Responsa for Bava Kamma 80:13
רב פפא אמר מדסיפא רשות משנה רישא נמי רשות משנה ורישא היינו טעמא משום דכל מקום שהולך שם בעליו עליו:
'If it was declared <i>Mu'ad</i> while in the possession of the borrower, and [after it] was returned to the owner [it gored again], the owner will pay half damages while the borrower is exempt from any liability whatsoever.' Does this concluding clause [not appear to prove that a change in the] control [of the ox]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. from the hands of the borrower to those of the owner. ');"><sup>12</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