Responsa for Bava Kamma 230:4
כדא"ר ירמיה כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה ה"נ כשעקל בית הבד כרוך עליה
of the press-house was twined around it [it would not become ownerless]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the liquid would then merely leak out drop by drop, but not be lost instantly. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> so also here in the case of the barrel [we suppose] the bale of the press-house was twined around it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the honey would not flow out straight away there is no immediate lapse of ownership. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> [Still, how does the Baraitha state:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the bale of the press-house was not twined around it. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
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.
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.
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.
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