort of a cow he was to get for his money. It was from this letter that Winckler[851] deduced a meaning for ṣamâdu something like “weigh out,” “pay,” whence a better meaning for ṣimittu than “yoke” was readily obtained. As Dr. Peiser pointed out, the word is also used in the Cappadocian tablets in a way that leaves small doubt of its meaning. It may have come to mean simply “pay,” but must have ordinarily meant “measure,” or “weigh,” according as it was applied to grain, or money.
Authorization to compel a creditor to pay his debts
Here is a very interesting example showing how the merchants of those days transacted business at a distance:[852]
To Erib-Sin say, thus saith Ibni-Nabû, I am here (?): As to the case of Ardi-ilishu, son of Ibni-Dibbara, I gave him two-thirds of a [pg 335] mina of silver, and it was acknowledged in writing, in the presence of my witnesses. He went to Assyria. He did not give the money to Shamaiatu. I and Shamaiatu met in Daganna and disputed over the affair. Said I, “I sent thee money by Ardi-ilishu.” He said, “If Ardi-ilishu has paid the money, let him [here come some uncertain signs].” And concerning what thou didst send about Shamash-bêl-ilâni's fourteen shekels, I did not give him the money. There is two-thirds of a mina due from Ardi-ilishu; take Ardi-ilishu and cause him to weigh out the money, and its interest, more or less, and from that take the fourteen shekels and send the surplus.
The two, Erib-Sin and Ibni-Nabû, are either partners, or agents. The former had asked the latter to pay over fourteen shekels to a certain Shamash-bêl-ilâni, either because the latter had money of his, or had promised to honor his order. But this particular order was not honored. Ibni-Nabû had intrusted a sum of forty shekels to one Ardi-ilishu, with which to pay Shamaiatu. But Ardi-ilishu had gone off to Assyria without discharging the obligation. So Shamaiatu had demanded payment and perhaps the doubtful signs express the fact that Ibni-Nabû had to pay a second time. Fortunately, he could prove that Ardi-ilishu had had the money, having taken a receipt. He seems to think that Erib-Sin can find Ardi-ilishu. Was the former resident in Assyria? If so, this must be a copy of the letter sent him. But perhaps Erib-Sin was to arrest the defaulter on his return to Sippara. At any rate, this was a warrant for so doing. That, perhaps, is why the letter was kept. If Erib-Sin could get forty shekels and the interest, he had a fair margin from which to pay the fourteen shekels, due to him from Ibni-Nabû. But he had to take risks. If Shamash-bêl-ilâni had given Erib-Sin consideration for his order on Ibni-Nabû for fourteen shekels, he was badly served.
A warning connected with the filing of a suit
Here is a letter, warning a man of a suit brought against him in his absence: