Responsa for Ketubot 173:9
אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל משום אבא שאול בן אימא מרים בין דלא שבועה בין דנקי שבועה בין דלא נדר ובין דנקי נדר בין מנכסי ובין מנכסיא אילין בין הוא ובין יורשיו אין משביעין אותה אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרו חכמים הבא ליפרע מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה
Nahman said in the name of Shmuel in the name of Abba Shaul the son of Imma Miriam: Whether [the husband wrote,] “Neither oath” or “Free from oath,” whether [he wrote,] “Neither vow” or “Free from vow,” or whether [he wrote,] “In respect of my property” or “In respect of this property,” neither he nor his heirs may impose an oath on her. But what can I do in view of a ruling of the Sages that anyone who comes to exact payment from the property of orphans is not to be paid unless he first takes an oath.
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A and his wife drew up a document for the benefit of her son (A's stepson), in which was written: "Give to our son…" Does the expression "our son" invalidate the document since the beneficiary is not A's son?
A. A person who brings up an orphan in his house is in the same position as the orphan's father. Therefore, the phrase "our son" is quite appropriate. Moreover, the phrase in the document "to our mother so and so the daughter of so and so"… referring to A's mother-in-law, does not invalidate that part of the document as long as the name of the mother-in-law is given. For the term "son" or "mother" is an affectionate expression correctly used in this sense even when such relationship does not exist.
SOURCES: L. 242; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim 48. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 81.
A. A person who brings up an orphan in his house is in the same position as the orphan's father. Therefore, the phrase "our son" is quite appropriate. Moreover, the phrase in the document "to our mother so and so the daughter of so and so"… referring to A's mother-in-law, does not invalidate that part of the document as long as the name of the mother-in-law is given. For the term "son" or "mother" is an affectionate expression correctly used in this sense even when such relationship does not exist.
SOURCES: L. 242; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim 48. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 81.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. R. Moses, the plaintiff, was not present when the defendants, the Jewish inhabitants of Quedlinburg, took an oath in order to nullify the testimony of R. Moses' single supporting witness; must they take the oath again in the presence of R. Moses?
A. If the oath has been legally administered by a proper person (who is related neither to R. Moses nor to the inhabitants of Quedlinburg) there is no need for another oath.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah, and is the second communication regarding this case.
SOURCES: Pr. 231; L. 382; Tesh. Maim. to Haflaah, 1. Cf. P. 514; Mord. Ket. 296–7.
A. If the oath has been legally administered by a proper person (who is related neither to R. Moses nor to the inhabitants of Quedlinburg) there is no need for another oath.
This Responsum is addressed to R. Shemariah, and is the second communication regarding this case.
SOURCES: Pr. 231; L. 382; Tesh. Maim. to Haflaah, 1. Cf. P. 514; Mord. Ket. 296–7.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy