Responsa for Shevuot 63:21
ותיסברא האמר אביי הכל מודים בעד סוטה והכל מודים בעדי סוטה ומחלוקת בעדי סוטה הכל מודים בעד אחד והכל מודים בעד שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה
now, till they say, 'We swear, we know no testimony for you', the duration is longer!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These words cannot be said in the time that a greeting can be uttered, for the greeting (in Hebrew) is three words, whereas the oath (in Hebrew) is six words.');"><sup>27</sup></span> - He said to him: Each one within the interval of utterance of his neighbour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The interval elapsing between the denials of the two witnesses must not be longer than the time taken to utter the greeting.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A claims that his representative caused him to lose his case against B by willful neglect, for the representative pleaded in court those arguments which A asked him not to plead, and neglected to plead those arguments which he specifically asked him to. A, therefore, demands that his representative compensate him for the loss caused him.
A. If A lost money through his representative's willful neglect, the latter must make good A's loss. But, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would have had to swear and be able to recover, or swear and be free from obligation, and now the case is that the oath has either been transferred to B, or that now B may collect without taking an oath, the representative is free from obligation, since the damage to A's interests is not clear and remains problematical, as no one can be sure that A would have taken the required oath. However, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would be free from obligation and would not be required to take an oath, and now B collects from A without being required to take an oath, the representative is guilty of willful neglect.
SOURCES: Cr. 157; Pr. 242; Mord. B. M. 290; Rashba I, 1106.
A. If A lost money through his representative's willful neglect, the latter must make good A's loss. But, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would have had to swear and be able to recover, or swear and be free from obligation, and now the case is that the oath has either been transferred to B, or that now B may collect without taking an oath, the representative is free from obligation, since the damage to A's interests is not clear and remains problematical, as no one can be sure that A would have taken the required oath. However, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would be free from obligation and would not be required to take an oath, and now B collects from A without being required to take an oath, the representative is guilty of willful neglect.
SOURCES: Cr. 157; Pr. 242; Mord. B. M. 290; Rashba I, 1106.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A claims that his representative caused him to lose his case against B by willful neglect, for the representative pleaded in court those arguments which A asked him not to plead, and neglected to plead those arguments which he specifically asked him to. A, therefore, demands that his representative compensate him for the loss caused him.
A. If A lost money through his representative's willful neglect, the latter must make good A's loss. But, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would have had to swear and be able to recover, or swear and be free from obligation, and now the case is that the oath has either been transferred to B, or that now B may collect without taking an oath, the representative is free from obligation, since the damage to A's interests is not clear and remains problematical, as no one can be sure that A would have taken the required oath. However, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would be free from obligation and would not be required to take an oath, and now B collects from A without being required to take an oath, the representative is guilty of willful neglect.
SOURCES: Cr. 157; Pr. 242; Mord. B. M. 290; Rashba I, 1106.
A. If A lost money through his representative's willful neglect, the latter must make good A's loss. But, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would have had to swear and be able to recover, or swear and be free from obligation, and now the case is that the oath has either been transferred to B, or that now B may collect without taking an oath, the representative is free from obligation, since the damage to A's interests is not clear and remains problematical, as no one can be sure that A would have taken the required oath. However, if the case is such that had the representative pleaded A's arguments, A would be free from obligation and would not be required to take an oath, and now B collects from A without being required to take an oath, the representative is guilty of willful neglect.
SOURCES: Cr. 157; Pr. 242; Mord. B. M. 290; Rashba I, 1106.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy