Responsa for Bava Kamma 80:4
אי הכי בעלים אמאי משלמים חצי נזק נימא ליה אתפסתיה לתוראי בידא מאן דלא מצינא לאשתעויי דינא בהדיה משום דא"ל אי אהדרתיה ניהלך לאו מינך הוו שקלי ליה
why should the borrower still not argue: 'Had the ox been <i>Tam</i> I would have caused it to escape to the pasture'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the payment in the case of Tam is only out of its body he would have evaded it. ');"><sup>4</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