Responsa for Bava Kamma 92:9
וכן פרה שנגחה את השור [וכו'] חצי נזק ורביע נזק פלגא נזקא הוא דבעי שלומי כולי נזקא נכי רבעא מאי עבידתיה
Is it not common sense that if a man has a pain he visits the healer? No: the purpose of the verse is to corroborate the statement made by R. Nahman on behalf of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Whence can we learn that judges should give prior consideration to the first plaintiff?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where A instituted an action against B, and B on appearance introduced a counter-claim against A; cf. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l., and Sanh. 35a. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
R. Asher disagrees with R. Hayyim Eliezer, and maintains that the rule of Asmakta is not applicable in this case. B is considered the agent of A, since the latter voiced no protest when B bound himself, in the presence of A to reconcile C for damages, in the event of a breach of promise. Under these arrangements, the sale was then completed, and the fulfillment of the terms rested with A.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy