Responsa for Shevuot 81:1
ומאן דמתני לה אסיפא הכא הוא דאיכא דררא דממונא אבל התם דליכא דררא דממונא לא
but he who applies it to the second clause [may say] here it is applicable because there is money at stake;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The money has already been admitted in front of witnesses; and therefore when he says he has returned it, he must at least take an oath.');"><sup>1</sup></span> but there where there is no money at stake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it is not absolutely certain that the claim is valid, since he denied it completely.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. B gave A two marks to invest and, from the profits, to pay every year a certain amount to charity to commemorate the soul of his departed wife. Now B demands that A pay him back the principal plus the accrued interest. A, however, claims that he received the two marks from B in order to give it, together with the interest, to any charity he pleases. He, therefore, refuses to return the money to B.
A. If B admits that the principal was also meant for charity, but claims that he wants to distribute it himself, A is free from any obligation to B, and is not even required to take an oath, since no actual money loss to B is involved.
SOURCES: Cr. 87; Pr. 286; Mord. Shebu. 767.
A. If B admits that the principal was also meant for charity, but claims that he wants to distribute it himself, A is free from any obligation to B, and is not even required to take an oath, since no actual money loss to B is involved.
SOURCES: Cr. 87; Pr. 286; Mord. Shebu. 767.
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