Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Responsa for Pesachim 61:11

ותסברא אימא סיפא אבל נכרי שהלוה לישראל על חמצו לאחר הפסח דברי הכל עובר והא איפכא מיבעי ליה למאן דאמר התם אינו עובר הכא עובר למאן דאמר התם עובר הכא אינו עובר

We learned: IF A GENTILE LENT [MONEY] TO AN ISRAELITE ON HIS LEAVEN, AFTER PASSOVER IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. It is right if you say that he collects retrospectively: therefore it is permitted for use. But if you say that he collects from now and henceforth, why is it permitted for use? [Surely] it stood in the possession of the Israelite! - The circumstances here are that he deposited it with him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is now assumed that he deposited it with the Gentile as a pledge, and the Gentile acquires a title to it as such.');"><sup>13</sup></span> Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim: If an Israelite lent [money] to a Gentile on his leaven, after Passover he does not transgress.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he takes the leaven for the debt and uses it.');"><sup>14</sup></span> In R'Meir's name it was said: he does transgress. Now do they not differ in this, viz. , one Master holds [that] he collects retrospectively, while the other Master holds [that] he colle from now and onwards.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being now assumed that he did not deposit his leaven with the Gentile.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - Now is that logical! Consider the second clause: But if a Gentile lent [money] to an Israelite on his leaven, after Passover he transgresses on all views. But surely the reverse [of the rulings the first clause] is required: according to the view there [in the first clause] that he does not transgress, he he does transgress; [while] according to the view there that he does transgress, here he does not transgress!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the case is reversed, the Gentile having lent money to the Jew, obviously the rulings too should be reversed, if they are dependent on whether the creditor collects retrospectively or from now and onwards.');"><sup>16</sup></span>

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A claims he has no cash and wants to repay his debt to B with goods. B demands that A swear that he has no cash. Is it not true that the court can not require an oath from A since no actual loss of money to B is involved?
A. The fact that there is no actual loss of money to B does not, of itself, absolve A from taking an oath. A is not required to take the oath for another reason. B can not claim to be certain that A has cash, and no one is required to take an oath when his opponent is not certain of his claim.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Asher b. Moses.
SOURCES: Cr. 7, 8; Pr. 109; L. 360. Cf. Am II, 224.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A claims he has no cash and wants to repay his debt to B with goods. B demands that A swear that he has no cash. Is it not true that the court can not require an oath from A since no actual loss of money to B is involved?
A. The fact that there is no actual loss of money to B does not, of itself, absolve A from taking an oath. A is not required to take the oath for another reason. B can not claim to be certain that A has cash, and no one is required to take an oath when his opponent is not certain of his claim.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Asher b. Moses.
SOURCES: Cr. 7, 8; Pr. 109; L. 360. Cf. Am II, 224.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse