Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Kamma 235:6

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר מנה לי בידך והלה אומר איני יודע רב הונא ורב יהודה אמרי חייב ור"נ ור' יוחנן אמרי פטור

[BUT IF THE TRANSACTION WAS ORIGINALLY MADE] UPON THE STIPULATION OF HIS GOING INTO THE WILDERNESS, etc. Is this ruling not obvious? — No, for we have to consider the case where he said to him, 'Take this article in deposit with you as I intend departing to the wilderness,' and the other said to him, 'I similarly intend departing to the wilderness, so that if you want me to return it to you there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which prima facie means 'if you will be in need of money there;' it was therefore made known in the Mishnah that he may compel the creditor to accept payment there. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> I will be able to do so.

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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse