ההוא טבחא דאישתכח דנפקא טריפתא מתותי ידיה פסליה רב נחמן ועבריה אזל רבי מזיה וטופריה סבר רב נחמן לאכשוריה
must be free fromdoubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'applies only to distinct utterance.' This refers
to the following: A and B were sitting by the road-side, and a man passed
them. Whereupon A said to B: If the man who has passed is a Nazir, as I maintain
he is, then I too will take the vow of neziruth; and B said that he for his
part would take the vow if he were not. R. Tarfon ruled that the vow is not
binding even upon him whose view was subsequently found to be correct, for
the vow was based on a doubtful matter, whereas neziruth requires a distinct
and explicit pledge. (V. Nazir 34a). R. Judah himself may thus, notwithstanding
his statement in the Mishnah, which is only explanatory of the view of the
Rabbis, concur in R. Tarfon's view. With respect to the actual reasoning
of the Talmud, Rashi states: This proves that in R. Tarfon's opinion, an
undertaking dependent on an unknown circumstance is not binding, and therefore
the same applies to gambling, each gambler undertaking to pay his opponents
without knowing the latter's strength, and therefore the gambler is akin
to a robber, as explained on p. 143, n. 2, whether gambling, is his sole
occupation or not.
');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A ritual examiner (of slaughtered cows) who passed as kosher (ritually fit for eating) two or three cows that were ritually unfit, must be removed from his post until he completely repents of his act. He should be punished by flagellation or by a fine, for what he has done, according to his circumstances; such punishment to be further determined by the seriousness of the crime, whether it was committed through negligence or ignorance, or with vicious intent. SOURCES: P. 294.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A claimed that he gave B a coat of mail and thigh plates as security for a loan. He repaid that loan, and therefore demands back his security. B answered that he received from A only a coat of mail which he was ready to return upon the latter's payment of money still due B. Upon hearing B's reply, A said to the judges that he knew that the law required them to charge B with an oath, but that B was not qualified to take an oath since he was a notorious thief and was suspected of swearing falsely. A made a public announcement that whoever knew anything that might disqualify B from taking an oath, should appear and testify before the court and the community leaders, in accordance with the Biblical injunction (Leviticus, 5, 1). Many witnesses appeared, but the testimony of only three persons was valid. One of these testified that B had stolen one pound from him; the second said that B had testified against him in a Gentile court and thus had caused him to suffer damages; and the third testified that B had bound himself by a herem to redeem his pledged horse, and had failed to do so. Since these misdemeanors had happened long ago and B might have repented since then, was the testimony of these witnesses sufficient to disqualify B from taking an oath? A. B should be disqualified from taking an oath because of the testimony of the first and third witnesses. The Talmud (B. K. 62a) came to no conclusion regarding the trustworthiness of an informer; therefore, the testimony of the second witness is of no consequence. SOURCES: Pr. 978.
