Ownerless Property and Gifts Chapter 5

הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה בֵּין בָּרִיא בֵּין חוֹלֶה צָרִיךְ שֶׁתִּהְיֶה גְּלוּיָה וּמְפֻרְסֶמֶת. אָמַר לְעֵדִים כִּתְבוּ בַּסֵּתֶר וּתְנוּ לוֹ אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם. שֶׁזֶּה מַעֲרִים כְּדֵי לְאַבֵּד מָמוֹן אֲחֵרִים שֶׁיַּחֲזֹר וְיִמְכֹּר אַחַר שֶׁיִּתֵּן:

Whenever a person - whether healthy or sick - gives a gift, the gift must be made publicly and conspicuously. If a person tells witnesses: "Write a deed recording a gift in hiding and give it to the intended recipient," his statement is of no consequence. For he is acting subtly in order to take money belonging to others, for he will sell the property after giving the gift.

לְפִיכָךְ כָּל שְׁטַר מַתְּנַת קַרְקַע שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בּוֹ וְאָמַר לָנוּ פְּלוֹנִי הַנּוֹתֵן שְׁבוּ בַּשְּׁוָקִים וּבָרְחוֹבוֹת וְכִתְבוּ לוֹ מַתָּנָה גְּלוּיָה וּמְפֻרְסֶמֶת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ חוֹשְׁשִׁין לָהּ שֶׁמָּא מַתָּנָה מְסֻתֶּרֶת הִיא וְלֹא זָכָה הַמְקַבֵּל:

Therefore all land gift documents in which it is not written that Ploni, the one giving the gift, told us to sit in the markets or streets and write him this gift in an open and publicized manner, or words to that effect, the document is suspect to be a secret gift and the recipient is not entitled to the gift.

הַכּוֹתֵב שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מְסֻתֶּרֶת וְהָאַחֲרוֹנָה גְּלוּיָה וּמְפֻרְסֶמֶת אַחֲרוֹן קָנָה וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיְתָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה סְתָם וְאֵין בָּהּ לֹא עִנְיַן סְתִירָה וְלֹא עִנְיַן גִּלּוּי אֶלָּא מַתָּנָה סְתָם הָאַחֲרוֹן קָנָה:

When a person writes two deeds recording a gift for the same field, the first one hidden, and the second public and conspicuous, the person to whom the latter deed was given acquires it. This applies even if the deed recording the first gift does not mention that the gift should be hidden or that it be conspicuous, but just states that a gift should be given, the recipient of the latter document acquires the property,

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ שֶׁהַמּוֹסֵר מוֹדָעָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָתַן הַמַּתָּנָה בְּטֵלָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין זֶה אֹנֶס. שֶׁאֵין הוֹלְכִין בְּמַתָּנָה אֶלָּא אַחַר דַּעַת הַנּוֹתֵן. הוֹאִיל וְגִלָּה דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה בָּהּ מַתְּנָתוֹ בְּטֵלָה. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים מוֹכִיחִין שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתּוֹ לִתֵּן מַתָּנָה זוֹ אֲפִלּוּ שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה גְּלוּיָה וְנִמְצֵאת שֶׁנִּתְּנָה מִקֹּדֶם מַתָּנָה מְסֻתֶּרֶת הֲרֵי שְׁתֵּי הַמַּתָּנוֹת בְּטֵלוֹת. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מְסֻתֶּרֶת. וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַדָּבָר מוֹכִיחַ שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וַהֲרֵי קָדְמָה זוֹ הַמַּתָּנָה שֶׁנִּמְצְאָה כְּמוֹ מוֹדָעָה לָהּ:

As explained, when a person issues a protest and then gives a gift, the gift is nullified, even though the person is not being forced to give the gift against his will. The rationale is that with regard to a gift, we follow solely the intent of the giver. Since the giver revealed his intent that he did not desire to give the gift, his gift is nullified. Accordingly, when it is evident that a person did not desire to give a gift, even when he gave the gift in a conspicuous manner, but it was discovered that he had previously given a hidden gift, both gifts he gave are nullified: the first because it was given in a hidden manner, and the second because it is obvious that he did not want to give the gift. For the hidden gift that was discovered is considered like a protest for the second gift.

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁרָצָה לִשָּׂא אִשָּׁה. אָמְרָה לוֹ אֵינִי נִשֵּׂאת לְךָ עַד שֶׁתִּכְתֹּב לִי כָּל נְכָסֶיךָ. שָׁמַע בְּנוֹ הַגָּדוֹל וְצָוַח עַל שֶׁמַּנִּיחוֹ רֵיקָן. אָמַר לָעֵדִים לְכוּ וְהֵחָבְאוּ וְכִתְבוּ לוֹ כָּל נְכָסַי בְּמַתָּנָה. וְאַחַר כָּךְ כָּתַב לָהּ כָּל נְכָסָיו וּנְשָׂאָהּ. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ הַבֵּן לֹא קָנָה וְהָאִשָּׁה לֹא קָנְתָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ כָּתַב לָהּ וּכְאָנוּס בַּדָּבָר הוּא. שֶׁהֲרֵי גִּלָּה דַּעְתּוֹ בַּמַּתָּנָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא בְּטֵלָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מְסֻתֶּרֶת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ:

