Responsa for Bava Metzia 83:9
אמר ליה התם משום ריחא בעינן ג' טפחים הכא משום איכסויי מעינא לא בעינן ג' טפחים וכמה אמר רפרם מסיכרא טפח
Yet if he tarried after the conclusion of the Sabbath long enough to bury it [the money] but omitted to do so, he is responsible [if it is stolen]. But if he [the depositor] was a scholar, he [the bailee] might have thought, He may require the money for <i>habdalah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'separation', a short blessing recited as a rule over wine, thanking God for the distinction between the Sabbath and week-days. — In that case, the bailee was justified in not burying the money, as the scholar might require same for wine. The practice of reciting habdalah at home was not widespread; v. Ber. 331. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> But nowadays<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In the third century, when Babylonia entered upon its bitter struggles with the Romans for the possession of the rich lands of the Euphrates; v. Krauss, op. cit., p. 415.] ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A and B formed a partnership for the purpose of buying (and selling) silver, and minting coins. Subsequently A admitted C into the partnership. The affairs of the partners became highly complicated giving rise to litigation, each partner pressing various claims and counterclaims against the other. a) B who lent some of the partnership money on interest, and refused to share the profit on this investment with A, claimed that when he formed the partnership he agreed to share the profit arising out of his buying silver and minting coins, but not out of his money-lending transactions, b) A claimed that he had lent forty pounds to B out of the partnership money, and that B did not repay that debt; B averred that he did repay the forty pounds. c) A claimed that B owed fifteen marks to the partnership, and that the profits that flowed in from Enns, from Neustadt, and from the minters, were included in the fifteen marks. B denied this claim of A. d) A had sent a messenger to Enns to collect ten pounds. The messenger had collected the money but subsequently had lost it. B claimed that A was responsible for this loss since he had appointed the messenger without consulting him. A averred that he had consulted B about it. e) Sixty-one marks were found to be missing from the partnership money. B claimed that the money had been lost while in A's possession, and that the latter was responsible for the loss since he had put the partnership money in the custody of his children who were minors.
A. a) Since B lent money belonging to the partnership on interest, he must share the profit from these investments with the other partners, even though the partnership was originally formed for other purposes than lending money on interest, unless B had expressly stipulated the condition, at the time the partnership was formed, that he would retain all profits he might earn from money lending; for an agent who employs his principal's money in his own business transactions must share his profits with the principal even though he is fully held responsible for all losses. b) and c) Regarding the other claims and counterclaims of the partners, each partner must take an oath to support his claims and be free from obligation to the partnership. d) A is not responsible for the loss caused by his messenger, since he gave nothing to the messenger, but merely spoke to him. But, if A did give money to the messenger, he must take an oath to support his claim (that he consulted B about appointing the messenger) or to the effect that his partners allowed him a free hand in the management of their affairs, and be free from obligation; otherwise he is to be held responsible for appointing an unreliable messenger. e) If B is positive in his claim that the sixty-one marks were lost while the partnership money was in A's possession, A will have to take an oath denying that the money was lost at that time, or be held responsible for that loss; for putting money in the custody of young children is considered wilful neglect; and a partner, being in the category of a gratuitous bailee, is responsible for wilful neglect. A is to be held responsible for the loss of the ten pounds through his messenger and the loss of the sixty-one marks, only if such losses had occurred before B joined A "in his work"; otherwise A can not be held responsible even for wilful neglect, since a bailee is not responsible for losses caused by wilful neglect, if such losses occurred while the owner was with him "in his work."
The matter was again sent to R. Meir for his opinion on other problems that arose. f) Regarding the forty pounds lent to B and demanded by A, which B claimed to have repaid, you wrote that both, A and B, were required to take an oath to support their claims. Will A, upon taking such oath, be entitled to collect the forty pounds from B? g) B claimed that A had admitted C into the partnership without his permission. If not for this act of A, he, B, would have earned thirty pounds. A denied B's claim. h) B claimed that towards the end [of their business venture] they had been offered six pounds for the coin [probably the coin-matrix], but that A did not permit him to sell it for that price, while refusing to buy it himself, and thus they lost the six pounds. i) B claimed that C and the "officers" [probably the officers of the mint] owed money to the partnership, but that A refused to collect this money. j) A claimed that the sixty-one marks allegedly missing from the partnership money, really represented the payment he had made to the "treasurers" in order to free his partners from their obligations to them. He demanded, therefore, that B pay his share of this payment. B stating that the "treasurers" depended on him for the repayment of his obligation, denied A's claim and said that A did not go surety for him and was, therefore, not required to pay B's obligation. B further claimed that the above-mentioned money was actually lost because A put it in the custody of his young children. A's youngest child, however, is fifteen years of age.
A. f) If B takes an oath to the effect that he repaid the forty pounds to A, the partners may hold A responsible for these forty pounds. But if A subsequently takes an oath to the effect that B did not repay the forty pounds, A will be free from obligation to his partners regarding that sum. g) A must take an oath to support his claim. However, if at any time B had shown satisfaction with C's being admitted to the partnership, A's oath is unnecessary. h) Since A did not allow B to sell the coin [matrix] for six pounds hoping to sell it later for more, he can not be held responsible merely because his expectations were not realized. j) Since the money belongs to the partnership, B can sue C and the "officers" directly because of the "lien of R. Nathan" (garnishment). But, if the "officers" are Gentiles and the law of the land does not recognize the validity of the law of garnishment, A must institute proceedings against the "officers." k) I have already written to you that A is not to be held responsible even for losses occasioned by wilful neglect since B was with him "in his work." Moreover, since A's youngest child is fifteen years of age, the putting of money in the custody of his wife and children cannot be considered wilful neglect, since a bailee is expected to deliver his bailment into the hands of his wife and grown up children (B.M. 36a). If the partners, however, have not as yet divided the partnership money among themselves, B may exact an oath from A's children (but not from his wife until she be widowed or divorced) to the effect that they have not misappropriated any of the partnership money. He may exact this oath because of "the lien of R. Nathan." Regarding A's claim to have paid B's obligations to the "treasurers", B is free from obligation for that sum; for a person who repays the debt of another has no claim on the latter. However, if A claims that he went surety to the "treasurers" for B, the latter must take an oath denying this claim of A, or asserting that he owed nothing to the "treasurers."
These Responsa were sent to Vienna, the residence of Rabbi Abigdor haKohen.
SOURCES: Cr. 12, 15, 16; Pr. 102; ibid. 490; Am II, 162; Mord. B. K. 214.
A. a) Since B lent money belonging to the partnership on interest, he must share the profit from these investments with the other partners, even though the partnership was originally formed for other purposes than lending money on interest, unless B had expressly stipulated the condition, at the time the partnership was formed, that he would retain all profits he might earn from money lending; for an agent who employs his principal's money in his own business transactions must share his profits with the principal even though he is fully held responsible for all losses. b) and c) Regarding the other claims and counterclaims of the partners, each partner must take an oath to support his claims and be free from obligation to the partnership. d) A is not responsible for the loss caused by his messenger, since he gave nothing to the messenger, but merely spoke to him. But, if A did give money to the messenger, he must take an oath to support his claim (that he consulted B about appointing the messenger) or to the effect that his partners allowed him a free hand in the management of their affairs, and be free from obligation; otherwise he is to be held responsible for appointing an unreliable messenger. e) If B is positive in his claim that the sixty-one marks were lost while the partnership money was in A's possession, A will have to take an oath denying that the money was lost at that time, or be held responsible for that loss; for putting money in the custody of young children is considered wilful neglect; and a partner, being in the category of a gratuitous bailee, is responsible for wilful neglect. A is to be held responsible for the loss of the ten pounds through his messenger and the loss of the sixty-one marks, only if such losses had occurred before B joined A "in his work"; otherwise A can not be held responsible even for wilful neglect, since a bailee is not responsible for losses caused by wilful neglect, if such losses occurred while the owner was with him "in his work."
The matter was again sent to R. Meir for his opinion on other problems that arose. f) Regarding the forty pounds lent to B and demanded by A, which B claimed to have repaid, you wrote that both, A and B, were required to take an oath to support their claims. Will A, upon taking such oath, be entitled to collect the forty pounds from B? g) B claimed that A had admitted C into the partnership without his permission. If not for this act of A, he, B, would have earned thirty pounds. A denied B's claim. h) B claimed that towards the end [of their business venture] they had been offered six pounds for the coin [probably the coin-matrix], but that A did not permit him to sell it for that price, while refusing to buy it himself, and thus they lost the six pounds. i) B claimed that C and the "officers" [probably the officers of the mint] owed money to the partnership, but that A refused to collect this money. j) A claimed that the sixty-one marks allegedly missing from the partnership money, really represented the payment he had made to the "treasurers" in order to free his partners from their obligations to them. He demanded, therefore, that B pay his share of this payment. B stating that the "treasurers" depended on him for the repayment of his obligation, denied A's claim and said that A did not go surety for him and was, therefore, not required to pay B's obligation. B further claimed that the above-mentioned money was actually lost because A put it in the custody of his young children. A's youngest child, however, is fifteen years of age.
A. f) If B takes an oath to the effect that he repaid the forty pounds to A, the partners may hold A responsible for these forty pounds. But if A subsequently takes an oath to the effect that B did not repay the forty pounds, A will be free from obligation to his partners regarding that sum. g) A must take an oath to support his claim. However, if at any time B had shown satisfaction with C's being admitted to the partnership, A's oath is unnecessary. h) Since A did not allow B to sell the coin [matrix] for six pounds hoping to sell it later for more, he can not be held responsible merely because his expectations were not realized. j) Since the money belongs to the partnership, B can sue C and the "officers" directly because of the "lien of R. Nathan" (garnishment). But, if the "officers" are Gentiles and the law of the land does not recognize the validity of the law of garnishment, A must institute proceedings against the "officers." k) I have already written to you that A is not to be held responsible even for losses occasioned by wilful neglect since B was with him "in his work." Moreover, since A's youngest child is fifteen years of age, the putting of money in the custody of his wife and children cannot be considered wilful neglect, since a bailee is expected to deliver his bailment into the hands of his wife and grown up children (B.M. 36a). If the partners, however, have not as yet divided the partnership money among themselves, B may exact an oath from A's children (but not from his wife until she be widowed or divorced) to the effect that they have not misappropriated any of the partnership money. He may exact this oath because of "the lien of R. Nathan." Regarding A's claim to have paid B's obligations to the "treasurers", B is free from obligation for that sum; for a person who repays the debt of another has no claim on the latter. However, if A claims that he went surety to the "treasurers" for B, the latter must take an oath denying this claim of A, or asserting that he owed nothing to the "treasurers."
These Responsa were sent to Vienna, the residence of Rabbi Abigdor haKohen.
SOURCES: Cr. 12, 15, 16; Pr. 102; ibid. 490; Am II, 162; Mord. B. K. 214.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy