Responsa for Bava Batra 104:5
וכן האשה שהיא נושאת ונותנת בתוך הבית והיו אונות ושטרות יוצאין על שמה ואמרה שלי הן שנפלו לי מבית אבי אבא או מבית אבי אמא עליה להביא ראיה
Raba said to R. Nahman: Here we have the opinion of Rab and of Samuel, and again that of Rabbah and R. Shesheth: with whom do you agree? He replied: All I know is a Baraitha. For it has been taught: [If brothers live together and] one of them has the management of the house, and if deeds and bonds are current in his name and he asserts: I obtained them from the legacy of my maternal grandfather, the onus probandi lies upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As laid down by Rab. V. supra 52a. As to the nature of the proof required, R. Nahman offers no opinion. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. Does a widow who is not admitted to oaths, lose her ketubah since she cannot take the required oath?
There is no answer to this query. The three questions bear the signatures of: Joseph b. Moses, Nathan b. Jacob, and Isaac b. Solomon.
SOURCES: Am II, 69–70.
There is no answer to this query. The three questions bear the signatures of: Joseph b. Moses, Nathan b. Jacob, and Isaac b. Solomon.
SOURCES: Am II, 69–70.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A widow seized notes of indebtedness and bonds of Gentiles, that were made out both in her name and in the name of her husband. Does this act constitute seizure of the debts?
A. The widow has to produce evidence to the effect that the money represented by the notes and the bonds was actually her money. Furthermore, possession of notes and bonds, does not imply the right to the money and property described therein. Thus seizure of the notes and the bonds does not constitute seizure of the debts.
SOURCES: P. 282; Mord. B.B. 562; Agudah B.B. 123. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 75.
A. The widow has to produce evidence to the effect that the money represented by the notes and the bonds was actually her money. Furthermore, possession of notes and bonds, does not imply the right to the money and property described therein. Thus seizure of the notes and the bonds does not constitute seizure of the debts.
SOURCES: P. 282; Mord. B.B. 562; Agudah B.B. 123. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 75.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy