Responsa for Bava Kamma 226:2

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא בכנעני הא בגר תושב

to emphasise that he must be very precise in making the valuation with him who had bought him.'3 — Said R. Joseph: There is no difficulty, here [where the exception is made it refers] only to a heathen, whereas there [is indeed no exception] in the case of a Ger Toshab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], Lit., 'a stranger-settler,' a resident alien of a different race and of a different religion, since he respects the covenant of the law made by God with all the children of Noah, i.e., the Seven Commandments forming the elementary principles of civilised humanity, he is a citizen enjoying all the rights and privileges of civil law. ');">4

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A, B, C, and D, were partners in a loan made by them. In repayment they received a quantity of silver which they divided among themselves by lot. Subsequently, A bought B's silver and sold it to merchants [probably Gentile merchants]. The latter broke up the silver and found it mixed with base metal. A averted a calamity by pacifying the merchants with gifts of money, thus preventing their bringing false accusations against him. A demands that B reimburse him with the price of the silver, and also compensate him for the money he had spent in pacifying the merchants.
A. The sale of the silver to A is void, since it was made in error. Similarly, the division of the silver among the partners is void, even though made by lot, since that too was made in error. However, B is not required to compensate A for the money he spent in pacifying the merchants, since B did not know, at the time of the sale, that his silver contained base metal. Moreover, even if B knew the contents of his silver, he would still be absolved from paying A the money he had given to the merchants, since he was only an indirect cause of A's loss, though he would be liable to punishment by the Heavenly Court.
SOURCES: P. 48, 49.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A owes money to B and B owes the same amount to a Gentile. B told A, in the presence of the Gentile, to pay his debt directly to the Gentile. The Gentile released B and depended upon A for payment. A successfully avoids payment to the Gentile because of an old debt due him from the latter. Since, according to Jewish law, the transaction was not valid and A's indebtedness to B was not legally transferred to the Gentile, A must pay his debt to B. But why should B be permitted to rob the Gentile? Is not robbing a Gentile prohibited? Moreover, the Gentile presses A for payment and eventually may force A to pay him his money; must A pay his debt to B?
A. Robbing a Gentile is prohibited, but one is permitted to annul a Gentile's debt (if he can do so by using plausible excuses and without causing the name of the Lord to be profaned). But, if A will be forced to pay the debt to the Gentile, he will not have to pay anything to B.
SOURCES: Cr. 227; Pr. 327; L. 385; Am II, 119.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy