Responsa for Shevuot 82:15

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה הב לי שית מאה זוזי דמסיקנא בך א"ל ולא פרעתיך מאה קבי

Said [R'Nahman] to him: 'Since you admit that you definitely received the money from him, it is a proper repayment; if you desire the condition to be fulfilled, go and bring the money [here], for here am I and R'Shesheth who have studied the laws, Sifra, Sifre, Tosefta,21 and the whole<big>GEMARA:</big> '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is no excuse to say, because the money is now lost, that you accepted it as a deposit and not as repayment of the loan. [MS.M. reads 'Talmud' for 'Gemara' in curr. ed. On these terms, v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 206, n. 6.]');">22 There was a certain [man] who said to his neighbour: 'Give me the hundred zuz that l lent you.' The other said to him: 'The thing never happened.'23 He went and brought witnesses that he lent him, but [they also said] he repaid him. Abaye said: What shall we do? They say he lent him, and they themselves say he repaid him.24 Raba said: If he says, 'I did not borrow,' it is as if he said, 'I did not repay.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he did not borrow he certainly did not repay. Witnesses testify that he did borrow, and they are believed; but they are not believed when they say he repaid, for he himself admits that he did not repay; therefore he must pay.');">25 There was a certain [man] who said to his neighbour: 'Give me the hundred zuz that I claim from you.' He replied to him: 'Did I not repay you before So-and-so and So-and-so? ' [Thereupon] So-and-so and So-and-so came and said: 'The thing never happened.'26 R'Shesheth thought of saying that he was therefore proven a liar.27 Said Raba to him: Anything which does not rest upon a man he will do unconsciously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was not incumbent upon him to remember whether he paid before witnesses or not, for the lender had not stipulated that he must repay him before witnesses; when, therefore, he said he had repaid before witnesses, his memory was at fault, but he is not thereby accounted a liar, and may take an oath that he has repaid the loan.');">28 There was a certain [man] who said to his neighbour: 'Give me the six hundred zuz that I claim from you.' The other replied to him: 'Did I not repay you a hundred kabs

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. L asked A why he was occupying her property, since her husband had inherited the property from his father and she was about to take it in payment of her ketubah. A averred that he had bought the property from L's father-in-law, that he could produce the deed as proof, and that he could prove through witnesses a long period of undisturbed possession. A was then asked to produce the deed. The deed showed, however, that after the death of L's father-in-law, A bought the property from L's mother-in-law to whom the court had adjudged such property in payment of her ketubah. When A was asked to explain the discrepancy between his statement and the deed, A answered that he had bought the property twenty-three years ago and did not remember the details.
A. A's statement did not invalidate the deed, for a person does not usually remember details that are of no particular importance to him.
SOURCES: Cr. 311; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 309a.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A summoned his father-in-law, B, to court and claimed: 1) that B's father-in-law, C, (A's grandfather), bequeathed twenty-five marks to B's two daughters with the provision that if one daughter died childless, the other should inherit her part, and if the second daughter likewise died childless, the twenty-five marks were to go to C's male heirs; 2) that the money was deposited with B; and 3) that after he, A, had been married to B's daughter for two years, the other daughter died while still a minor. A, therefore, demanded the twenty-five marks from B. B, on the other hand, claimed that he had given the twenty-five marks to A as dowry upon the latter's marriage to his daughter. A, however, claimed that upon receiving his dowry he was not told about the twenty-five marks and that B could not have given him that money since the younger daughter was still alive. To this claim B answered that he expected to give his own money to his younger daughter. He further claims that A's wife has no children yet and, therefore, he, B, cannot give anything to A since in case A's wife dies childless, C's heirs will keep him responsible for the money.
A. B is under no obligation to A for the following reasons: 1) We believe B's claim that he included the money of his departed daughter in A's dowry, since B could have claimed that his younger daughter gave him her money, and this latter claim would have been irrefutable; 2) the father is the rightful heir of the departed daughter since C's provision for the disposition of his gift in case the daughter die childless is void.
Q. A claims that he has witnesses who will testify that B took from his (A's) father thirty marks. B claims that he returned to A whatever he had taken from his father.
A. If the witnesses will testify that B robbed A's father, A should take an oath that B did not as yet return the money to him, and be entitled to collect the thirty marks from B. If, however, B received the money from A's father in a legitimate way, B should take an oath that he had paid all the money he owed to his father, and be free from obligation.
SOURCES: Cr. 283–4; Pr. 1017; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 227a.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse