Responsa for Bava Kamma 235:1
פרה רבוצה בו ושטפה נהר דר' אלעזר לטעמיה ורבנן לטעמייהו:
a cow was lying,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the robber did not actually take possession of the cow in any other way, e.g., by 'pulling it'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> and a river [subsequently] flooded it, R. Eleazar following his line of reasoning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the field entered into the possession of the robber, as would be the case with any other misappropriated object, so that by virtue of his becoming possessed of the field, the cow is supposed to have similarly entered into his possession in accordance with Kid. I, 5 and supra p. 49 ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. R. Moses, the plaintiff, was not present when the defendants, the Jewish inhabitants of Quedlinburg, took an oath in order to nullify the testimony of R. Moses' single supporting witness; must they take the oath again in the presence of R. Moses?
A. If the oath has been legally administered by a proper person (who is related neither to R. Moses nor to the inhabitants of Quedlinburg) there is no need for another oath.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah, and is the second communication regarding this case.
SOURCES: Pr. 231; L. 382; Tesh. Maim. to Haflaah, 1. Cf. P. 514; Mord. Ket. 296–7.
A. If the oath has been legally administered by a proper person (who is related neither to R. Moses nor to the inhabitants of Quedlinburg) there is no need for another oath.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah, and is the second communication regarding this case.
SOURCES: Pr. 231; L. 382; Tesh. Maim. to Haflaah, 1. Cf. P. 514; Mord. Ket. 296–7.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy