Responsa for Bava Kamma 235:4
על מנת לצאת במדבר: פשיטא לא צריכא דא"ל ליהוי האי פקדון גבך דאנא למדבר נפיקנא וא"ל איהו אנא למדבר נמי בעינא למיפק אי בעינא לאהדרינהו לך התם מהדרנא לך:
[BUT IF THE TRANSACTION WAS ORIGINALLY MADE] UPON THE STIPULATION THAT HE WAS GOING INTO THE WILDERNESS, HE MAY MAKE RESTORATION EVEN WHILE IN THE WILDERNESS. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. A contradiction could be raised [from the following:] 'A loan can be paid in all places, whereas a lost article [which was found], or a deposit cannot be restored save in a place suitable for this'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is this not against the teaching of the Mishnah? ');"><sup>7</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