Teshuvot Maharam · Berlin Edition, Part I, Chapter 220
1
ועל המסירה הרי לא הפסידו ועל שעשה שלא כהוגן שקבל לגוי עליו איני דן דיני קנסות אמנם הרשות ביד הקהל לקנוס ולענוש על דבר מכוער לפי מה שהוא אדם הכל לפי המבייש ושלום מאיר בר' ברוך זלה"ה.
A claims that his father-in-law, B, alienated his wife's affections and also withheld his money. B claims: a) when he gave his daughter to A he stipulated the condition that A deposit sixty pounds with him; b) A agreed to this condition and gave the money to B and to his daughter stipulating that should A overindulge in food and drink or generally squander his money, he and his daughter would withhold the money until A bettered his habits; c) this agreement was accompanied by a kinyan; d) that A drew up a bond to that effect which bond is still in B's possession; e) A abstracted the sixty pounds from his wife, and therefore she refuses to live with him, or to give him money that was originally designated for buying her ornaments. A disclaims signing such bond, and denies having squandered any money or being guilty of any improper behavior. He denies having abstracted the money from B's daughter for the purpose of squandering it, but says that he had taken it only because he was afraid lest B rob him of his money and deprive him of his wife, as B had done with his other sons-in-law. A further claims that B turned him over to a wicked Gentile who almost murdered him. A, therefore, demands that B be punished. B, on the other hand, gives a different account of the affair. He says that a Gentile, a violent man, placed a mark (8 ounces) of gold in pledge with him; and he, in turn, deposited it with A. When A wanted to leave town, B fearing lest the Gentile bring false accusations against him upon failing to produce the pledge, demanded that A return the gold mark to him. A invited B to go to the Gentile, and promised to free B from obligation to the Gentile. The Gentile, however, refused to listen to A and warned B that he (the Gentile) would collect double its value should his gold mark be lost. B, therefore, grabbed A by the clothes and said to the Gentile that his gold mark was in A's possession. The Gentile, then, angered by A's words made extreme threats against A. Nevertheless, A suffered no bodily injury nor any loss of money on account of this incident. A. If the agreement was made at the time of the betrothal, it is binding on A. At a betrothal, verbal agreements are binding, and whenever verbal promises are binding — as in charity-gifts, Temple-gifts, or vows — they are binding even when made in the form of conditional promises which are usually classified as asmakhta. If the money in question was part of the dowry given by B to his daughter, the agreement is certainly binding on A. Moreover, even if the agreement was entered into after the betrothal, it would also be binding if it was accompanied by a kinyan made before the notables of the community, who normally constitute an authoritative court. Regarding A's complaint that B informed against him, A is not entitled to compensation since he suffered no damages. As to punishing B for complaining to a Gentile against A, I have no authority to impose fines. The community, however, has the right to impose fines, and also to punish a member for improper acts committed by him. Such fines are to be imposed in accordance with the status of the individuals involved. SOURCES: Cr. 304; P. 219, 220; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 181a.
ועל המסירה הרי לא הפסידו ועל שעשה שלא כהוגן שקבל לגוי עליו איני דן דיני קנסות אמנם הרשות ביד הקהל לקנוס ולענוש על דבר מכוער לפי מה שהוא אדם הכל לפי המבייש ושלום מאיר בר' ברוך זלה"ה.
A claims that his father-in-law, B, alienated his wife's affections and also withheld his money. B claims: a) when he gave his daughter to A he stipulated the condition that A deposit sixty pounds with him; b) A agreed to this condition and gave the money to B and to his daughter stipulating that should A overindulge in food and drink or generally squander his money, he and his daughter would withhold the money until A bettered his habits; c) this agreement was accompanied by a kinyan; d) that A drew up a bond to that effect which bond is still in B's possession; e) A abstracted the sixty pounds from his wife, and therefore she refuses to live with him, or to give him money that was originally designated for buying her ornaments. A disclaims signing such bond, and denies having squandered any money or being guilty of any improper behavior. He denies having abstracted the money from B's daughter for the purpose of squandering it, but says that he had taken it only because he was afraid lest B rob him of his money and deprive him of his wife, as B had done with his other sons-in-law.
A further claims that B turned him over to a wicked Gentile who almost murdered him. A, therefore, demands that B be punished. B, on the other hand, gives a different account of the affair. He says that a Gentile, a violent man, placed a mark (8 ounces) of gold in pledge with him; and he, in turn, deposited it with A. When A wanted to leave town, B fearing lest the Gentile bring false accusations against him upon failing to produce the pledge, demanded that A return the gold mark to him. A invited B to go to the Gentile, and promised to free B from obligation to the Gentile. The Gentile, however, refused to listen to A and warned B that he (the Gentile) would collect double its value should his gold mark be lost. B, therefore, grabbed A by the clothes and said to the Gentile that his gold mark was in A's possession. The Gentile, then, angered by A's words made extreme threats against A. Nevertheless, A suffered no bodily injury nor any loss of money on account of this incident.
A. If the agreement was made at the time of the betrothal, it is binding on A. At a betrothal, verbal agreements are binding, and whenever verbal promises are binding — as in charity-gifts, Temple-gifts, or vows — they are binding even when made in the form of conditional promises which are usually classified as asmakhta. If the money in question was part of the dowry given by B to his daughter, the agreement is certainly binding on A. Moreover, even if the agreement was entered into after the betrothal, it would also be binding if it was accompanied by a kinyan made before the notables of the community, who normally constitute an authoritative court.
Regarding A's complaint that B informed against him, A is not entitled to compensation since he suffered no damages. As to punishing B for complaining to a Gentile against A, I have no authority to impose fines. The community, however, has the right to impose fines, and also to punish a member for improper acts committed by him. Such fines are to be imposed in accordance with the status of the individuals involved.
SOURCES: Cr. 304; P. 219, 220; Mordecai Hagadol, p. 181a.