Responsa for Shevuot 63:9
תניא כוותיה דשמואל ראוהו שבא אחריהן אמרו לו מה אתה בא אחרינו שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות פטורין ואם בפקדון חייבים:
but if you say, neither 'HE SAID' there is stressed nor 'HE SAID' here is stressed, why does the Mishnah say 'HE SAID' in both places?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Let them both be omitted. Obviously therefore we must say that at least in our Mishnah 'HE SAID' is to be taken literally; why, therefore, does Samuel need to tell us his ruling? It is implicit in the Mishnah!');"><sup>14</sup></span> - Perhaps because it is the usual thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We might have thought that the Mishnah mentions 'HE SAID', not because it is to be taken literally, but because it is usual for the plaintiff to say, 'Come and bear testimony for me.'');"><sup>15</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
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.
Teshuvot Maharam
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.