Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 308:9

אמר ליה אי עדים אלימי ומרעי שטרא איהו כל כמיניה אמר ליה והלא משמך אמרו יפה ערערו בני משפחה אמר ליה זו אלעזר אמרה אני לא אמרתי דבר זה מעולם

[that where] one admitted that he wrote a deed no attestation is required. But, surely, [Resh Lakish rejoined,] they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir and the Sages. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> are actually in dispute [on this question]; as it was taught, 'They are not believed [so far as] to invalidate it; these are the words of R. Meir. But the Sages say: They are believed'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 18b. Cf. supra 154a, q.v. for notes. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — He replied to him: [Should] he, because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if'. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> witnesses are all-powerful and [may] impair [the validity of] a deed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Witnesses, according to the Sages. are justly entitled to invalidate a deed, despite the debtor's admission that he wrote it. ');"><sup>33</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A demands that Leah return to him the money he deposited with her. Leah claims that A deposited the money with her on condition that she do not return it to him without his wife's consent. [A's wife does not consent to the return of the deposit]. Are we to believe a trustee who was appointed by the two opposing parties regarding the terms of his trusteeship, or may we require him to take an oath? Moreover, Leah is a married woman. May her husband object to her being degraded by imposing an oath on her?
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse