Responsa for Chullin 165:5
אכל שני גידין משתי ירכות משתי בהמות סופג שמונים רבי יהודה אומר
but because it is a prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof], and any prohibition which involves no action [in the contravention thereof] is not punishable by stripes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mak. 4b, 16a, and elsewhere.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A had paid off the greater part of the loan he had contracted from Gentile money-lenders against a pledge. B wanted to borrow money from these money-lenders. He asked A to permit him to borrow money against this pledge of A that was still in the hands of the Gentiles, and A assented. Subsequently, the Gentile's house burned down and A's pledge was lost [in the flames]. Must B compensate A for this loss?
A. Since B did not take possession of A's pledge, he never became responsible for its safety. Therefore, B owes nothing to A. Although the burning of A's pledge cancelled B's debt to the Gentiles (by the law of the land), and thus directly benefited B, Heaven bestowed a blessing upon him; why should he therefore share it with A?
This Responsum was addressed to Rabbi Asher.
SOURCES: Am II, 159; Mord. B. M. 371; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 60; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 289b.
A. Since B did not take possession of A's pledge, he never became responsible for its safety. Therefore, B owes nothing to A. Although the burning of A's pledge cancelled B's debt to the Gentiles (by the law of the land), and thus directly benefited B, Heaven bestowed a blessing upon him; why should he therefore share it with A?
This Responsum was addressed to Rabbi Asher.
SOURCES: Am II, 159; Mord. B. M. 371; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 60; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 289b.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy