Responsa for Bava Kamma 230:10

דעבר לה במסננת כר' נחמיה דתניא מסננת יש בה משום גילוי אמר רבי נחמיה אימתי בזמן שהתחתונה מגולה אבל בזמן שהתחתונה מכוסה אף על פי שהעליונה מגולה אין בה משום גילוי לפי שארס של נחש דומה לספוג וצף ועומד במקומו

This is a sufficient reason in the case where the barrel broke, as [the wine remaining] is still fit to be used, but in the case where the barrel became uncovered, for what use is the wine fit any more? For should you argue that25 it is still fit for sprinkling purposes, was it not taught: Water which became uncovered should not even be poured out on public ground, and should neither be used for stamping clay, nor for sprinkling the house,26 nor for feeding either one's own animal or the animal of a neighbour?27

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A was robbed of his books during a riot. The books were later recognized in B's possession. Must B return the books to A upon receiving the amount he paid to the robbers?
A. Since the books were taken by Gentile robbers, A did not lose hope of retrieving them (B. K. 114a) and thus legally retained title to his books. Therefore, B must return the books to A. B is not entitled to any compensation, since it was common knowledge that A was robbed of his books, and since B bought them from known robbers.
This Responsum is addressed to "my teacher Rabbi Eliakim."
SOURCES: Pr. 1009; Cr. 196–7; Mord. B. K. 163.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A fire, a veritable conflagration, broke out in town and people fled in fear thereof. A, however, braved the fire and saved a book the owners of which had already fled.
A. A is under no obligation to return the book to its owners, for as soon as the latter gave up hope of saving the book, it became abandoned property.
SOURCES: Cr. 251; Mord. B. K. 171; Mordecai Hagadol p. 392d; Hag. Maim., Gezelah 12, 6; Agudah B. K. 140.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. B claims that he gave A fifteen pounds to lend it on interest for two years and then give the principal and the interest to B's son if he should consent to marry A's daughter. B's son, however, refused to marry A's daughter and B wants his money back. A claims that he had originally accepted B's money as a dowry for his daughter, that he had taken possession of the gift for her, and that the money, therefore, belongs to her.
A. A dowry gift becomes the property of the donee only if the marriage takes place. Therefore, neither A nor his daughter has ever gained title to B's money, and A must return the principal plus the interest to B. Even if B expressly stipulated that he will forfeit the 15 pounds if the marriage does not take place, such a stipulation is considered an Asmakhta and is not valid. B, however, must pay A for his trouble in managing B's investments.
SOURCES: Cr. 86; Pr. 285; Mord. B.B. 615; Agudah B.B. 198.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Available for Premium members only

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse