Responsa for Bava Batra 174:1

והתנן הרכינה ומיצה הרי זו תרומה

but have we not [also] learnt: '[If the vessel]1 has been inclined, the accumulation from the remnants [on its sides] is terumah'?2 — He replied unto him: Surely about this it has been said: R. Abbahu said [the accumulation belongs to the seller] because the law of the owner's resignation is applied to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The buyer of the liquid, who becomes its owner, does not expect any more of it after the three drops from the sides had been drained. In the case of terumah, however, the principle of 'resignation' does not apply, as the remnants, however insignificant, are forbidden to a non-priest. ');">3

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A sent his valuables, through C, to be deposited with B. Subsequently, C left for a distant country without informing A whether or not he had carried out A's instructions. Are we to presume that a deputy generally carries out his commission, and that A therefore may claim to be positive that his valuables had been delivered to B, thus obligating the latter to take an oath in support of his denial?
A. In money matters we do not presume that a deputy has carried out his commission.
Q. B admits that C had delivered the valuables to him, but claims that he subsequently returned them to C.
A. B is to be held responsible for A's valuables, for, the fact that A trusted C to be his deputy in delivering the valuables to B, does not mean that he trusted C as a depositee for an extended period of time. Therefore, B had no right to redeposit A's valuables with C.
This Responsum was addressed to Rabbi Asher.
SOURCES: Cr. 26, 28; Am II, 221. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 92; ibid. 107.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Full Chapter Next Verse