Responsa for Bava Kamma 229:9
ולאביי דאמר פליגי במאי פליגי בדרב חסדא
weighed it for him, the priest would have to sue the butcher!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, we are dealing here with a case where there was no Renunciation (v. p. 681, n. 12); why then does Rab maintain that the priest would have to sue the butcher and not the Purchaser? ');"><sup>15</sup></span> — Read: 'He can sue also the butcher,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having the option to sue either the butcher (who is the vendor) or the purchaser, for the reason stated supra p. 681, n. 10. ');"><sup>16</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