Responsa for Bava Kamma 80:12
רבה אמר מדרישא רשות אינה משנה סיפא נמי רשות אינה משנה וסיפא היינו טעמא משום דא"ל לאו כל כמינך דמייעדת ליה לתוראי
<i>And give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pointing thus to the last creditor. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. We are in doubt concerning the implications of the following ruling of the scholars of Nehardea: When one person gives goods to another in order that the latter trade therewith and the former share in the profits, half of the value of such goods is considered a loan (at the risk of the active partner) and the other half, a trust (at the risk of the investor). Does this statement imply that the part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans, even to the extent of being cancelled by a Sabbatical year? Would it not work to the disadvantage of the investor?
A. That part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans and is subject to cancellation by a Sabbatical year. However, the investor can safeguard his interests by writing a Prosbol.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah.
SOURCES: L. 490; Mord. B. M. 390.
A. That part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans and is subject to cancellation by a Sabbatical year. However, the investor can safeguard his interests by writing a Prosbol.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah.
SOURCES: L. 490; Mord. B. M. 390.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy