Responsa for Bava Kamma 158:15
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר אין מגדלין בהמה דקה בא"י אבל מגדלין בחורשין שבארץ ישראל בסוריא אפילו בישוב ואין צריך לומר בחוצה לארץ
IN JERUSALEM ON ACCOUNT OF THE SACRIFICES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are eaten there and might easily be defiled by some impurity brought by the chickens. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> NOR MAY PRIESTS DO SO THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE OF ERETZ YISRAEL, ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR FOOD<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consisting mainly of terumah (v. Glos.). ');"><sup>28</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