Responsa for Bava Kamma 229:10
רב זביד אמר כגון שנתייאשו הבעלים ביד לוקח ולא נתייאשו ביד גנב
for you might have thought that priestly portions are not subject to the law of robbery;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since they are endowments by Divine Law they always remain priestly property wherever they are, so that even where the vendor has personally delivered them to the purchaser it should be the latter alone who would be responsible to the priest. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> we are therefore told [here that this is not so]. But according to Abaye who stated that there was a difference of opinion between them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab and R. Johanan. ');"><sup>18</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