Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 212:5

אי מה להלן בקלפי ואורים ותומים אף כאן בקלפי ואורים ותומים אמר רב אשי בההוא הנאה דקא צייתי להדדי גמרי ומקנו להדדי:

[should not the division] here also [be made] through<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How, then, are the shares acquired here, in the absence of the Urim and Tummim, by mere lot? ');"><sup>12</sup></span> the ballot box and the Urim and Tummim? — R. Ashi replied: [The lot alone suffices here] because [in return for] the benefit of mutual agreement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'because they listen to one another,' viz., to dissolve a partnership (Rashb.) [or to divide by lot (R. Gershom)]. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> they determine to allow each other to acquire possession [by the lot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are all so anxious to dissolve their partnership at the earliest possible moment, that they readily agree that through the lot alone every one of them shall acquire possession of his share. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Leah died leaving two sons, A and C; the former is now here but the latter is away. A demands his share of a deposit Leah had left with B. Must the latter give A his share, or may he defer the return of the deposit till C appears?
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A, B, C, and D, were partners in a loan made by them. In repayment they received a quantity of silver which they divided among themselves by lot. Subsequently, A bought B's silver and sold it to merchants [probably Gentile merchants]. The latter broke up the silver and found it mixed with base metal. A averted a calamity by pacifying the merchants with gifts of money, thus preventing their bringing false accusations against him. A demands that B reimburse him with the price of the silver, and also compensate him for the money he had spent in pacifying the merchants.
A. The sale of the silver to A is void, since it was made in error. Similarly, the division of the silver among the partners is void, even though made by lot, since that too was made in error. However, B is not required to compensate A for the money he spent in pacifying the merchants, since B did not know, at the time of the sale, that his silver contained base metal. Moreover, even if B knew the contents of his silver, he would still be absolved from paying A the money he had given to the merchants, since he was only an indirect cause of A's loss, though he would be liable to punishment by the Heavenly Court.
SOURCES: P. 48, 49.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Leah died leaving two sons, A and C; the former is now here but the latter is away. A demands his share of a deposit Leah had left with B. Must the latter give A his share, or may he defer the return of the deposit till C appears?
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Available for Premium members only
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse