Responsa for Bava Batra 102:4
אמר רב המוכר שדה לאשתו קנתה והבעל אוכל פירות במתנה קנתה ואין הבעל אוכל פירות ורבי אלעזר אמר אחד זה ואחד זה קנתה ואין הבעל אוכל פירות
R. Eleazar, however, said that in either case the wife becomes the legal owner and the husband is not entitled to the produce. In a case which actually occurred, R. Hisda followed the ruling of R. Eleazar. Rabban 'Ukba and Rabban Nehemiah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (V. L. Mar 'Ukba and Rab Nehemiah. Rabban was a title borne by exilarchs, v. Hul. 92a.) ');"><sup>5</sup></span> the sons of the daughters of Rab, said to R. Hisda: Do you mean then, Sir, to abandon the greater authorities and follow the lesser?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar was a pupil of R. Johanan, who himself deferred to Rab. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. L, who managed her husband's business, deposited money with B and C. Her husband, A, demands this money from B and C claiming that the money was his.
A. If the money is in the hands of the depositaries, they must return it to A, since the latter entrusted his business to his wife. If, however, the money was returned to L and she claims that the money belongs to her, since it had been originally given to her on condition that her husband have no rights thereto; or that the money belongs to a person, D, who lent it to her, she may take an oath to support her claim and retain the money. Although a husband may not exact an oath from his wife regarding her management of his business (Ket. 88a), this rule applies only to the case where the husband is not positive in his claim.
Q. A left his wife L; and while he was away, L borrowed money for the sustenance of herself and of her infant daughter. A now refuses to pay the debts she thus incurred.
A. If L will take an oath to the effect that these loans were made to her with the expectation that she would personally repay them and that now she is unable to do so, A will be obliged to pay these debts. For a husband must provide for the sustenance of his wife, and of his children until they reach the age of six.
Q. L contends that A beat her. A denies this charge, but admits having left her without her consent. She now refuses to live with him unless he make a solemn promise, obligating himself by a herem, and drawing up a document to the effect that… [reference is made to the details that were enumerated in the inquiry, which was written on the other side of the parchment].
A. A must comply with L's wishes or divorce her, and pay her the ketubah; for a husband must honor his wife and not degrade her.
SOURCES: Am II, 24.
A. If the money is in the hands of the depositaries, they must return it to A, since the latter entrusted his business to his wife. If, however, the money was returned to L and she claims that the money belongs to her, since it had been originally given to her on condition that her husband have no rights thereto; or that the money belongs to a person, D, who lent it to her, she may take an oath to support her claim and retain the money. Although a husband may not exact an oath from his wife regarding her management of his business (Ket. 88a), this rule applies only to the case where the husband is not positive in his claim.
Q. A left his wife L; and while he was away, L borrowed money for the sustenance of herself and of her infant daughter. A now refuses to pay the debts she thus incurred.
A. If L will take an oath to the effect that these loans were made to her with the expectation that she would personally repay them and that now she is unable to do so, A will be obliged to pay these debts. For a husband must provide for the sustenance of his wife, and of his children until they reach the age of six.
Q. L contends that A beat her. A denies this charge, but admits having left her without her consent. She now refuses to live with him unless he make a solemn promise, obligating himself by a herem, and drawing up a document to the effect that… [reference is made to the details that were enumerated in the inquiry, which was written on the other side of the parchment].
A. A must comply with L's wishes or divorce her, and pay her the ketubah; for a husband must honor his wife and not degrade her.
SOURCES: Am II, 24.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
A - (1b) Even if there are witnesses who could testify that X gave B more than 100 marks, and informed B that this represented the latter's share of G's estate (which was in the possession of the former) A is not sustained in his claim against B, that X had stolen part of A's share and had given it to B. However, if X is summoned to court by A, and denies the charges of the latter, then the money which B received is considered as if it is still in the possession of X, provided, the heirs themselves, did not personally partition the estate, by casting lots.
The residue of the estate must be divided among the heirs. X, however, is no longer responsible for the share which he swore that he gave B. X must allot A and the other heirs, their rightful share of the estate. In any event, A has no grounds for complaint against B, concerning the latter's share.
However, further study and thought on the subject, would be required if X were to demand that B return all money that was in excess of the latter's rightful share of the estate.
The residue of the estate must be divided among the heirs. X, however, is no longer responsible for the share which he swore that he gave B. X must allot A and the other heirs, their rightful share of the estate. In any event, A has no grounds for complaint against B, concerning the latter's share.
However, further study and thought on the subject, would be required if X were to demand that B return all money that was in excess of the latter's rightful share of the estate.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A went to a distant country, leaving behind a wife and a daughter. His wife betrothed her daughter to C and promised him a dowry. C demanded that A's brother, B, become surety for the dowry. B did so, and A's wife deposited valuables with B to be used in the discharge of B's suretyship. A's wife died. When A returned, he demanded that B restore to him the valuables his late wife had entrusted to B.
A. A's wife had no right to promise a dowry or give anything to B or C without A's permission. Her promises and gifts were, therefore, void and B must return to A the valuables A's wife had deposited with him.
SOURCES: Pr. 858.
A. A's wife had no right to promise a dowry or give anything to B or C without A's permission. Her promises and gifts were, therefore, void and B must return to A the valuables A's wife had deposited with him.
SOURCES: Pr. 858.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy