Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 174:4

ת"ש דתניא רבי יהודה אומר ערב שבת עם חשכה חנווני פטור מפני שחנווני טרוד:

AND [THE SHOPKEEPER] MEASURED OUT FOR HIM OIL FOR ONE ISAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That on Sabbath eve towards dusk, it is not to be applied. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> AND GAVE HIM THE [OTHER] ISAR, [AND ON HIS WAY HOME THE CHILD] BROKE THE BOTTLE [WHICH HIS FATHER HAD SENT WITH HIM] AND LOST THE ISAR [GIVEN HIM AS CHANGE], THE SHOPKEEPER IS [LIABLE FOR ALL THE LOSSES.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the bottle, the oil and the isar. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> R. JUDAH ABSOLVES [THE SHOPKEEPER], SINCE FOR THAT PURPOSE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of bringing home, from the shopkeeper, the oil and the isar as well as the bottle. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>

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
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse