Responsa for Yevamot 211:10
אלמא אמר ליה משטה אני בך הכא נמי משטה אני בך
From this then it is evident that the one can say to the other, 'I was merely fooling you'; so here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of halizah under discussion. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> [the woman may say], 'I was merely fooling you'. 'Where is your father?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye's query implied that R. Papa seemed to have all his needs provided for by his parents and that this left him leisure enough to indulge in fine dialectics. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> [Abaye] asked him. — 'In town', the other replied. 'Where is your mother?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye's query implied that R. Papa seemed to have all his needs provided for by his parents and that this left him leisure enough to indulge in fine dialectics. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A levir performed the rite of halitzah with a shoe sewed with flaxen thread, but which did not belong to him. The levir refuses to repeat the rite with another shoe. The law provides that halitzah performed with a shoe not belonging to the levir is valid bediabad (after the act has been performed). What does bediabad mean in this case; does it mean after the rite was performed, or only after the woman remarried?
A. Bediabad, in this case, means after the rite was performed. Nevertheless, the aforementioned performance of the rite is invalid, for a different reason: the shoe used was sewed with flaxen thread and, therefore, was never fit for this purpose. Since, however, the levir performed an invalid rite of halitzah, neither he nor his brothers are now permitted to marry the widow. Halitzah by the same levir being the only manner of releasing her, he may be forced, by persuasion or by flagellation, to repeat the rite with the proper shoe. For now the Mitzvah revolved on him alone, and we are permitted to scourge a Jew until he perform the required Mitzvot.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem of Würzburg.
SOURCES: Am I, 93, 94.
A. Bediabad, in this case, means after the rite was performed. Nevertheless, the aforementioned performance of the rite is invalid, for a different reason: the shoe used was sewed with flaxen thread and, therefore, was never fit for this purpose. Since, however, the levir performed an invalid rite of halitzah, neither he nor his brothers are now permitted to marry the widow. Halitzah by the same levir being the only manner of releasing her, he may be forced, by persuasion or by flagellation, to repeat the rite with the proper shoe. For now the Mitzvah revolved on him alone, and we are permitted to scourge a Jew until he perform the required Mitzvot.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem of Würzburg.
SOURCES: Am I, 93, 94.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A levir performed the rite of halitzah with a shoe sewed with flaxen thread, but which did not belong to him. The levir refuses to repeat the rite with another shoe. The law provides that halitzah performed with a shoe not belonging to the levir is valid bediabad (after the act has been performed). What does bediabad mean in this case; does it mean after the rite was performed, or only after the woman remarried?
A. Bediabad, in this case, means after the rite was performed. Nevertheless, the aforementioned performance of the rite is invalid, for a different reason: the shoe used was sewed with flaxen thread and, therefore, was never fit for this purpose. Since, however, the levir performed an invalid rite of halitzah, neither he nor his brothers are now permitted to marry the widow. Halitzah by the same levir being the only manner of releasing her, he may be forced, by persuasion or by flagellation, to repeat the rite with the proper shoe. For now the Mitzvah revolved on him alone, and we are permitted to scourge a Jew until he perform the required Mitzvot.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem of Würzburg.
SOURCES: Am I, 93, 94.
A. Bediabad, in this case, means after the rite was performed. Nevertheless, the aforementioned performance of the rite is invalid, for a different reason: the shoe used was sewed with flaxen thread and, therefore, was never fit for this purpose. Since, however, the levir performed an invalid rite of halitzah, neither he nor his brothers are now permitted to marry the widow. Halitzah by the same levir being the only manner of releasing her, he may be forced, by persuasion or by flagellation, to repeat the rite with the proper shoe. For now the Mitzvah revolved on him alone, and we are permitted to scourge a Jew until he perform the required Mitzvot.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem of Würzburg.
SOURCES: Am I, 93, 94.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A's heirs demand from B A's Humash (one book of the Pentateuch) which witnesses saw in B's possession. B claims that A deposited the book with him as security for the two marks A owed him. Some of A's heirs admit having heard A say before his death that the book was deposited with B as a pledge. Is a Humash classified as an object which is usually borrowed or hired and regarding which a person is, therefore, not believed when he claims to have received it as a pledge?
A. Throughout the kingdom, Rashi's view is accepted that a Humash is not an object that is usually borrowed or hired. B therefore may take an oath that the book was pledged with him for two marks. However, B should be careful in taking his oath; for, if A did not actually owe him two marks, but promised to give B two marks if the latter effect a reconciliation between A and his son, A became indebted to B only for the latter's wages for the time and effort expended, but not for full two marks.
SOURCES: Pr. 1007.
A. Throughout the kingdom, Rashi's view is accepted that a Humash is not an object that is usually borrowed or hired. B therefore may take an oath that the book was pledged with him for two marks. However, B should be careful in taking his oath; for, if A did not actually owe him two marks, but promised to give B two marks if the latter effect a reconciliation between A and his son, A became indebted to B only for the latter's wages for the time and effort expended, but not for full two marks.
SOURCES: Pr. 1007.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy