Responsa for Bava Kamma 92:14
איכא דאמרי אף על גב דקדים תבעיה לבעל פרה תחלה מצי מדחי ליה דאמר ליה מידע ידעי (אנא) דשותפא אית לי
It is true that where the cow and the calf belong to one owner, the plaintiff would be entitled to plead against the owner of the cow, 'In any case, have you not to pay me half damages?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both the cow and the calf belong to you. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Maharach Or Zarua Responsa
R. Asher disagrees with R. Hayyim Eliezer, and maintains that the rule of Asmakta is not applicable in this case. B is considered the agent of A, since the latter voiced no protest when B bound himself, in the presence of A to reconcile C for damages, in the event of a breach of promise. Under these arrangements, the sale was then completed, and the fulfillment of the terms rested with A.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy