Responsa for Bava Kamma 235:10
איתמר נמי א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן האומר לחבירו מנה לי בידך והלה אומר איני יודע חייב בבא לצאת ידי שמים:
but R. Nahman and R. Johanan say that he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He would only have to swear to confirm his plea that he is not certain about it (Rashi). ');"><sup>15</sup></span> R. Huna and Rab Judah maintain that he is liable, because where a positive plea is met by an uncertain one, the positive plea prevails, but R. Nahman and R. Johanan say that he is exempt, since money [claimed] must remain in the possession of the holder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the defendant. ');"><sup>16</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