Responsa for Bava Kamma 126:17
אמר לך הקישא הוא ואין משיבין על הקישא
— It may be replied that one is to exclude the case of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]. Now on the supposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the second Baraitha. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> that one verse deals with a thief and the other with [a bailee falsely] alleging theft, in which case there will be no superfluous verse [in the text] whence can we derive the exclusion of a false allegation of loss [from entailing double payment]? — From [the definite article; as instead of] 'thief' [it is written] 'the thief'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus pointing out that the liability for double payment is only where it was the plea of theft that was proved to have been false. ');"><sup>27</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.