Responsa for Bava Metzia 157:16

היכי דמי אילימא בספינה זו ויין סתם אם נתן אמאי לא יטול נימא ליה הב לי ספינתא דאנא מייתינא חמרא אלא בספינה סתם ויין זה אם לא נתן אמאי לא יתן

But after all, on the expiration of the sixty years the land returns to its [first] owner, and thus [the debtor's] principal is destroyed! — But here the reference is to the time when the law of Jubilee is not in force. Reason too supports this. For should you assume that it refers to the time when the law of Jubilee is in force, and that we destroy the principal, let him [the creditor] cut up the wood and take it!15 — As for that, it is no difficulty: the period of mortgage might expire before the Jubilee, or he [the debtor] might obtain money and redeem it four or five years before the Jubilee.16 Our Rabbis taught: If one hires a ship, and it sinks in mid-journey; R. Nathan said: If he has paid [the hire], he cannot take [it back]; but if not, he need not pay it [now]. How so? Shall we say [that the agreement was for] this particular ship and an unspecified [cargo of] wine [as freight],17 then [even] if he has already paid, why cannot he claim it back? Let him say, 'Provide me with that ship, and I will bring the wine.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since you undertook to carry any cargo of wine in this particular ship, I can bring another, the first having sunk, but you must furnish the same ship for the entire journey: as you cannot, you must return the hire. ');">18 But if it refers to an unspecified ship and a particular cargo of wine, even if he has not yet paid, why must he not pay now?

Maharach Or Zarua Responsa

Q - A engaged B as a tutor, for a season. B refused to accept the position unless the entire salary would be paid in advance. A thereupon complied with B's request. At the beginning of the season, A died. Is B entitled to the complete salary?
A - B must return the money he received. He is not entitled to receive for the remaining time, even the wages paid an idle worker, since he encountered no loss.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A, a widow's trustee, leased half of the widow's house, for a term of ten years, to C, who, in turn, leased it to B. After B moved into the house, A became greatly dissatisfied with him and demanded that B move out of the house immediately, on the ground that he had leased the house to C, and therefore was under no obligation to B. He told B, however, that should C have any claims against him on account of the eviction of B, he, A, would answer these charges in court. B, however, claimed: that C rented the house from A on condition that he (C) lease it to whomever he wants; that he, B, was willing to partition off the part of the house he occupies from the rest of the house; and that he would guarantee to pay the widow for any damages she may sustain as a result of his remaining on the premises. A, however, claimed that he feared that grave damages to the widow will result if B stays, and that the widow cannot dwell in one house with a snake (meaning B).
A. Since A admits that C had the right to lease the house to anyone he pleased, A cannot evict B from the widow's house.
SOURCES: Cr. 259; Pr. 680; Mord. B. M. 357; Agudah B. M. 125. Cf. Hag. Maim. to Sekirut 5, 20; Weil, Responsa 10.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

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.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse