Responsa for Ketubot 168:14
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A owed money to several persons. When B demanded his money from A, the latter admitted the debt but claimed that since he did not possess enough money or valuables to cover all his obligations, he preferred to divide his possessions equitably among his creditors. Since A admits, in court, his debt to B, may the latter force A to repay that debt in full, before he divides his property?
A. Since A owes money to several persons, and since he owes more than the total value of his possessions, each creditor is entitled to receive an equal share of such possessions irrespective of the amount due him. The debtor, however, may distribute his assets among his creditors in proportion to the amount due to each, before they come to court; such distribution would be irrevocable, and would even constitute a praiseworthy act. Since A is willing so to divide his possessions, no judge can force him to favor one creditor at the expense of the other creditors. However, before receiving his share of A's possessions, movables or immovables, each creditor will have to take a creditor's oath — the same oath that a creditor takes upon collecting his debt from encumbered property.
SOURCES: Cr. 219; Am II, 45; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 41.
A. Since A owes money to several persons, and since he owes more than the total value of his possessions, each creditor is entitled to receive an equal share of such possessions irrespective of the amount due him. The debtor, however, may distribute his assets among his creditors in proportion to the amount due to each, before they come to court; such distribution would be irrevocable, and would even constitute a praiseworthy act. Since A is willing so to divide his possessions, no judge can force him to favor one creditor at the expense of the other creditors. However, before receiving his share of A's possessions, movables or immovables, each creditor will have to take a creditor's oath — the same oath that a creditor takes upon collecting his debt from encumbered property.
SOURCES: Cr. 219; Am II, 45; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 41.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A sent his messenger to take wine from his Gentile debtor in payment of his debt. The messenger carried out his order and pulled the wagon of wine for the purpose of taking possession thereof by this act. However when the Gentile brought the wine to town he gave it to his other creditor, B. Now A sues B for that wine.
A. The law of agency does not apply to a Gentile, nor can he confer a benefit, for the law of conferring a benefit is deduced from the law of agency. Therefore when the Gentile gave the wine to the messenger for A's benefit, his act was not valid. Furthermore, since the messenger strove to take possession of the goods of a debtor for the benefit of one creditor though the debtor owed money to other creditors, his act was invalid (Ket. 84b). Moreover, perhaps Rashi's opinion is accepted that one cannot acquire ownership of a Gentile's property by a kinyan of pulling. Finally, B may not be called "wicked", for interfering with another man's business, since the Gentile owed him money.
SOURCES: Am II, 245.
A. The law of agency does not apply to a Gentile, nor can he confer a benefit, for the law of conferring a benefit is deduced from the law of agency. Therefore when the Gentile gave the wine to the messenger for A's benefit, his act was not valid. Furthermore, since the messenger strove to take possession of the goods of a debtor for the benefit of one creditor though the debtor owed money to other creditors, his act was invalid (Ket. 84b). Moreover, perhaps Rashi's opinion is accepted that one cannot acquire ownership of a Gentile's property by a kinyan of pulling. Finally, B may not be called "wicked", for interfering with another man's business, since the Gentile owed him money.
SOURCES: Am II, 245.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy