Responsa for Gittin 127:3
רב הונא אמר בעל נאמן דאם איתא דלגירושין יהביה ניהליה לדידה הוה יהיב לה ניהלה ורב חסדא אמר שליש נאמן דהא הימניה
R. Hisda said the depository's word is to be taken, because we see that the husband trusted him.
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A sent jewelry to C through B. A claims that he told B not to give the jewelry to C unless the latter gave him two marks. A, therefore, demands his two marks from B. B, however, denies A's claim.
A. A neutral party is believed without an oath. We cannot require an oath of B; for if we do, no one will do a favor for a friend lest he claim to have stipulated conditions for such a favor and the benefactor would be required to take an oath. Therefore, B is free from any obligation to A unless the latter claims that B received the two marks from C, in which case B has to take an oath to the effect that he did not receive anything from C.
SOURCES: Pr. 277.
A. A neutral party is believed without an oath. We cannot require an oath of B; for if we do, no one will do a favor for a friend lest he claim to have stipulated conditions for such a favor and the benefactor would be required to take an oath. Therefore, B is free from any obligation to A unless the latter claims that B received the two marks from C, in which case B has to take an oath to the effect that he did not receive anything from C.
SOURCES: Pr. 277.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A demands that Leah return to him the money he deposited with her. Leah claims that A deposited the money with her on condition that she do not return it to him without his wife's consent. [A's wife does not consent to the return of the deposit]. Are we to believe a trustee who was appointed by the two opposing parties regarding the terms of his trusteeship, or may we require him to take an oath? Moreover, Leah is a married woman. May her husband object to her being degraded by imposing an oath on her?
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy