Responsa על בבא בתרא 212:2
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. Leah died leaving two sons, A and C; the former is now here but the latter is away. A demands his share of a deposit Leah had left with B. Must the latter give A his share, or may he defer the return of the deposit till C appears?
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. A, B, C, and D, were partners in a loan made by them. In repayment they received a quantity of silver which they divided among themselves by lot. Subsequently, A bought B's silver and sold it to merchants [probably Gentile merchants]. The latter broke up the silver and found it mixed with base metal. A averted a calamity by pacifying the merchants with gifts of money, thus preventing their bringing false accusations against him. A demands that B reimburse him with the price of the silver, and also compensate him for the money he had spent in pacifying the merchants.
A. The sale of the silver to A is void, since it was made in error. Similarly, the division of the silver among the partners is void, even though made by lot, since that too was made in error. However, B is not required to compensate A for the money he spent in pacifying the merchants, since B did not know, at the time of the sale, that his silver contained base metal. Moreover, even if B knew the contents of his silver, he would still be absolved from paying A the money he had given to the merchants, since he was only an indirect cause of A's loss, though he would be liable to punishment by the Heavenly Court.
SOURCES: P. 48, 49.
A. The sale of the silver to A is void, since it was made in error. Similarly, the division of the silver among the partners is void, even though made by lot, since that too was made in error. However, B is not required to compensate A for the money he spent in pacifying the merchants, since B did not know, at the time of the sale, that his silver contained base metal. Moreover, even if B knew the contents of his silver, he would still be absolved from paying A the money he had given to the merchants, since he was only an indirect cause of A's loss, though he would be liable to punishment by the Heavenly Court.
SOURCES: P. 48, 49.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. Leah died leaving two sons, A and C; the former is now here but the latter is away. A demands his share of a deposit Leah had left with B. Must the latter give A his share, or may he defer the return of the deposit till C appears?
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.
A. A is to be given his share of the deposit by the order and supervision of a court; while the other half is to be left, with B, for C.
This Responsum is addressed to Rabbi Menahem haLevi and Rabbi Joseph.
SOURCES: Cr. 43; Am II, 206; Mord. B. M. 283; Tesh. Maim. to Mishpatim, 26.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy