Responsa for Kiddushin 147:15
אמר רב יהודה
Shall we say, to certain with doubtful - but since the last clause states: R'ELEAZAR SAID: CERTAIN [UNFITS] ARE PERMITTED [TO INTERMARRY] WITH CERTAIN [UNFITS]; DOUBTFUL WITH CERTAIN, OR DOUBTFUL WITH DOUBTFUL, ARE FORBIDDEN, this proves that R'Judah does not hold thus. And should you answer: R'JUDAH FORBIDS IT refers to [the marriage of] a proselyte and a mamzereth, is it then taught, a proselyte with a mamzereth: ALL ARE FORBIDDEN TO ENTER INTO THE ASSEMBLY is taught!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 72a. And this does not include a proselyte.');"><sup>21</sup></span> - Said Rab Judah,
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A demands that Leah return to him the money he deposited with her. Leah claims that A deposited the money with her on condition that she do not return it to him without his wife's consent. [A's wife does not consent to the return of the deposit]. Are we to believe a trustee who was appointed by the two opposing parties regarding the terms of his trusteeship, or may we require him to take an oath? Moreover, Leah is a married woman. May her husband object to her being degraded by imposing an oath on her?
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.
A. A trustee appointed by both parties is not required to take an oath regarding the terms of his trusteeship. But, Leah was not appointed trustee by both parties. She was only appointed by the husband, and, therefore, is required to take an oath. Leah's husband cannot object to imposing an oath on her. If the law requires that a woman take an oath, the husband has no right to protest against her being degraded in court. But, since Leah, as long as she is married, has no money of her own, and were she to claim that she had already returned the deposit, no oath would be imposed on her, we now lend credence to her words and require no oath. However, the court should give A a writ stating that after Leah will be divorced or widowed she will have to return the money to A or take an oath to the effect that A deposited the money with her on condition that she return it upon his wife's consent only.
SOURCES: L. 306–7; Mord. B. K. 89. Cf. Pr. 739; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 44.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy