Responsa for Bava Kamma 80:1
אם תם הוה מודינא ומפטרינא
'Were the ox to have been <i>Tam</i> I would have admitted [the act of goring] and become exempt from having to pay'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the liability of half-damages in the case of Tam is only of a penal nature, confession by the defendant would have annulled the obligation; cf. supra. p. 62. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. We are in doubt concerning the implications of the following ruling of the scholars of Nehardea: When one person gives goods to another in order that the latter trade therewith and the former share in the profits, half of the value of such goods is considered a loan (at the risk of the active partner) and the other half, a trust (at the risk of the investor). Does this statement imply that the part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans, even to the extent of being cancelled by a Sabbatical year? Would it not work to the disadvantage of the investor?
A. That part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans and is subject to cancellation by a Sabbatical year. However, the investor can safeguard his interests by writing a Prosbol.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah.
SOURCES: L. 490; Mord. B. M. 390.
A. That part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans and is subject to cancellation by a Sabbatical year. However, the investor can safeguard his interests by writing a Prosbol.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah.
SOURCES: L. 490; Mord. B. M. 390.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy