Responsa for Taanit 49:6

Q. A paid his taxes directly to the overlord of his town, independently of the rest of the community. The overlord, suspecting that A possessed much greater wealth than he usually professed to have, and being driven by a greed for money, arrested him without cause and later arrested his wife L. Before her arrest, however, and before the reason for these arrests became manifest, L helped Gershom, A's son by a previous marriage, to flee the domain of the overlord and thus escape from his clutches. Meanwhile, A was put to death in prison. The overlord posted guards in the town to make sure that A's children did not escape, and demanded a large sum of money from L. He further proposed that L merge her taxes with those of the community and that the latter jointly with L negotiate the new tax. When the community representatives asked as to the identity of the persons who would be expected to pay this tax, the overlord answered that everybody would pay it, the young and the old, the rich and the poor. The community representatives, then, strongly objected to the merger with L; whereupon the overlord agreed to negotiate with them separately. He levied a very heavy tax on the community, but this tax did not exceed the estimated value of the wealth of the community members. L was warned that should she prove to be stubborn and unyielding, she and A's children would be made to suffer the same fate as A. Finally the overlord came to terms with L and agreed to release her, and to return to her A's impounded valuables, for a ransom of six hundred and twenty pounds. To insure the payment of this ransom the overlord demanded as hostages one of L's children and one of A's children by his former marriage. Now Gershom, and A's other children by his former marriage, refuse to pay their part of the ransom money, and instead, wish to pay their part of the assessment on the community.
A. Gershom is not obliged to pay any part of the ransom money since he escaped before the overlord asked for such money. Although L engineered his escape, he is under no monetary obligation to her, since she merely did him a favor. However, if Gershom is to claim, as his share of the inheritance, part of A's valuables that have remained in town within the grasp of the overlord, he must pay a proportionate part of the ransom for such valuables. A's children by his former marriage must pay their part of the ransom money in proportion to their wealth. Even though they were not imprisoned, there is sufficient indication that the overlord intended to include them in the extortion. Thus, guards had been posted in town to watch them, and their lives had been explicitly threatened upon L's refusal to come to terms with the overlord. Moreover, had the overlord negotiated with L regarding only her personal possessions, he would not have demanded 620 pounds from her, knowing full well that she was entitled to receive from A's estate only her ketubah, and that such a sum was well beyond her means. The overlord did not demand from the community a sum greater than the value of all their wealth; therefore, it stands to reason that he was not entirely unreasonable in his demands upon L. We may assume with certainty that had L refused to pay the ransom, A's children would have been seized, and would have been killed or forcibly baptized. Had A's children protested against being ransomed, we would have paid no attention to them and would have effected their release even against their will, and then, we would have collected the ransom money from them; for we are obliged to ransom a Jew even against his will. Now, that A's children have not protested against the ransom, they must certainly contribute thereto in proportion to their wealth. Although their lives were threatened, and the talmudic law (B.B. 116b) would thus require that the amount of the ransom money should be calculated, one half equally for each person, and the other half in proportion to the individual's wealth, this law does not apply to our case. We know that the overlord was interested only in their money, not in taking their lives, as the whole trouble started because the overlord thought A to be very wealthy.
Q. L seized some of A's movables claiming that she seized them for the purpose of paying for her sustenance. Some of these movables were originally impounded by the overlord and were later returned to L. May A's heirs force L to render under oath an account of such valuables?
A. Movables impounded by an overlord are considered abandoned property (hefker), title thereto, passing to the first person who seizes them, since the original owner must have given up hope of retrieving them. Although owners do not usually abandon movables taken away by Gentile robbers (B.K. 114a), they do abandon these when impounded by the overlord of the town, since he is the undisputed master of the town and no one can restrain him. This was especially true in our case, since his claim was bolstered by false accusations. Therefore, L is under no obligation to give an account of the movables returned to her by the overlord. However, those movables which the overlord had returned to her, and which she gave to the overlord in partial payment of the ransom, should be credited pro rata to all those who are obliged to pay the ransom, since the valuables had been given to her in order to decrease the ransom for all parties involved. Furthermore, L is under no obligation to give an accounting of the other movables she seized (the movables that were not impounded by the overlord) as long as it is known that the value of such movables does not exceed the value of her ketubah. For whenever L demands her ketubah, she will have to take an oath regarding these movables; as long as she does not demand her ketubah, no oath can be imposed on her.
Q. Rabbi Kuzlan, a relative of R. Meir, declared that A had deposited money with him and had told him to give the money, after A's death, to R. Mushlin, A's brother, who had received instructions regarding its disposal. Rabbi Kuzlan, therefore, gave the money to R. Mushlin. The latter claims that he was instructed by A to give all the money to A's children by his former marriage. R. Liber Shamash, another relative of R. Meir, testified that A made the following declaration in his presence: "Half of all the ready cash I have here, and in the house of Rabbi Kuzlan, and in the settlement, was given to Gershom my son, and the other half to his two older sisters, and I have empowered my brother Mushlin thus to dispose of the deposit that is in the house." L, on the other hand, produced a document wherein it was written that A had obligated himself not to alienate any of his property and thus put it beyond his wife's reach. L, therefore, demands that R. Mushlin take an oath to support his assertions.
A. The testimony of R. Liber Shamash is of no consequence since a verbal admission of having given valuables to a certain person, is no proof that title to such valuables was actually transferred to that person. Therefore, R. Mushlin has no witness to support his assertions. Although heirs may not exact an oath from a trustee appointed by their father (Gitt. 52a), this rule applies only to the heirs, who are to inherit the property managed by the trustee; but, the heirs who, according to the assertions of the trustee, are not to receive any part of such property, may exact an oath from the trustee even though they are not positive in their claim that the trustee had wronged them. Therefore, L and her children may exact the oath from R. Mushlin. Moreover, even if R. Mushlin's assertions were true, A's gift to his children by his former marriage would be considered a gift causa mortis, since it was to be given to them after A's death. Since a widow and orphaned daughters are entitled to draw their sustenance from all causa mortis gifts, L and her daughters would be entitled to draw their sustenance, and L would be entitled to collect her ketubah, from the money in the hands of R. Mushlin, if no unencumbered assets remain of A's estate. L's daughters are entitled to receive their sustenance till their marriage, the expense to be born proportionately by A's heirs (out of their inheritance). At the time of their marriage they will be entitled to a dowry of one tenth the immovables of A's estate. L's son, however, must derive his sustenance from his own portion of the inheritance, and when it will all be consumed he will have to resort to charity.
Q. L, at the time of her arrest, hired an agent to manage A's estate, to collect debts and sell valuables, in order to raise money for the ransom. She agreed to pay the agent a large sum of money for his efforts. Furthermore, R. Mushlin claims to have incurred expenses in his efforts to save L and A's children.
A. Since L had a right to hire an agent (Gitt. 52a) and since she was in urgent need of help, the agent is entitled to receive adequate compensation for his efforts; the court is to determine what constitutes adequate compensation. The agent, however, is not entitled to receive anything above such amount, even though L had promised him much more, for wages and hire are subject to reassessment. If R. Mushlin's claim is disputed, he must take an oath to support it. L had no right to sell any part of A's estate unless such sale was made in the presence of a lay court. Therefore, the articles sold must be reevaluated by such a court. If the articles had been sold below such evaluation, the difference should be deducted from L's ketubah; but if the articles were sold above the estimated value, the difference should revert to the heirs.
Q. Upon her marriage, A's daughter by a former marriage was given by R. Mushlin, as part of her dowry, her share (one quarter) of the money originally deposited with Rabbi Kuzlan (see part 3).
A. L was entitled to collect a proportionate part of her ketubah exclusively from this money; now that this money had been given to the husband of A's daughter, L may no longer collect that part of her ketubah. Therefore, R. Mushlin has directly damaged L's interests and must make good, out of his own pocket, the loss thus sustained by L.
Q. Are the heirs permitted to pay L her ketubah by transferring to her debts due from Gentiles, if she objects to such manner of payment?
A. Debts due from Gentiles can not be directly assigned to a third person. Even though there is an indirect method of assigning such debts, a woman may refuse such manner of payment since even a creditor or one who has suffered damage may refuse to receive payment in such manner. Moreover, a woman is not expected to suffer the hardships and indignities entailed in collecting debts from Gentiles. Therefore, L may insist on being paid only in nonencumbered valuables.
Q. During the perilous period of the persecution by the overlord, a Gentile who owed ten marks to A came to L and asked her to release him from this debt. L, fearing lest refusal would aggravate the situation, said to the Gentile: "I shall never demand this money from you". A's heirs claim that this release caused them an unnecessary loss of ten marks.
A. Neither according to Jewish law nor according to the law of the land does L's statement release the debtor from his obligation to A's heirs. But, if according to the law of your particular town this debt is considered cancelled, L is to be held responsible for the amount the debt was worth at the time of the release. Surely the debt was not worth very much at a time when the creditor was in mortal danger! However, if L released the aforementioned debtor, as a safety measure, and as a contributing factor to gain relief, the loss must be born by L, and the heirs that were in town at the time, pro rata.
Q. A had deposited one pound with a burgher. After L came to terms with the overlord, the burgher returned the pound. L and the heirs who were in town during the period of danger, claim that it would have been impossible to collect the pound from the burgher if the settlement had not been effected with the overlord, while the other heirs claim that the burgher would have returned the money in any event.
A. If L is not able to take an oath to the effect, that (she is certain that) the deposit would in all probability have been lost if not for the settlement with the overlord, no ransom money can be collected from this deposit.
Q. The youngest heir received for his share debts due to the estate. The market value of these debts was much less than their face value. Since every heir must contribute to the payment of L's ketubah in proportion to the amount of money, he or she, inherited from A's estate, what amount is the youngest heir to contribute?
A. He must contribute in proportion to the market value of the debts.
Q. Two notes of indebtedness were held in A's room which had been sealed up by the overlord (at the time of the extortion). Are the investments attested to by these notes, subject to the payment of the ransom money?
A. These investments are in the same category as the money and the valuables that were held in the room; for had no agreement been reached with the overlord, he would have taken away the notes of indebtedness, and the investments would have been lost. Even when the notes are presented to (Gentile) debtors, they are often unwilling to repay their debts; when such notes are lost, one can not expect repayment. Moreover, the overlord would have collected these debts for himself.
Q. L took from Gershom's share debts to the value of one hundred and seventy pounds. Now that Gershom is not required to pay any ransom money, how can he collect his money?
A. Gershom may charge this amount to his sisters' shares of the ransom money and collect it from them, or he may charge it to the payment of L's ketubah. L does not have to collect her ketubah, or the ransom money, directly from the orphan girls; she may collect it from their money in the hands of R. Mushlin. The latter has no right to give the money he holds, to anyone until L receives all that is due her from the heirs, both male and female, each one according to his share.
If R. Mushlin has already given this money to the heirs, or should he in the future give it to them in order to put obstacles in L's way, and thus make it difficult for her to collect her money, then R. Mushlin is to be held responsible for such payments, and is to pay L out of his own pocket.
R. Meir adds: "You have protracted your case and have burdened me beyond endurance. I cannot bear your sending me any further inquiries regarding this case. It is obvious that the trustees are only interested in causing annoyance, vexation and protraction. From now on judge any case that may come before you, yourselves!" R. Meir further adds: "At last it has become apparent, it is sad to reflect, that all these cunning machinations are employed only to harass the widow, to procrastinate, and to deprive her of her ketubah; but you are merely succeeding in troubling and harassing me to no purpose."
These Responsa are addressed to "My relatives Rabbi Elijah and Rabbi David".
SOURCES: Am II, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.