Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Kamma 230:2

שטף נחל חמורו וחמור חבירו שלו יפה מנה ושל חבירו מאתים והניח זה את שלו והציל את של חבירו אין לו אלא שכרו ואם אמר לו אני אציל את שלך ואתה נותן לי את שלי חייב ליתן לו:

AND HE LEFT HIS OWN ASS [TO ITS FATE], AND RESCUED THE OTHER MAN'S ASS, HE WOULD BE ABLE TO CLAIM NO MORE THAN THE VALUE OF HIS SERVICES; BUT IF HE SAID TO HIM [AT THE OUTSET], 'I AM GOING TO RESCUE YOUR ASS AND I EXPECT TO BE PAID AT LEAST THE VALUE OF MY ASS,' THE OTHER WOULD HAVE TO PAY HIM [ACCORDINGLY]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But why [should the rescuer] not be entitled to say, 'I have acquired title to the rescued object<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the honey by receiving it in my receptacle. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> as it became ownerless'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the jug cracked and the loss of the honey became imminent there is implied Renunciation on the part of the owner; v. also supra p. 670 and B.M. 22a. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B claims that he gave A fifteen pounds to lend it on interest for two years and then give the principal and the interest to B's son if he should consent to marry A's daughter. B's son, however, refused to marry A's daughter and B wants his money back. A claims that he had originally accepted B's money as a dowry for his daughter, that he had taken possession of the gift for her, and that the money, therefore, belongs to her.
A. A dowry gift becomes the property of the donee only if the marriage takes place. Therefore, neither A nor his daughter has ever gained title to B's money, and A must return the principal plus the interest to B. Even if B expressly stipulated that he will forfeit the 15 pounds if the marriage does not take place, such a stipulation is considered an Asmakhta and is not valid. B, however, must pay A for his trouble in managing B's investments.
SOURCES: Cr. 86; Pr. 285; Mord. B.B. 615; Agudah B.B. 198.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A's heirs demand from B A's Humash (one book of the Pentateuch) which witnesses saw in B's possession. B claims that A deposited the book with him as security for the two marks A owed him. Some of A's heirs admit having heard A say before his death that the book was deposited with B as a pledge. Is a Humash classified as an object which is usually borrowed or hired and regarding which a person is, therefore, not believed when he claims to have received it as a pledge?
A. Throughout the kingdom, Rashi's view is accepted that a Humash is not an object that is usually borrowed or hired. B therefore may take an oath that the book was pledged with him for two marks. However, B should be careful in taking his oath; for, if A did not actually owe him two marks, but promised to give B two marks if the latter effect a reconciliation between A and his son, A became indebted to B only for the latter's wages for the time and effort expended, but not for full two marks.
SOURCES: Pr. 1007.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse