Responsa for Bava Kamma 229:4
אמר רב יוסף לא פליגי כאן לפני יאוש הדין עם השני כאן לאחר יאוש הדין עם הראשון
he could sue the second,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the purchaser who would have to restore the articles without any payment at all. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> whereas in the other, where it took place after Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the purchase is valid since Renunciation was followed by change of possession. ');"><sup>8</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