Responsa for Bava Metzia 187:10
ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא בשלא קנו מידו בההיא הנאה דקא נפיק ליה קלא דאיניש מהימנא הוא גמיר ומשעבד נפשיה:
But can you assign it to R. Judah? Then consider the second clause: A STIPULATION CONTRARY TO A SCRIPTURAL ENACTMENT is NULL: does not this agree with R. Meir? — That is no difficulty; in truth, it is R. Judah's view, but this second clause does not refer to civil matters. Then consider the latter clause: EVERY STIPULATION WHICH IS PRECEDED BY AN ACTION IS NULL. Now, whom do you know to hold this view? R. Meir. For it has been taught: Abba Halafta, of Kefar Hananiah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [A village in Galilee, v. Klein, S., NB, p. 28.] ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. B lent money to A. The latter promised to give to the former half of the profits he would derive from all his business transactions, including those transactions in which money borrowed from a third party would be employed. Is this promise binding on A?
A. If the promise was accompanied by a kinyan in the presence of witnesses, it is binding; otherwise it is a mere asmakhta (exaggerated promise) and is not binding.
SOURCES: Pr. 676.
A. If the promise was accompanied by a kinyan in the presence of witnesses, it is binding; otherwise it is a mere asmakhta (exaggerated promise) and is not binding.
SOURCES: Pr. 676.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy