Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Kamma 72:6

במאי אוקימתא כר' ישמעאל אי הכי אימא סיפא ר' שמעון אומר שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים ואין הנבלה יפה כלום זה נוטל מנה וזה נוטל מנה

How then have you explained the Mishnah? As being in accordance with R. Ishmael! If so, what of the next clause: R. SIMEON SAYS: WHERE AN OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] HAS GORED AN OX OF THE SAME VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE CARCASS HAD NO VALUE AT ALL, THE PLAINTIFF WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> AND THE DEFENDANT WILL SIMILARLY GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i> [OUT OF THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE]. SHOULD THE SAME OX HAVE GORED ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE SECOND CLAIMANT WILL GET A HUNDRED <i>ZUZ</i>, WHILE THE FORMER CLAIMANT WILL GET ONLY FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i>, AND THE DEFENDANT WILL HAVE FIFTY <i>ZUZ</i> [IN THE BODY OF THE OX]. SHOULD THE OX HAVE GORED YET ANOTHER OX OF THE VALUE OF TWO HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], THE THIRD PLAINTIFF WILL GET A HUNDRED [<i>ZUZ</i>], WHILE THE SECOND PLAINTIFF WILL GET FIFTY [<i>ZUZ</i>] AND THE FIRST TWO PARTIES WILL HAVE A GOLD <i>DENAR</i> [EACH IN THE BODY OF THE OX THAT DID THE DAMAGE]. This brings us back [does it not] to the view of R. Akiba, who maintains that the ox becomes the common property [of the plaintiff and the defendant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if otherwise, why should the first two parties (the owner and the first claimant) always be treated alike? ');"><sup>5</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. While critically ill, Mrs. Maimona said to the representative of the community that after her death the following matters should be attended to at her expense: 1) That the oil-lamp which burns during the services in the memory of her departed daughter, should be made to burn continuously day and night; 2) that every Friday evening a half-pound waxen candle should be lit in the synagogue in her memory; and 3) that half a mark should be expended on a kiddush-cup for the synagogue. When the representative asked her as to the source of the money for these expenditures, she answered pointing at an adjoining room: "You will find sufficient valuables and money in that room." The following day, a Friday, she called her brother Zemah and told him, in the presence of witnesses, to take for himself and for his sisters everything he finds in the room mentioned above. On the following Sunday, the representatives of the community came and asked her the whereabouts of the money she promised for the synagogue, but she refused to reveal anything. The representatives, therefore, broke into the room and took everything they found there. They also pronounced the herem against anyone who would not return to the community valuables or money belonging to Mrs. M. which might be in his possession. R. Isaac ha-Kohen admitted that Mrs. M. had deposited eight Cologne-marks with him and had told him that after her death he should do with the money "the proper thing."
A. Mrs. M. probably withdrew her promise to donate something to the synagogue. A gift made causa mortis even to a holy cause can be rescinded. The money and valuables found in her room, therefore, belong half to R. Zemah and half to his sisters. R. Isaac must return the eight marks to Mrs. M's heirs, for the proper thing to do with money of a deceased person, is to return it to the heirs.
This Resp. is addressed to R. Jacob and the community of Linpurk.
SOURCES: Pr. 998: Mord. B. B. 624; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 326d; Agudah B. B. 202. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 75; Isserlein, Pesakim 73.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse