Responsa for Bava Metzia 150:9
ר' אמי ורבי אסי דאמרי תרוייהו כאילו דנו בשני דינין שנאמר (תהלים סו, יב) הרכבת אנוש לראשנו באנו באש ובמים
to Moses, our Teacher, and to his Torah, and say, 'Had Moses our Teacher known that there is profit in this thing [sc. usury], he would not have prohibited it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'written it'. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> When R. Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A claims that B lent him money on a pledge, and that when he came to redeem the pledge B exacted interest from him. Since he had contracted the loan directly from B, the latter was not allowed to take any interest on this loan. A, therefore, demands that B pay him back the interest. B, on the other hand, claims that the loan was originally contracted through a Gentile intermediary and that he was entitled, therefore, to the interest.
A. It is assumed that a person who might have gained an advantage by following a certain legal procedure, did not fail to follow such procedure. Since B could legally have been entitled to interest on his money had he granted the loan through a Gentile intermediary, we assume that he did grant the loan through such intermediary. Therefore, B is entitled to his interest and is not required to take an oath.
SOURCES: L. 197.
A. It is assumed that a person who might have gained an advantage by following a certain legal procedure, did not fail to follow such procedure. Since B could legally have been entitled to interest on his money had he granted the loan through a Gentile intermediary, we assume that he did grant the loan through such intermediary. Therefore, B is entitled to his interest and is not required to take an oath.
SOURCES: L. 197.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy