Responsa for Bava Batra 84:3
אמרי לה להאי גיסא ואמרי לה להאי גיסא
and can stand to one another in the relation of paid keepers [of their common property].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If some of the joint property is stolen while in possession of A, B can claim from him restitution of his share in the same way as he could claim from someone in whose charge he had placed it for a fee, A's 'fee' being constituted by B's willingness to take charge of it with the same responsibility for a similar period. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> R. Abba pointed out the following contradiction to R. Judah in the [burial] cave of R. Zakkai's field: Did Samuel really say that a partner has <i>hazakah</i>? Has not Samuel said that a partner is regarded as having freedom of entry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., permission from the other partner to work the whole of the joint field for his own benefit. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A Jew should be ransomed even against his express will, and be charged with the expenses incurred. A captive in the hands of Gentiles is exposed to ruthless treatment and incessant flogging, and his very life is in danger. Therefore, anyone who effects the ransom of a Jew is praiseworthy and is entitled to the expenses incurred. Moreover, Jews threatened by a common danger may force one another to contribute of their means to the measures that will free them of that danger. A and B have to share the expenses in proportion to their wealth, since they were captured for the purpose of extorting money from them.
R. Meir adds that this question had already been sent to him from Magdeburg. He had also been asked concerning a tutor who was arrested because of a false accusation, and who requested his former employer not to ransom him. R. Meir's answer was the same.
SOURCES: Pr. 39; L. 345, cf. Mord. B. K. 58–59; Cr. 32–33; Am. II, 128; Tesh-Maim. Nezikin, 17. Weil, Responsa 148; ibid. 149; Moses Minz, Responsa 1.
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Whatever one partner does is binding on all other partners unless they openly protest against that partner's acts. Since B did not protest at the time of the first negotiations, he is bound by the subsequent agreement.
SOURCES: Pr. 961.