Responsa for Bava Metzia 199:4
המוכר אומר קטן מכרתי והלה אומר איני יודע אין לו אלא קטן
Then let us presume the ownership of the first master, and apply to the other the principle, He who claims from his neighbour bears the onus of proof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For when the ownership of an object is in dispute, one may presume that it has not changed hands, unless there is proof to the contrary. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A owed money to several persons. When B demanded his money from A, the latter admitted the debt but claimed that since he did not possess enough money or valuables to cover all his obligations, he preferred to divide his possessions equitably among his creditors. Since A admits, in court, his debt to B, may the latter force A to repay that debt in full, before he divides his property?
A. Since A owes money to several persons, and since he owes more than the total value of his possessions, each creditor is entitled to receive an equal share of such possessions irrespective of the amount due him. The debtor, however, may distribute his assets among his creditors in proportion to the amount due to each, before they come to court; such distribution would be irrevocable, and would even constitute a praiseworthy act. Since A is willing so to divide his possessions, no judge can force him to favor one creditor at the expense of the other creditors. However, before receiving his share of A's possessions, movables or immovables, each creditor will have to take a creditor's oath — the same oath that a creditor takes upon collecting his debt from encumbered property.
SOURCES: Cr. 219; Am II, 45; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 41.
A. Since A owes money to several persons, and since he owes more than the total value of his possessions, each creditor is entitled to receive an equal share of such possessions irrespective of the amount due him. The debtor, however, may distribute his assets among his creditors in proportion to the amount due to each, before they come to court; such distribution would be irrevocable, and would even constitute a praiseworthy act. Since A is willing so to divide his possessions, no judge can force him to favor one creditor at the expense of the other creditors. However, before receiving his share of A's possessions, movables or immovables, each creditor will have to take a creditor's oath — the same oath that a creditor takes upon collecting his debt from encumbered property.
SOURCES: Cr. 219; Am II, 45; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 41.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy