Responsa for Bava Kamma 224:16
ואי מירחק ואיכא קרובים אי נמי איכא שיירתא דאזלי ואתו התם משהינן ליה תריסר ירחי שתא עד דאזלא ואתי שיירתא כי הא דרבינא שהא למר אחא תריסר ירחי שתא עד דאזלא ואתייא שיירתא מבי חוזאי
of the week and come back on the fourth day of the week so that on the fifth day of the week he himself can appear in the Court of Law. Rabina said: The usher of the Court of Law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of our Rabbis'. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> is as credible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When stating that the party refuses to appear before the Court. ');"><sup>29</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. R. Moses, the plaintiff, was not present when the defendants, the Jewish inhabitants of Quedlinburg, took an oath in order to nullify the testimony of R. Moses' single supporting witness; must they take the oath again in the presence of R. Moses?
A. If the oath has been legally administered by a proper person (who is related neither to R. Moses nor to the inhabitants of Quedlinburg) there is no need for another oath.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah, and is the second communication regarding this case.
SOURCES: Pr. 231; L. 382; Tesh. Maim. to Haflaah, 1. Cf. P. 514; Mord. Ket. 296–7.
A. If the oath has been legally administered by a proper person (who is related neither to R. Moses nor to the inhabitants of Quedlinburg) there is no need for another oath.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah, and is the second communication regarding this case.
SOURCES: Pr. 231; L. 382; Tesh. Maim. to Haflaah, 1. Cf. P. 514; Mord. Ket. 296–7.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. In the dispute between A and B the court found that B owed A money. A demanded either immediate payment, or that B put up a bond to insure such payment. B, however, asked for the usual thirty days' interval in which to carry out the decision of the court. Are A's demands justified?
A. B is entitled to the thirty days' interval. The system of justice current in Israel is guaranty enough for A that after the thirty days will have passed the court will enforce its ruling. The reason for allowing a person only thirty days within which to comply with a court's decision, while, according to the Talmud, an adrakta is written after a ninety day interval, is this: An adrakta is written when the court finds no property from which to collect; but, if the property of the debtor is within reach, a judgment is enforced after the thirty days' interval has passed.
SOURCES: L. 267; P. 297.
A. B is entitled to the thirty days' interval. The system of justice current in Israel is guaranty enough for A that after the thirty days will have passed the court will enforce its ruling. The reason for allowing a person only thirty days within which to comply with a court's decision, while, according to the Talmud, an adrakta is written after a ninety day interval, is this: An adrakta is written when the court finds no property from which to collect; but, if the property of the debtor is within reach, a judgment is enforced after the thirty days' interval has passed.
SOURCES: L. 267; P. 297.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. In the dispute between A and B the court found that B owed A money. A demanded either immediate payment, or that B put up a bond to insure such payment. B, however, asked for the usual thirty days' interval in which to carry out the decision of the court. Are A's demands justified?
A. B is entitled to the thirty days' interval. The system of justice current in Israel is guaranty enough for A that after the thirty days will have passed the court will enforce its ruling. The reason for allowing a person only thirty days within which to comply with a court's decision, while, according to the Talmud, an adrakta is written after a ninety day interval, is this: An adrakta is written when the court finds no property from which to collect; but, if the property of the debtor is within reach, a judgment is enforced after the thirty days' interval has passed.
SOURCES: L. 267; P. 297.
A. B is entitled to the thirty days' interval. The system of justice current in Israel is guaranty enough for A that after the thirty days will have passed the court will enforce its ruling. The reason for allowing a person only thirty days within which to comply with a court's decision, while, according to the Talmud, an adrakta is written after a ninety day interval, is this: An adrakta is written when the court finds no property from which to collect; but, if the property of the debtor is within reach, a judgment is enforced after the thirty days' interval has passed.
SOURCES: L. 267; P. 297.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy