Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 174:6

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בשלמא באיסר ושמן בהא פליגי דרבנן סברי לאודועי שדריה ור' יהודה סבר לשדורי ליה שדרי' אלא שבר צלוחית אבדה מדעת היא

and R. Judah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who absolves the shopkeeper. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> maintains that [the father] has sent [the child] in order that [the shopkeeper] should send him [back with the things]; but, [as regards the] breaking of the bottle, [why should the Rabbis lay the responsibility on the shopkeeper]? It is a loss, [surely], for which its owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the father of the child. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> was well prepared!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By entrusting the bottle to the child, the father had shown that he was prepared to take the risk. ');"><sup>16</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