Responsa for Bava Kamma 229:18
משכנתא שוי מאתן במאה עשו בו תקנת השוק שוה בשוה אמימר אמר לא עשו בו תקנת השוק מר זוטרא אמר עשו בו תקנת השוק
may sue the second, i.e., the claim of the purchaser for repayment should be against the proprietors since the benefit of market overt does apply also here.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the theft has definitely been established. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> But does Rab really maintain that the benefit of market overt should not apply here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the theft has definitely been established. ');"><sup>31</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A's house was robbed and he reported this in town. Subsequently, he recognized one of his books in B's possession B had bought the book from C who had bought it from a Gentile. Moreover, A does not usually sell his books. B, therefore, stated under oath the price he paid for the book; but A constantly deferred payment of that amount.
A. A owes that amount to B. Since the court has a right to distrain a debtor's article for the benefit of the creditor, the court may surely confirm B in the possession of the book after the latter pays to A the difference between its actual value and the price he had originally paid. If B paid C for the book more than the latter paid to the Gentile, C must return the difference to A.
SOURCES: Am II. 138.
A. A owes that amount to B. Since the court has a right to distrain a debtor's article for the benefit of the creditor, the court may surely confirm B in the possession of the book after the latter pays to A the difference between its actual value and the price he had originally paid. If B paid C for the book more than the latter paid to the Gentile, C must return the difference to A.
SOURCES: Am II. 138.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy