Responsa for Bava Kamma 235:15
רב חסדא אמר לדעת מנין פוטר שלא לדעת צריך דעת וכי קתני ומנו את הצאן והיא שלימה ארישא
R. Johanan moreover said: If the proprietor had knowledge [of the theft], his counting will exempt [the thief], whereas if he had no knowledge [of it], it would not even be necessary to count,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. however supra 57a. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> and the words, [HE] COUNTED THE SHEEP AND FOUND [THE HERD] COMPLETE, refer [exclusively] to the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with a case where the proprietor most probably knew of the theft. ');"><sup>25</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