Responsa for Bava Metzia 138:15

אמר רב פפא הלכתא ספינה אגרא ופגרא

As for a ship, Rab said: Both hire and loss [is permitted].14 Said R. Kahana and R. Assi to Rab: If hire, no loss; if loss, no hire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the two together should be forbidden. For if the ship be assessed and the lessee accepts all responsibility, it is as though he had borrowed money to its value, and the rent is usury. ');">15 Thereupon Rab was silent [being unable to answer]. R. Shesheth observed: Why was Rab silent? Had he never heard what was taught: 'Though it was ruled that one must not accept from an Israelite "iron flock" [investment with absolute immunity for the investor],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (V. B.B. Sonc. ed. p. 206, n. 3) I.e., one may not accept a business on a profit sharing basis, whilst guaranteeing the investor absolute safety of his money, like 'iron sheep', which cannot come to harm. For if the investor's money is secured, it is a loan, on which he receives half profit as interest. ');">16 yet such may be accepted from heathens!17 It was, nevertheless, ruled that if one assesses a cow for his neighbour, and says to him, "Your cow is charged to me at thirty denarii,18 and I will pay you a sela' per month," — it is permitted, because he did not assess it as money.' But did he not? — R. Shesheth said: He did not assess it as money whilst alive, but only in case of death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only if it perishes is he responsible for it; but should there be a price-drop whilst it is alive, the hirer is not responsible, and this saves it from being considered a loan. Hence in the case of the ship too, since the lessee is responsible only for shipwreck, but not for a drop in its market value, it is not an ordinary loan, and therefore a hiring fee is permissible. ');">19 R. papa said: The law is: For a ship, both hire and loss [is allowed],

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A young man lent money to A stipulating that the latter be responsible for the loss of it through theft, but not through unavoidable accident. The former also tutored A's son. In return for both services A paid the young man's living expenses. Is the lending of the aforesaid money considered a legitimate transaction?
A. If while the arrangement was made with the young man to rehearse the lessons with A's son in return for receiving his sustenance, the stipulation was made that the young man lend money to A, the transaction is considered usurious, even though A would have been content to pay the young man's living expenses in return for his tutoring alone. The fact that the money was not given as an actual loan, since A was not to be responsible for its loss through unavoidable accident, does not materially change the situation, since the Talmud considers the renting of money a usurious transaction (B. M. 69b). But, if it is true, what you write at the end of your letter, that the young man gave A his money as an outright gift so that he is at liberty, should he so desire, never to return the money to the young man, the transaction is a legitimate one.
SOURCES: Cr. 257; Am II, 151; Mord. B.M. 316; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 45; Agudah B.M. 88. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 37; Moses Minz, Responsa 72; Terumat Hadeshen 302.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. Must a court decree be dated, since, otherwise, a creditor who obtains a later decree would be able to enforce his rights thereunder, prior to the creditor who received the former decree.
A. It is advisable to include the date in a court decree, but not for the reason cited. A creditor, whose bond is dated before the bond of his fellow creditor, should receive a prior lien if execution is to be issued upon real property; but if execution is to be issued upon personal property, the creditor who seizes the property first has a prior lien without regard to the date of his bond. In any case, the date of the court decree is immaterial. Moreover, no undated document is invalid except a divorce.
SOURCES: Cr. 281; Pr. 525.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. How long after a decision of a court has been rendered, is a party to the suit entitled to a statement as to the reasons underlying such decision? Within what period, after a decision has been rendered, can a person appeal to a higher court? Must one declare before the local court that he will seek an appeal?
A. If a party to a suit originally wanted to bring his case to a higher court but was forced to try it at the local court, he is entitled to a written statement of the reasons for the decision, and he may appeal his case at any time. But if both parties agreed to have their case tried by the local court, the court is under no obligation to give any written opinion.
SOURCES: Cr. 281; Pr. 524; Mord. Sanh. 708; Hag. Maim. Sanhedrin, 6, 7.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A promised ten marks to charity. He gave the money to B for investment purposes on condition that B pay to the poor of a certain community ten quarter-marks per year.
A. B should not give the ten quarter-marks to the poor of that community, since it would constitute unlawful usury. If, however, B earned profit with the ten marks, he must give part of the profit to the poor of another city, since one is not permitted to profit from charity money.
SOURCES: Pr. 999.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse