Responsa for Ketubot 95:12
אלא האומר אם מת הוא לא תקברוהו מנכסיו אין שומעין לו לאו כל הימנו שיעשיר את בניו ויפיל עצמו על הציבור:
Rather [it should read]: One who said that when he dies he should not be buried at the expense of his estate is not to be obeyed, for it is not within his power to enrich his sons and throw himself upon the public.
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. The bishop imprisoned B in order to extort money from him. B said to A: "You owe me eight marks, give five marks to the bishop". Meanwhile a rich Jew promised to speak to the bishop on B's behalf and assured B that he would thus effect his release. A, however, gave five marks to the bishop and B was released. Now B demands that A repay him the full eight marks.
A. A is under no obligation to repay the five marks to B since he carried out a direct order to pay this amount to the bishop. Moreover, had A acted on his own initiative and ransomed B without being requested to do so, he would still have been entitled to reimbursement, for a Jew should be ransomed even against his express will, and may be charged with the expenses thus incurred. The promise of the rich man to speak to the bishop was of no consequence, since he did not offer to spend money on B's behalf. We know that mere words are of no avail. The Gentiles are not moved by words, only money affects them. Those who fall into their hands have no hope for deliverance save through the payment of ransom.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Haim Paltiel b. Jacob.
SOURCES: Cr. 32–3; Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 17. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 78.
A. A is under no obligation to repay the five marks to B since he carried out a direct order to pay this amount to the bishop. Moreover, had A acted on his own initiative and ransomed B without being requested to do so, he would still have been entitled to reimbursement, for a Jew should be ransomed even against his express will, and may be charged with the expenses thus incurred. The promise of the rich man to speak to the bishop was of no consequence, since he did not offer to spend money on B's behalf. We know that mere words are of no avail. The Gentiles are not moved by words, only money affects them. Those who fall into their hands have no hope for deliverance save through the payment of ransom.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Haim Paltiel b. Jacob.
SOURCES: Cr. 32–3; Tesh. Maim. to Nezikin, 17. Cf. Maharil, Responsa 78.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A's mother defrayed the expenses of A's funeral but did so only in the nature of a loan to his estate. His widow, however, refused to repay the money to A's mother and insisted in taking his entire estate in payment of her ketubah.
A. A's funeral expenses must be defrayed with money taken from his estate, before his widow can collect her ketubah from it. Thus a person may not give away all his possessions to his heirs in the expectation that his funeral expenses would be paid from public funds (Ket. 48a); the same principle should apply when one gives away all his possessions to his wife. The claims of a creditor, however, should have priority over the decedent's funeral expenses, since the appropriation of a creditor's own money to pay another person's funeral expenses would constitute downright thievery. On the other hand, just as an exemption of bedding, food for thirty days, and clothing to last twelve months, is allowed to a bankrupt debtor (B. M. 113b), so an exemption of the bare funeral expenses should be allowed in the case of a decedent's insolvent estate as against both the creditor and the widow.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Israel, and the decision is in direct contradiction of that recorded in Cr. 184; ibid. 243; Pr. 176; ibid. 964; Mord. Ket. 157; Rashba I, 1103; and Tashbetz, 491.
SOURCES: Pr. 926; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 176c.
A. A's funeral expenses must be defrayed with money taken from his estate, before his widow can collect her ketubah from it. Thus a person may not give away all his possessions to his heirs in the expectation that his funeral expenses would be paid from public funds (Ket. 48a); the same principle should apply when one gives away all his possessions to his wife. The claims of a creditor, however, should have priority over the decedent's funeral expenses, since the appropriation of a creditor's own money to pay another person's funeral expenses would constitute downright thievery. On the other hand, just as an exemption of bedding, food for thirty days, and clothing to last twelve months, is allowed to a bankrupt debtor (B. M. 113b), so an exemption of the bare funeral expenses should be allowed in the case of a decedent's insolvent estate as against both the creditor and the widow.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Israel, and the decision is in direct contradiction of that recorded in Cr. 184; ibid. 243; Pr. 176; ibid. 964; Mord. Ket. 157; Rashba I, 1103; and Tashbetz, 491.
SOURCES: Pr. 926; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 176c.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy