Responsa for Gittin 104:17
ולמאן דאמר מנסך מ"ט לא אמר מערב אמר לך מערב
OR MIXES [<i>TERUMAH</i> WITH THEM]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus rendering them forbidden to a layman. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> OR MAKES A LIBATION [WITH HIS WINE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning of this is discussed infra. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> IF HE DOES SO INADVERTENTLY, IS FREE FROM LIABILITY, BUT IF DELIBERATELY IS LIABLE [TO COMPENSATE HIM].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean terumah could not be eaten and could be used by the priests only for feeding cattle or for fuel. Non-sacred food also if unclean was rejected by the stricter sort (Perushim). Food mixed with terumah became prohibited to a layman and therefore had to be sold to a priest at a loss. Wine poured out in libation was forbidden. Hence in all these cases loss was involved. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been stated: [With regard to the expression] 'MAKES A LIBATION', Rab says that it means literally making a libation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., stirring it with his hand as preparatory to pouring it out. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> [to a heathen deity], while Samuel says that it means only mixing [Jewish with heathen wine].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was sufficient to make it prohibited. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> Why did the one who says it means mixing not accept the view that it means making a libation? — He will tell you the latter offence involves a heavier penalty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the death penalty; and the rule is that a lighter penalty is not inflicted when a heavier one is involved for the same offence. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> What does the other say [to this]? — Even as R. Jeremiah. For R. Jeremiah said that he [a robber] acquires possession from the moment he lifts the wine from the ground, whereas he does not become liable to capital punishment until he actually pours out the wine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the defendant has become liable for the payment of the wine in the capacity of a robber even before he commenced to commit the capital offence of idolatrous libations, and since the civil liability is neither for the same act nor for the same moment which occasions the liability for capital punishment, each liability stands. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Why does the one who says that it means making a libation not accept the view that it means mixing? — He will tell you, mixing wine
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A's heirs were entitled to take over his estate at any time they wished to do so. The giving of forty marks to L in order that she relinquish her trusteeship, was entirely unnecessary, for A's document, while making the collection of R's share in A's estate dependant on L's death, did not appoint L trustee of said estate. Moreover, had A explicitly appointed L trustee of his estate, the court would have removed her at no expense to the heirs, since she had proven to be inefficient, careless, and wasteful. The second agreement is not binding on A's two sons since L, not being a trustee of the estate, had no legal power to dispose of part of the estate. B, however, was able to forego his own part of R's share, and his act is binding upon such part if R (or her husband) was in possession of her share at the time of the latter agreement. Thus R would be entitled to receive one third of her share (B's part of her share) immediately, while B's two brothers would manage the other two-thirds for their own profit and gain until L's death.
Although the brothers are entitled to manage R's share for their own profit, they are not permitted to sell or otherwise alienate any part of it; and their responsibility thereto would be that of a gratuitous watchman. Thus any increase that will accrue until L's death will belong to the brothers, while, any decrease of value caused by theft, loss or unavoidable accident will be suffered by R. Should the brothers be called upon to pay L her ketubah, one quarter of such payment should come out of R's share. R may not claim that her father has made her an outright gift, free of any lien or obligation, since A did not intend to give R a greater share than that of his sons. After L's death, R may exact an oath from her brothers to the effect that they did not retain for themselves anything belonging to her.
Q. L's trustee claimed that L's property which she had given to her husband, had been given only to gratify him, but had not been intended as an outright gift. Therefore, this property had belonged to L; and she gave it to her mother by right.
A. This property was not listed in L's ketubah, and was thus considered niksei melug regarding which a woman may not claim that her gift thereof to her husband was not actually meant to be binding but was given in order to gratify him (B. B. 50a). Therefore, the gift was binding, and she no longer had any claim to said property. She had no right to give it to her mother.
This Resp. is addressed to: "My teacher Rabbi Eliezer b. Ephraim."
SOURCES: Cr. 30; Pr. 243–4; Am II, 18.
Teshuvot Maharam
A. A trustee appointed by the father of the orphans is not required to take an oath. However, some authorities (Ittur) believe that when such a trustee has been removed by court, because of witnesses testifying to his mismanagement of the affairs of the orphans, he is required to take an oath.
SOURCES: Cr. 272; L. 239. Cf. Mord. Gitt. 389; Pr. 592; L. 240.