Responsa for Bava Kamma 126:10
דתניא (שמות כב, ז) ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים לשבועה אתה אומר לשבועה או אינו אלא לדין נאמר שליחות יד למטה ונאמר שליחות יד למעלה מה להלן לשבועה אף כאן לשבועה
You say that it deals with the thief himself. Why, however, not say that it is not so, but that it deals with a bailee falsely alleging theft? — When it further states, If the thief be not found this gives us the case of a bailee falsely alleging theft, How then can I explain [the verse] If the thief be found unless on the supposition that this deals with the thief himself!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was found to have stolen the deposit, in which case the unpaid bailee is quit and the thief pays double. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> We see at any rate that all agree that [the verse] If the thief be not found deals with a bailee falsely alleging theft. But how is this implied [in the wording of the text]? — Raba said: [We understand the verse to say that] if it will not be found as he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bailee. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
(2) C went surety for A to B promising to pay him a certain amount if A should break the terms of the contract.*That two questions were asked of R. Meir, one regarding security, and another regarding a surety, is seen from the fact that towards the end of this Responsum (in the Pr. 130 version which deals with a pledge) R. Meir uses the phrase וכ׳׳ש ערב לא משתעבד מק׳׳ו המשכון עצמו פטור כ׳׳ש הערב, which seems to indicate that the question was also about a surety. Furthermore, Responsum Cr. 34, gives exactly the same answer as Pr. 130, regarding a surety. Do such transactions fall under the rule of asmakta (אסמכתא)?
A. Both cases fall under the rule of asmakta and are, therefore, not binding.
SOURCES: Cr. 34, Pr. 130; L. 356; Asher, Responsa 108, 27.