Responsa for Bava Metzia 55:21
אמר רבינא שמע מינה כי מכריז גלימא מכריז דאי סלקא דעתך אבידתא מכריז בעינן למטפי ליה חד יומא לעיוני במאניה אלא שמע מינה גלימא מכריז שמע מינה
R. Gamaliel said: On the seventh, which is fifteen days after the Festival,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'The Festival' without any further designation, always means Tabernacles, which lasted from the 15th to the 22nd of Tishri inclusive, Tishri being the seventh month of the year. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. R. Tam is of the opinion that a person whose claim is supported by the testimony of a single witness is entitled to collect his claim without being required to take an oath. However, the Talmud, B. M. 28a, states: Where two persons lay claim to an object found by a third, each of the two giving the proper identifying marks and one of them supporting his claim by the testimony of a single witness, the testimony of that witness is of no avail. Does not this talmudic law contradict the statement of R. Tam?
A. There is no contradiction. R. Tam means to say that whenever a person would be entitled to collect his claim were he to take an oath to support it, such an oath would not be required if he obtain the testimony of a single witness supporting the claim. Thus, the testimony of a single witness directed against a litigant has the effect of requiring an oath (denying the truth of such testimony) when otherwise no oath would have been required; and such testimony in favor of a litigant has the effect of rendering unnecessary an oath that otherwise would have been required. However, when two persons lay claim to an object found by a third and both give the proper identifying marks, no oath is accepted from either of the claimants and the object is not delivered to either of them. Therefore, the additional testimony of a single witness does not change the situation.
This Responsum is addressed to: "My teacher, and relative, Rabbi Menahem", of Würzburg.
SOURCES: L. 343; Mord. B. M. 417; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 6; Asheri B. M. 1, 3. Cf. Terumat Hadeshen 334.
A. There is no contradiction. R. Tam means to say that whenever a person would be entitled to collect his claim were he to take an oath to support it, such an oath would not be required if he obtain the testimony of a single witness supporting the claim. Thus, the testimony of a single witness directed against a litigant has the effect of requiring an oath (denying the truth of such testimony) when otherwise no oath would have been required; and such testimony in favor of a litigant has the effect of rendering unnecessary an oath that otherwise would have been required. However, when two persons lay claim to an object found by a third and both give the proper identifying marks, no oath is accepted from either of the claimants and the object is not delivered to either of them. Therefore, the additional testimony of a single witness does not change the situation.
This Responsum is addressed to: "My teacher, and relative, Rabbi Menahem", of Würzburg.
SOURCES: L. 343; Mord. B. M. 417; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 6; Asheri B. M. 1, 3. Cf. Terumat Hadeshen 334.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy