Responsa for Shevuot 94:13

מתיב רב הונא בר יהודה

[In the case of] one lender and one borrower and two documents - the holder of the document is at a disadvantage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One lender lent one borrower two loans, for which he produces two documents, on one of which one set of witnesses had signed, and on the other of which the other set of witnesses had signed. Both R. Huna and R. Hisda agree that since this lender desires to exact money from the borrower on both documents, on one of which (though we do not know which one) false witnesses had signed, he may obtain payment on one loan only, the lesser one; and he loses the bigger loan, for the borrower may maintain that the witnesses who had signed on the larger amount are the false witnesses; since the lender cannot prove the contrary, he cannot obtain that loan.');">24 [Where there are] two lenders and one borrower and two documents - that is our<big>MISHNAH:</big> <span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two lenders, each producing a document against the same person, one document having been signed by one set of witnesses and the other document by the other set: R. Huna holds both documents can be enforced, for the case is similar to that of our Mishnah where both shopkeeper and workman take the oath and enforce their claims against the householder, though we know definitely that one of them is swearing falsely; but we cannot deprive either of them of his money; so here, both lenders can enforce their claims. Though, according to R. Hisda, neither, of course, can enforce his claim; cf. next note.');">25 [But in the case of] two borrowers and one lender and two documents - what [is R'Huna's ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The lender produces two documents against two borrowers: does R. Huna hold, since it is one man who produces both documents (one of which is definitely signed by false witnesses) , the court cannot uphold his claim at all, for each borrower may maintain that the document against him is the false one; or since his claim is against two separate people, he produces one document at a time and enforces his claim, for R. Huna holds that both sets of witnesses are believed separately. According to R. Hisda, of course, the claims cannot be enforced, for he holds that both sets of witnesses, even separately, are disqualified (even when two different lenders are the claimants) .');">26 Let it stand.27 R'Huna B'Judah raised an objection.

Teshuvot Maharam

Q. A lent money, on trust, to B who subsequently left for a distant country where he was robbed of all his possessions. Upon his return he settled with A for three halves (half-pounds, marks), and gave A a note of indebtedness in which no specific date of month or day, but the calendar year since the creation of the world appeared, and which contained a clause to the effect that A is to be believed without an oath should any litigation arise concerning this debt. After B's death his widow seized his property in payment of her ketubah, which property barely covered ten percent of her claim, without taking the usual oath required of a widow upon the collection of her ketubah. Ten years after the death of B's widow, A presented his note for collection and demanded the full amount from B's sons. The latter claimed that their father left them nothing, that they inherited valuables from their mother only, and that B had paid A part of the debt contained in the note. A single witness testified, and A himself finally admitted, that B had repaid one-sixth of the debt.
A. A controversy exists regarding the status of the property seized by a widow in payment of her ketubah, if the widow died before taking the required oath. Some are of the opinion that the entire property reverts to the husband's estate; while others hold that the part of such property which is valued at no more than half of the amount of the widow's ketubah remains part of the widow's estate, while anything above that amount reverts to the husband's estate. The latter opinion is accepted. Therefore, if B's sons take an oath that they inherited nothing from their father, they are free from any obligation to A. If, however, they are willing to repay their father's debt, they may demand that A take an oath as to the amount actually due him, since he has been proven to be untrustworthy.
SOURCES: Pr. 859.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse