Responsa for Bava Metzia 187:17

Q. One of the witnesses to a document subsequently became related to the beneficiary named in the document.
A. The document has no value unless witnesses testify that they saw the document, and recognized the signatures of the witnesses, in the hands of its present possessor before the witness in question became a relative of the beneficiary.
SOURCES: Pr. 115, 919, Am. II, 101; Mord. Sanh. 696. This Responsum relates to Pr. 50. In Cr. 31, L. 355, the two parts are printed together.

Q. B promised his young daughter in marriage to A's minor son. He gave A a written document obligating himself, from the time of the promise, to be A's debtor for 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks should his daughter refuse to accept kiddushin from B's son when he will have arrived at his majority, or in case A himself should refuse to accept the kiddushin for his daughter. B died before A's son reached the age of 13, and his daughter married someone else. Now A demands the 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks from B's heirs.
A. Since B has been prevented, by death, from fulfilling his promise, he never became obligated to pay the 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks to A. Consequently his heirs owe nothing to A.
This question was also sent to R. Meir by his father, R. Baruch, who was one of the judges in this case.
SOURCES: Cr. 31; Pr. 50; Pr. 939; L. 355; Mord. B.M. 247; cf. Jacob Weil, Responsa 105; ibid. 142.

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.

Q. B promised his young daughter in marriage to A's minor son. He gave A a written document obligating himself, from the time of the promise, to be A's debtor for 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks should his daughter refuse to accept kiddushin from B's son when he will have arrived at his majority, or in case A himself should refuse to accept the kiddushin for his daughter. B died before A's son reached the age of 13, and his daughter married someone else. Now A demands the 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks from B's heirs.
A. Since B has been prevented, by death, from fulfilling his promise, he never became obligated to pay the 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks to A. Consequently his heirs owe nothing to A.
This question was also sent to R. Meir by his father, R. Baruch, who was one of the judges in this case.
SOURCES: Cr. 31; Pr. 50; Pr. 939; L. 355; Mord. B.M. 247; cf. Jacob Weil, Responsa 105; ibid. 142.

Q. The leaders of a community decided to introduce a new method of taxation whereby real property was to be taxed at the same rate as money. Prior thereto, real property was not so taxed. Are leaders of a community empowered to introduce such a change in the method of taxation?
A. No; a change in an accepted custom, which will benefit some members of the community at the expense of others, can be introduced only by unanimous consent of the members.
R. Meir adds that throughout the kingdom, no taxes on real property are levied by the Jewish communities; that those whose wealth consisted mostly of money, attempted several times to introduce a change and tax real property; and that he, R. Meir, did not permit the enforcement of the change, for the reason quoted above.
SOURCES: Pr. 941; Mord. B. B. 481; Agudah B. B. 20. Cf. Weil, Responsa 84; Menahem of Merseburg, Nimmukim (44); Moses Minz, Responsa 63a; Terumat Hadeshen 342.