Responsa for Ketubot 133:5
אלא לאו ארישא והכי קאמר זהב הרי הוא ככלים מאי כלים כלים של כסף רשב"ג אומר הרי הוא כדינרין של זהב במקום שנהגו שלא לפורטן
Rather, he must refer to the first clause and this is what he meant: [Pieces of] gold are like vessels; and what [is meant by] vessels? Silver vessels. R. Shimon b. Gamaliel said: They are like gold denarii where the usage is not to change them.
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. Does a woman collect her ketubah from a loan that has been secured by a pledge at the time the loan was contracted? Does a first-born son receive a double share from such a loan?
A. A woman may collect her ketubah from all loans, even from loans that are not secured by pledges. Nowadays especially, since a woman may collect her ketubah from movables — and even after the loan is repaid to the orphans she may demand the money thus repaid in payment of her ketubah — she is entitled to collect directly from the debtor. Moreover, the custom of collecting the ketubah from movables and from loans, is well established in our time. Such a custom may be justified by the fact that the major part of our business consists of loans and investments. Similarly a first-born is entitled to a double share from a loan that had been secured by a pledge, since such a loan is not considered raui (a potential asset) but constitutes a real asset of the estate.
SOURCES: Am II, 66.
A. A woman may collect her ketubah from all loans, even from loans that are not secured by pledges. Nowadays especially, since a woman may collect her ketubah from movables — and even after the loan is repaid to the orphans she may demand the money thus repaid in payment of her ketubah — she is entitled to collect directly from the debtor. Moreover, the custom of collecting the ketubah from movables and from loans, is well established in our time. Such a custom may be justified by the fact that the major part of our business consists of loans and investments. Similarly a first-born is entitled to a double share from a loan that had been secured by a pledge, since such a loan is not considered raui (a potential asset) but constitutes a real asset of the estate.
SOURCES: Am II, 66.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. We are in doubt concerning the implications of the following ruling of the scholars of Nehardea: When one person gives goods to another in order that the latter trade therewith and the former share in the profits, half of the value of such goods is considered a loan (at the risk of the active partner) and the other half, a trust (at the risk of the investor). Does this statement imply that the part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans, even to the extent of being cancelled by a Sabbatical year? Would it not work to the disadvantage of the investor?
A. That part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans and is subject to cancellation by a Sabbatical year. However, the investor can safeguard his interests by writing a Prosbol.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah.
SOURCES: L. 490; Mord. B. M. 390.
A. That part which is considered a loan is subject to all the laws governing loans and is subject to cancellation by a Sabbatical year. However, the investor can safeguard his interests by writing a Prosbol.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah.
SOURCES: L. 490; Mord. B. M. 390.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy