QUESTION: 100 minas(probably 100 Ib of silver) that belonged to orphans was left with A for safe-keeping. Later, he claimed that he had returned the sum, but an investigation showed that this was not the case. To force a return, a ban(herem) was placed upon him— no one was permitted to eat or have any contact with this individual(this was a complete ban, so no one could ignore it).
ANSWER: The community must separate themselves from this individual, and talmudic citations were provided to prove this. Persons who refused to abide by it were subject to whipping.
The arrangements were made without witnesses and probably hurriedly or on a journey when the father was near death. The arrangement of such deposits was common and a necessary part of life in difficult periods. Trustworthiness was essential to communal life.
Normally, A would have been forced to take an oath that he had returned the money— here this had not been done and the decision followed the talmudic ruling of creating a“fence around the law” as circumstantial evidence was used. This offense was seen as a criminal act as concerned with orphans; the court was the defender of orphans.
The fact that some members of the community disobeyed led to the question whether there was sufficient authority for it. The individuals that did not obey the ban were to(1) repent.(2) be whipped— even if this was done only symbolically— and(3) had to promise better behavior in the future.(Mueller, ed. Responsa 11 217)
QUESTION: A person who was ill but of sound mind wrote a will that left some property to his brother, a son of his brother, the poor, and the remainder to his wife. It had been properly witnessed and signed. Later, orally in the presence of witnesses, he stated that