Responsa for Bava Kamma 229:1
לא צריך לאהדורי עליה כולי האי
it would not be necessary to be so particular.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi, as to require evidence regarding the identity of the books; but according to Maim. all the other circumscriptions are similarly dispensed with (Wilna Gaon). ');"><sup>1</sup></span> But he might perhaps have been in need of money and thus compelled to sell [some of his articles]? — Said R. Ashi: There is the fact that a rumour of burglary in his place had been current in town.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is some circumstantial evidence to corroborate the plaintiff's allegations. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A's house was robbed and he reported this in town. Subsequently, he recognized one of his books in B's possession B had bought the book from C who had bought it from a Gentile. Moreover, A does not usually sell his books. B, therefore, stated under oath the price he paid for the book; but A constantly deferred payment of that amount.
A. A owes that amount to B. Since the court has a right to distrain a debtor's article for the benefit of the creditor, the court may surely confirm B in the possession of the book after the latter pays to A the difference between its actual value and the price he had originally paid. If B paid C for the book more than the latter paid to the Gentile, C must return the difference to A.
SOURCES: Am II. 138.
A. A owes that amount to B. Since the court has a right to distrain a debtor's article for the benefit of the creditor, the court may surely confirm B in the possession of the book after the latter pays to A the difference between its actual value and the price he had originally paid. If B paid C for the book more than the latter paid to the Gentile, C must return the difference to A.
SOURCES: Am II. 138.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy