Responsa for Bava Metzia 115:17
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A community employed A as cantor, ritual slaughterer and examiner (שוחט ובודק). The butchers, however, refused to allow A to perform his duties as examiner on the ground that he was a slow worker, and that the Gentile butchers resented his slowness.
A. If Gentile butchers are generally dissatisfied with ritual examiners as slow as A, he must appease the butchers or forfeit his wages as an examiner. If, however, Gentile butchers do not generally resent the slowness of an examiner, and it happens that only the Gentile butchers of that particular town do, A is entitled to the wages of an idle laborer [פועל בטל, i. e., the minimum wages a laborer of A's category would be willing to receive in order to abstain from work] since he was not informed of this condition at the time he was hired.
SOURCES: Pr. 90.
A. If Gentile butchers are generally dissatisfied with ritual examiners as slow as A, he must appease the butchers or forfeit his wages as an examiner. If, however, Gentile butchers do not generally resent the slowness of an examiner, and it happens that only the Gentile butchers of that particular town do, A is entitled to the wages of an idle laborer [פועל בטל, i. e., the minimum wages a laborer of A's category would be willing to receive in order to abstain from work] since he was not informed of this condition at the time he was hired.
SOURCES: Pr. 90.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
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
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
Q - A asserts that he had deposited a book and clothing with B, as security for money he owed, when he purchased wine from the latter. A alleges that the pledges were worth more than double the amount of the debt. A now wants to redeem the pledges and demands their return from B.
B concedes that A had pawned these articles with him as security for the debt. However, B avers that A refused to allow the former to personally hold the clothing for safekeeping, but insisted that B's daughter L, should guard the clothing, along with her own clothes. B maintains that A had consented to deposit the book with the former, and it is still in his possession. B declares that he will return the book only when A pays his debt.
L alleges that A's clothing was stolen. B contends that he was not responsible for the clothing and insists that A take L, and not the former, to court regarding the return of the clothing.
B disputes A's contention that the pledges were worth more than twice the amount of the debt. B claims he had the pledges appraised beforehand, and had found that they were not even equal to the amount of the debt.
A, however, professes that he had deposited the pledges with B, and avouches that they were valued at twice the amount of the debt. A demands that these pledges be returned by B.
B concedes that A had pawned these articles with him as security for the debt. However, B avers that A refused to allow the former to personally hold the clothing for safekeeping, but insisted that B's daughter L, should guard the clothing, along with her own clothes. B maintains that A had consented to deposit the book with the former, and it is still in his possession. B declares that he will return the book only when A pays his debt.
L alleges that A's clothing was stolen. B contends that he was not responsible for the clothing and insists that A take L, and not the former, to court regarding the return of the clothing.
B disputes A's contention that the pledges were worth more than twice the amount of the debt. B claims he had the pledges appraised beforehand, and had found that they were not even equal to the amount of the debt.
A, however, professes that he had deposited the pledges with B, and avouches that they were valued at twice the amount of the debt. A demands that these pledges be returned by B.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
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