Responsa for Bava Metzia 208:13

Q. A vowed to quit gambling and promised to give one mark for a holy cause should he break his vow. He subsequently gave money to a friend to gamble for him. Must he pay the promised mark?
A. Vows are interpreted according to common parlance. If the phrase "I will not gamble again" includes, in common parlance, gambling by proxy, he must pay the fine. If, however, the implications of the phrase in common speech can not be determined, we must follow Biblical use of terms. In Biblical law a person is responsible for the acts of his agent unless the agent himself commits a sin by carrying out his mission. Although A's vow was made in the form of Asmakta, it is binding since all promises to a holy cause, even when made in the form of Asmakta, are binding.
SOURCES: Cr. 299, 300; Pr. 493, 494; L. 211, 212; Mordecai Hagadol p. 337b. Cf. Asher, Responsa 13, 2; Agudah B.K. 51.

Rabbi Dan's report in my name is correct, that when one person gives goods to another in order that the latter trade therewith and the former share in the profits, half of the value of such goods is considered a loan (the other half is considered a deposit), even to the extent that a Sabbatical year effects its cancellation. I always consider it a loan in every respect. The law that such half be considered a loan is stated in the Talmud without qualification (B. M. 104b). The stipulations of Raba are specific; they do not go beyond those mentioned by Raba.
R. Meir adds: Your requests, Rabbi Samuel and Rabbi Dan, that I forgive Rabbi Hananiah for his insults to me are granted. I fully absolve him of guilt.
SOURCES: P. 304; Pr. 973; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 12; Mord. B. M. 390.

Q. A rebellious wife who refuses to live with her husband admits that she has never allowed her husband to come near her. What should be done to her?
A. Since the women of our generation are loose in their manner of life, we do not permit the husband to remarry while she is forced to remain single till old age, which procedure was recommended by R. Eleazar b. Nathan, and we do not require a waiting period of twelve months till the divorce be granted. Therefore, the elders of the community should endeavor to persuade both parties to a speedy divorce without resorting to coercion of either party. Upon the granting of the divorce the woman should receive only what she actually brought in as dowry, but not the full fifty pounds of dowry written in her ketubah; for when the husband received her dowry and evaluated it at fifty pounds, though actually it was worth less, he did so because he wanted to marry her and live with her. Now that she refuses to live with him she loses the extra value placed on her dowry, the additional jointure promised her by the husband, as well as the 200 zuzin prescribed by the Talmud. Though in this country the same amount of dowry is written in the ketubah of a rich as in that of a poor bride, irrespective of the amount she actually brings in, in order not to shame the brides who bring in a small dowry, this rebellious wife is not entitled to collect the full amount of dowry written in her ketubah, since she never lived with her husband.
SOURCES: Pr. 442–443.