Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Bava Metzia 73:11

ורמי פקדון אפקדון ורמי גזל אגזל פקדון אפקדון דקתני רישא או אביו של אחד מכם הפקיד אצלי מנה ואיני יודע איזה הוא נותן לזה מנה ולזה מנה ורמינהי שנים שהפקידו וכו'

whereas in the case of a bailment, where no wrong was committed by him, the Rabbis did not penalise him. But bailment may be opposed to bailment, and robbery to robbery. 'Bailment may be opposed to bailment'. For the first clause teaches, OR, THE FATHER OF ONE OF YOU DEPOSITED A <i>MANEH</i> WITH ME, AND I DO NOT KNOW WHOSE; HE MUST GIVE EACH A <i>MANEH</i>. Now this is contradicted by [the Baraitha just quoted,] 'If two made a deposit, etc.' — Said Raba: In the first clause<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where only one person deposited money with him. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A says that B's mother before her death instructed B to give A one Mina out of her possessions, since she had owed money to A's mother and did not remember whether or not she had repaid the entire sum. B denies having received such instructions from his mother, and further claims that A's mother owed him more than one Mina. But A has witnesses who testify that after his mother's death B admitted having received these instructions.
A. Since B's mother did not take the required oath regarding her ketubah, she had no property of her own; even the clothes she wore on week-days belonged to the estate. Consequently B is unable to carry out his mother's instructions. B is under no moral obligation to repay his mother's debt since the mother herself had not been pressed for payment.
SOURCES: Cr. 76.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse