Responsa for Bava Batra 151:4
ספינה במשיכה היינו תנא קמא אלא דרב ושמואל איכא בינייהו לא דכולי עלמא אי כרב אי כשמואל ובספינה כולי עלמא לא פליגי
[Is not the statement of R. Nathan], 'a ship [is acquired] by <i>meshikah</i>', identical with that of the first Tanna?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then should R. Nathan make his statement at all? ');"><sup>7</sup></span> [May we not then conclude that] they differ on the same principles as Rab and Samuel?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna, like Samuel, requires full meshikah, viz., pulling the entire ship into a new position. R. Nathan, on the other hand, who obviously disputes this requirement, maintains, like Rab, that a slight pull is sufficient. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
Q - A woman presented her husband a dowry of interest bearing notes (the notes were drawn up by a non-Jewish notary). The husband died, and his heirs claim that these notes became his property, and even though the woman is entitled to receive them back as part of her Ketubah, nevertheless the interest accrued in his lifetime belongs entirely to them. The woman disputes their claim.
A - The notes and accrued interest belong to the woman, since the mere handing over of notes to the husband did not transfer to him the indebtedness contained therein; for she did not recite the formula, "acquire this and all obligations therein".
A - The notes and accrued interest belong to the woman, since the mere handing over of notes to the husband did not transfer to him the indebtedness contained therein; for she did not recite the formula, "acquire this and all obligations therein".
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy