Responsa for Bava Metzia 152:3
איבעית אימא האי תנא חזרו נמי הטעו קרי ליה דתניא השוכר את האומנין והטעו את בעל הבית או בעל הבית הטעה אותן אין להם זה על זה אלא תרעומת
But there [where R. Nahman did state his ruling], it is because the agent himself entirely cancelled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'uprooted'. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. The community of T engaged A as cantor for a three years' period, but soon retracted, discharging A and hiring B in his place. Now A institutes suit against B.
Q. A has no legal claim against B though he does have a claim against the community. Not having been asked regarding A's case against the community, I shall refrain from passing judgment thereon. Should the discussion that follows reveal any just claims A may have against the community, I rely on you not to disclose them to A, lest the community accuse me of encouraging claimants and inciting them against the community thus damaging its interests. It seems, however, that if A could have obtained another position, had he not been engaged by the community of T, and now can no longer obtain that, or a similar, position, the community ought to pay A the wages of an "idle laborer" (i. e. the wages a cantor would be willing to accept for abstaining from practicing his profession for a given period). But, if A is able to obtain another position even now, he has no legal claim against the community, though he has cause for reproof. Should the latter position require more effort than the position with the community of T, if there be also an increase in remuneration commensurate with the increase in effort, the community of T would be free from obligation to A; otherwise, the community of T would have to compensate A for the increase in effort. In any event, A has no legal claim against B, though he has cause for reproof, and the latter may perhaps be called "wicked".
SOURCES: Cr. 292; Am II, 234; B. p. 298 no. 392.
Q. A has no legal claim against B though he does have a claim against the community. Not having been asked regarding A's case against the community, I shall refrain from passing judgment thereon. Should the discussion that follows reveal any just claims A may have against the community, I rely on you not to disclose them to A, lest the community accuse me of encouraging claimants and inciting them against the community thus damaging its interests. It seems, however, that if A could have obtained another position, had he not been engaged by the community of T, and now can no longer obtain that, or a similar, position, the community ought to pay A the wages of an "idle laborer" (i. e. the wages a cantor would be willing to accept for abstaining from practicing his profession for a given period). But, if A is able to obtain another position even now, he has no legal claim against the community, though he has cause for reproof. Should the latter position require more effort than the position with the community of T, if there be also an increase in remuneration commensurate with the increase in effort, the community of T would be free from obligation to A; otherwise, the community of T would have to compensate A for the increase in effort. In any event, A has no legal claim against B, though he has cause for reproof, and the latter may perhaps be called "wicked".
SOURCES: Cr. 292; Am II, 234; B. p. 298 no. 392.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy