Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Batra 342:13

אי הכי שטרי הלואה נמי זמנין דיזיף בניסן וכתיב ליה שטרא בתשרי ומתרמי ליה זוזי ביני ביני ופרע ליה ואמר ליה הב לי שטראי וא"ל אירכס לי וכתיב ליה תברא וכי מטי זמניה מפיק ליה וא"ל הני השתא הוא דיזפת מינאי

Elsewhere We learnt: Antedated bonds of indebtedness are invalid<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a creditor, who is justly entitled to seize any real estate sold by the debtor after the date of the loan, might fraudulently lay claim to lands which the borrower had sold between the date entered in the bond and the actual date of the loan, by pleading that the earlier date in the deed was the actual date of the loan. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> and postdated [ones] are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the creditor is thereby prevented from seizing any of the debtor's property that was sold between the actual date of the loan and the date in the deed. By allowing the entry of the later date he is assumed to have voluntarily surrendered his right upon such lands as were sold during the period intervening between the two dates, Sheb. X. 5. ');"><sup>24</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