Responsa for Chullin 230:39
אי הכי תיתי במה הצד
Said R'Mordecai to R'Ashi: We have learnt the following on the authority of R'Simeon B'Lakish: An inference drawn from cases with common features can be refuted only by those [cases] and not by other [cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the refutation must be in the nature of a peculiar characteristic possessed by the cases that determine the common features and which is absent from the case proposed to be inferred from the common features - e.g. the demonstration of a special characteristic peculiar to 'orlah and to leaven during Passover but absent from flesh cooked in milk would indeed be a valid refutation. It is, however, no refutation of the argument by adducing cases wherein the common features are not found, for such an argument, as here the case of nebelah, is irrelevant.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
(2) C went surety for A to B promising to pay him a certain amount if A should break the terms of the contract.*That two questions were asked of R. Meir, one regarding security, and another regarding a surety, is seen from the fact that towards the end of this Responsum (in the Pr. 130 version which deals with a pledge) R. Meir uses the phrase וכ׳׳ש ערב לא משתעבד מק׳׳ו המשכון עצמו פטור כ׳׳ש הערב, which seems to indicate that the question was also about a surety. Furthermore, Responsum Cr. 34, gives exactly the same answer as Pr. 130, regarding a surety. Do such transactions fall under the rule of asmakta (אסמכתא)?
A. Both cases fall under the rule of asmakta and are, therefore, not binding.
SOURCES: Cr. 34, Pr. 130; L. 356; Asher, Responsa 108, 27.