Responsa for Bava Kamma 82:4

ולהנך תנאי דמפקי ליה להאי בעל השור נקי לדרשה אחרינא [כדבעינן למימר קמן] הנאת עורו מנא להו

And now that the prohibition in respect both of food and of any [other] use has been derived from [the text] 'his flesh shall not be eaten', what additional teaching is afforded to me by [the words] 'The owner of the ox shall be quit'? — [The prohibition of] the use of the skin. For otherwise you might have been inclined to think that it was only the flesh that had been proscribed from being used, whereas the skin should be permitted to be used; we are therefore told [that this is not the case but] that 'the owner of the ox shall be quit.' But what of those Tannaim who employ this [text], 'The owner of the ox shall be quit' for deriving other implications (as we will indeed have to explain infra);3

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Before A and B entered, as equal partners, into a business transaction wherein B was to be the active partner, A said to B: "Give me your faithful word as a religious Jew that you will not deny me my share of the profits." B complied with A's request. When they came to divide the profits, A demanded that B take an oath to the effect that there were no other profits except those he had admitted. B claimed that he had already given his word to A, which is equivalent to an oath.
A. B must take the oath usually taken by all partners, which is administered by the hazzan holding the Scroll of the law. Although giving one's faithful word is also considered an oath, it is not as solemn as the oath administered while holding the scroll of the Law, and can not take its place.
SOURCES: Cr. 171; Pr. 606; L. 379; Mord. Shebu. 765; cf. Hag. Maim. Shebuoth 11, 3; Moses, Minz, Responsa 17.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse