Responsa for Bava Kamma 126:18
בשלמא למאן דאמר חד בגנב וחד בטוען טענת גנב שפיר אלא למאן דאמר תרוייהו בטוען טענת גנב גנב עצמו מנא ליה
On the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Baraitha. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> that both of the verses deal with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, in which case Scripture excludes a bailee falsely alleging loss, how could [the fact that instead of] 'thief' [it is written] 'the thief' be expounded? — He might say to you that it furnishes a basis for the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba reported in the name of R. Johanan, as R. Hiyya b. Abba stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 364. ');"><sup>28</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. (1) A made a contract with B and gave him a pledge as security that he would fulfill the contract and said, "If I do not carry out the terms of the contract the pledge shall be yours."
(2) C went surety for A to B promising to pay him a certain amount if A should break the terms of the contract.*That two questions were asked of R. Meir, one regarding security, and another regarding a surety, is seen from the fact that towards the end of this Responsum (in the Pr. 130 version which deals with a pledge) R. Meir uses the phrase וכ׳׳ש ערב לא משתעבד מק׳׳ו המשכון עצמו פטור כ׳׳ש הערב, which seems to indicate that the question was also about a surety. Furthermore, Responsum Cr. 34, gives exactly the same answer as Pr. 130, regarding a surety. Do such transactions fall under the rule of asmakta (אסמכתא)?
A. Both cases fall under the rule of asmakta and are, therefore, not binding.
SOURCES: Cr. 34, Pr. 130; L. 356; Asher, Responsa 108, 27.
(2) C went surety for A to B promising to pay him a certain amount if A should break the terms of the contract.*That two questions were asked of R. Meir, one regarding security, and another regarding a surety, is seen from the fact that towards the end of this Responsum (in the Pr. 130 version which deals with a pledge) R. Meir uses the phrase וכ׳׳ש ערב לא משתעבד מק׳׳ו המשכון עצמו פטור כ׳׳ש הערב, which seems to indicate that the question was also about a surety. Furthermore, Responsum Cr. 34, gives exactly the same answer as Pr. 130, regarding a surety. Do such transactions fall under the rule of asmakta (אסמכתא)?
A. Both cases fall under the rule of asmakta and are, therefore, not binding.
SOURCES: Cr. 34, Pr. 130; L. 356; Asher, Responsa 108, 27.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy