Responsa for Bava Metzia 196:5
זה אומר איני יודע וזה אומר כו': הא מני סומכוס היא דאמר ממון המוטל בספק חולקין
R. Abba b. Mammel propounded: What [is the ruling] if the borrowing was made together with the owner's [service], but subsequently it [the bailment] was hired without the owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whilst the animal was yet in the borrower's possession, he hired it for a further period; at the time of hiring, its owner was not in his service, though he was when the loan was made. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. C gave a pledge to the community treasurers, the collectors of the tax, as security for his share of that tax. The treasurers, however, later lost that pledge (apparently through no fault of theirs). Must C pay his share of the tax?
A. Since the overlord keeps the community responsible for the deficiency caused by the loss of C's pledge, the community is collectively held responsible for the entire tax (each individual, therefore, is responsible to the community and not to the overlord). Since C gave the pledge to the representative of the community, and it was lost while in the latter's possession, C is free from obligation. Therefore, the whole community must make up the deficiency. We can not compare this case to that of the man who betrothed a woman with a pledge (Kidd. 8b), and conclude that since the pledge was given as security only and did not constitute actual payment, that C did not as yet discharge his obligation; for the community is not obliged to pay the overlord actual cash, but may pay its tax in valuables as well as in cash. Thus the custom is that when a person gives a pledge to the community treasurer (and then fails to redeem it) the pledge is not sold but is handed over intact to the overlord's messenger, when the latter comes to demand the tax-money, in payment of that person's share of the tax, whether the pledge be worth much more than, or exactly as much as, that share of the tax. Therefore, whether a person pays cash or gives a pledge, makes no difference to the community. The second case you ask about, is exactly similar to the first. As soon as a person hands over his payment to the treasurer of the community, he is free from obligation. However, such payment must actually be made to the treasurer; mere setting aside of valuables as payment for taxes, is not sufficient.
SOURCES: Am II, 139.
A. Since the overlord keeps the community responsible for the deficiency caused by the loss of C's pledge, the community is collectively held responsible for the entire tax (each individual, therefore, is responsible to the community and not to the overlord). Since C gave the pledge to the representative of the community, and it was lost while in the latter's possession, C is free from obligation. Therefore, the whole community must make up the deficiency. We can not compare this case to that of the man who betrothed a woman with a pledge (Kidd. 8b), and conclude that since the pledge was given as security only and did not constitute actual payment, that C did not as yet discharge his obligation; for the community is not obliged to pay the overlord actual cash, but may pay its tax in valuables as well as in cash. Thus the custom is that when a person gives a pledge to the community treasurer (and then fails to redeem it) the pledge is not sold but is handed over intact to the overlord's messenger, when the latter comes to demand the tax-money, in payment of that person's share of the tax, whether the pledge be worth much more than, or exactly as much as, that share of the tax. Therefore, whether a person pays cash or gives a pledge, makes no difference to the community. The second case you ask about, is exactly similar to the first. As soon as a person hands over his payment to the treasurer of the community, he is free from obligation. However, such payment must actually be made to the treasurer; mere setting aside of valuables as payment for taxes, is not sufficient.
SOURCES: Am II, 139.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy