Responsa for Megillah 43:23
שמואל נמי מיכף הוה כייף ליה לרב ורב הוא דעבד ליה כבוד וכי עביד ליה בפניו שלא בפניו לא עביד ליה
Shmuel also was subject to the authority of Rav, and it was Rav who of his own accord honored him. But he would do so only in his presence, but not when he was not present.
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A sent his valuables, through C, to be deposited with B. Subsequently, C left for a distant country without informing A whether or not he had carried out A's instructions. Are we to presume that a deputy generally carries out his commission, and that A therefore may claim to be positive that his valuables had been delivered to B, thus obligating the latter to take an oath in support of his denial?
A. In money matters we do not presume that a deputy has carried out his commission.
Q. B admits that C had delivered the valuables to him, but claims that he subsequently returned them to C.
A. B is to be held responsible for A's valuables, for, the fact that A trusted C to be his deputy in delivering the valuables to B, does not mean that he trusted C as a depositee for an extended period of time. Therefore, B had no right to redeposit A's valuables with C.
This Responsum was addressed to Rabbi Asher.
SOURCES: Cr. 26, 28; Am II, 221. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 92; ibid. 107.
A. In money matters we do not presume that a deputy has carried out his commission.
Q. B admits that C had delivered the valuables to him, but claims that he subsequently returned them to C.
A. B is to be held responsible for A's valuables, for, the fact that A trusted C to be his deputy in delivering the valuables to B, does not mean that he trusted C as a depositee for an extended period of time. Therefore, B had no right to redeposit A's valuables with C.
This Responsum was addressed to Rabbi Asher.
SOURCES: Cr. 26, 28; Am II, 221. Cf. Moses Minz, Responsa 92; ibid. 107.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy