Responsa for Bava Kamma 126:7
תניא אידך אם ימצא הגנב בגנב עצמו הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בגנב עצמו או אינו אלא בטוען טענת גנב כשהוא אומר אם לא ימצא הגנב הרי טוען טענת גנב אמור הא מה אני מקיים אם ימצא הגנב בגנב עצמו הכתוב מדבר
who falsely alleges theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The clause therefore means this: if he (the bailee) be found to have been the thief, he should pay double. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Or perhaps not so, but with the thief himself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the bailee would never have to pay double. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. (1) A made a contract with B and gave him a pledge as security that he would fulfill the contract and said, "If I do not carry out the terms of the contract the pledge shall be yours."
(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.
(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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy