Responsa for Bava Batra 271:11

רב פפי אמר איכא אקניתא דצריך ואיכא אקניתא דלא צריך אקנייה וקנינא מיניה לא צריך קנינא מיניה ואקנייה צריך

[about] the halachah?' 'You inquire of him,' said [R. Huna] 'whether the halachah [is according to R. Jose] or not; and as to his reason I will tell you [it later].' [Thereupon, R. Nahman] inquired of [Rabbah], who replied to him, 'Thus said Rab: The halachah [is] in accordance with [the view of] R. Jose'. When29 they came out, [R. Huna] said to him.30 'This is R. Jose's reason: He is of the opinion that the date of the deed proves its import,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the presentation of the gift is to begin on that day (though the expression 'from that day' was not inserted). Had it been intended to postpone the presentation till after death, there would have been no point in recording the date of the deed. ');">31

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A demands from B the money his mother deposited with B, to be given to A after her death. B claims that A's mother gave him the money on condition that he return it to her, in case she needs it herself, or else give it to A after her death.
A. According to B's statement, A never gained title to the money since it was not given to him as a gift causa mortis, and he did not perform the formal act of possession necessary in order to gain title to an ordinary gift. His brothers, therefore inherited their share of the money. However, if A claims that he was present when his mother deposited the money with B, and that this money was thus deposited specifically for his benefit, as a gift causa mortis, B must swear that the facts are as he claims them to be.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Menahem ha-Levi.
SOURCES: Cr. 38; Pr. 420–421; Mord. B. B. 592; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 321c.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B promised his young daughter in marriage to A's minor son. He gave A a written document obligating himself, from the time of the promise, to be A's debtor for 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks should his daughter refuse to accept kiddushin from B's son when he will have arrived at his majority, or in case A himself should refuse to accept the kiddushin for his daughter. B died before A's son reached the age of 13, and his daughter married someone else. Now A demands the 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks from B's heirs.
A. Since B has been prevented, by death, from fulfilling his promise, he never became obligated to pay the 20^*In some sources (Pr. 50, L. 355) the reading is “marks.” The discrepancy arose because of the similarity of the two Hebrew letters of Khaf and Beth, which stand for 20 and 2 respectively. The Cremona source and the Mord., however, used the word Esrim, 20, specifically. marks to A. Consequently his heirs owe nothing to A.
This question was also sent to R. Meir by his father, R. Baruch, who was one of the judges in this case.
SOURCES: Cr. 31; Pr. 50; Pr. 939; L. 355; Mord. B.M. 247; cf. Jacob Weil, Responsa 105; ibid. 142.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse