Responsa for Pesachim 61:8
תנן נכרי שהלוה את ישראל על חמצו אחר הפסח מותר בהנאה אי אמרת בשלמא למפרע הוא גובה אמטו להכי מותר בהנאה
But if you say that he collect from now and henceforth, why can he in turn seize it from them: surely it is as though the orphans had bought [immovable] property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with the money owing to them they now purchased this estate.');"><sup>10</sup></span> and if orphans buy [immovable] property, is it then under a lien to [their father's] creditor? - There it is different, because he can say to them, just as I was indebted<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'pledged'.');"><sup>11</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.
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.
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