Responsa for Ketubot 187:10
אמר להו מתני' היא הראשונה נשבעת לשניה ושניה לשלישית ושלישית לרביעית ואילו ראשונה לשלישית לא קתני מאי טעמא לאו משום דשליחותה עבדה
He said to them: This is like a mishnah: the first must take an oath to the second, the second to the third and the third to the fourth, but it was not stated, “the first to the third.” What is the reason? Is it not because [the second] has acted as her agent.
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