Responsa for Bava Kamma 92:4
תניא נמי הכי שור שנגח את הפרה ונמצא עוברה בצדה ואינו יודע אם עד שלא נגחה ילדה אם משנגחה ילדה משלם חצי נזק לפרה ורביע נזק לולד דברי סומכוס וחכמים אומרים המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה
Rab who said that it was a voidable purchase maintained that we decide according to the majority of cases, and the majority of people buy for field work. Samuel, however, said that the vendor might plead against him, 'It was for slaughter that I sold it to thee,' and that we do not follow the majority,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is otherwise an accepted principle in Rabbinic Law; cf. Hul. 11b. ');"><sup>4</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