Responsa for Bava Batra 272:3
וריש לקיש אמר קנה לוקח קנין פירות לאו כקנין הגוף דמי
R. Johanan said [that] the buyer did not acquire ownership, [because] possession of usufruct is like the possession of the capital;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the usufruct was in the ownership of the father, the capital, i.e., the soil also is regarded as being in his possession, and the son, therefore, is not entitled to transfer it to a buyer. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A claims he has no cash and wants to repay his debt to B with goods. B demands that A swear that he has no cash. Is it not true that the court can not require an oath from A since no actual loss of money to B is involved?
A. The fact that there is no actual loss of money to B does not, of itself, absolve A from taking an oath. A is not required to take the oath for another reason. B can not claim to be certain that A has cash, and no one is required to take an oath when his opponent is not certain of his claim.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Asher b. Moses.
SOURCES: Cr. 7, 8; Pr. 109; L. 360. Cf. Am II, 224.
A. The fact that there is no actual loss of money to B does not, of itself, absolve A from taking an oath. A is not required to take the oath for another reason. B can not claim to be certain that A has cash, and no one is required to take an oath when his opponent is not certain of his claim.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Asher b. Moses.
SOURCES: Cr. 7, 8; Pr. 109; L. 360. Cf. Am II, 224.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy