Responsa for Eruvin 129:7
ר' יוחנן אמר כל שאינו מפיק אתמר
- Since it is written in Scripture: And the channels<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' rt. .');"><sup>19</sup></span> of waters appeared, and the foundations of the world were laid bare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XVIII, 16. epb');"><sup>20</sup></span> Observe! The Scriptural texts provide equal proof for the one Master as well as for the other Master; wherein then lies the difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that according to both views the law in practice is exactly the same, what matters it whether the rt. is used as a positive in the sense of 'passing by' or as a negative, 'dos not utter'?');"><sup>21</sup></span> - The difference between them is [the propriety of the practice] of R'Shesheth; for R'Shesheth entrusted [the task of waking him from] his sleep to his attendant.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A's last words are of no consequence since he was not in his right mind while uttering them. Therefore, if A's daughters admit that A had promised L three marks as part of her dowry and had not paid it to her, L is entitled to collect three marks in addition to the causa mortis gift, for while A, on his death-bed, gave presents to his other daughters, he probably intended to make no exception in his dealing with L. But, if the other daughters disclaim any knowledge of A's debt, they must take an heir's oath. Although I have often contended that an heir's oath is imposed on a claimant only, but not a defendant, the custom is widely accepted to impose such an oath even on a defendant.
SOURCES: Cr. 97.