An incident occurred with regard to a person who desired to marry a woman. She told him: "I will not marry you unless you write me a deed giving me all your property." The man's elder son heard this and objected at being left empty handed. The man said to witnesses: "Go and hide and write a document, granting him all my property as a gift." Afterwards, he wrote a document granting all his property to his prospective bride and married her. The incident was brought before the Sages. They ruled: The son did not acquire the property, nor did the woman acquire the property. The woman did not acquire the property because the man did not willingly compose the document granting her his property. It is as if he had been acting under duress. For by giving the first gift, even though it was nullified - because it was hidden, he revealed his intent. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁזְּמַנָּן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד וְהֵן כְּתוּבִין עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת בֵּין בְּמֶכֶר בֵּין בְּמַתָּנָה. אִם דֶּרֶךְ אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם לִכְתֹּב שָׁעוֹת כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה. וְאִם אֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַמָּקוֹם לִכְתֹּב שָׁעוֹת הֲרֵי הַדָּבָר מָסוּר לַדַּיָּנִים. כָּל שֶׁדַּעְתָּם נוֹטָה לְהַעֲמִיד שָׂדֶה זוֹ בְּיָדוֹ יַעֲמִידוּ:

The following rules apply when there are two legal documents with the same date, either deeds of sale or deeds recording a gift, applying to one field. If it is customary for the people of that locale to record the hour of the day when the document was signed in the document, the person with the document dated earlier acquires it. If it is not customary for the people of that locale to record the hour in the document, the matter is left to the discretion of the judges. The field is granted to the person whom they feel it is proper to recognize as the owner.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ קִנְיָן אֶלָּא קָנָה שָׂדֶה זוֹ בִּשְׁטָר זֶה. שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין מִי הוּא מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁהִגִּיעַ שְׁטָרוֹ לְיָדוֹ תְּחִלָּה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה בְּכָל שְׁטָר מֵהֶן קִנְיָן כָּל שֶׁקָּדַם לוֹ הַקִּנְיָן זָכָה וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ הָעֵדִים. וְכֵן אִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁזֶּה הִגִּיעַ לְיָדוֹ שְׁטַר מַתְּנָתוֹ תְּחִלָּה קָנָה הָרִאשׁוֹן:

When does the above apply? With regard to a legal document that does not mention a kinyan, but rather the recipient desired to acquire the field through the transfer of this legal document. In such an instance, we do not know who received the legal document first. If, however, both of the legal documents mention a kinyan, the one with whom a kinyan was made first acquires the property. The witnesses should be asked about the matter. Similarly, if there were witnesses who know who received the deed recording the gift first, that person acquires the field.

שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת הַיּוֹצְאִים עַל שָׂדֶה אַחַת בְּשֵׁם קוֹנֶה אֶחָד וְאֵין זְמַנָּם שָׁוֶה. אִם הָיָה שְׁטָר אֶחָד מֶכֶר וְאֶחָד מַתָּנָה. אִם הָיָה הַשְּׁטָר הָרִאשׁוֹן מַתָּנָה וְהַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁאַחֲרָיו מֶכֶר לֹא בִּטֵּל הָאַחֲרוֹן אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן. שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹמַר לְהוֹסִיף לוֹ אַחֲרָיוּת חָזַר וְכָתַב בְּשֵׁם מֶכֶר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה כּוֹתֵב שָׁם אַחֲרָיוּת שֶׁאַחֲרָיוּת טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הוּא. וְכֵן אִם הָרִאשׁוֹן מֶכֶר וְהַשֵּׁנִי מַתָּנָה קָנָה הַשָּׂדֶה מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן. שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לוֹ שְׁטַר מַתָּנָה אֶלָּא לְיַפּוֹת כֹּחוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם דִּין בֶּן הַמֵּצַר:

The following laws apply when there are two legal documents concerning the transfer of one field to one buyer, and they are dated differently. If one legal document records a sale and the other a gift, we do as follows: When the earlier dated document records a gift and the later document a sale, the later document does not nullify the former one. For we assume that the giver wrote the document recording a sale to add his acceptance of responsibility for the field, if expropriated by a creditor. This applies even when the document does not mention this responsibility. For the omission of such responsibility is considered to be a scribal error. Similarly, if the earlier document records a sale and the later document a gift, the recipient acquires the field from the date of the first document. We assume that the seller had the document regarding a gift composed to strengthen the purchaser's position, and to protect him against a possible claim of a neighbor.

הָיוּ שְׁנֵי הַשְּׁטָרוֹת בְּמֶכֶר אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּמַתָּנָה. אִם הוֹסִיף בַּשֵּׁנִי כְּלוּם הֲרֵי הָרִאשׁוֹן קַיָּם שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב הַשֵּׁנִי אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הַתּוֹסֶפֶת. וְאִם לֹא הוֹסִיף בִּטֵּל שְׁטָר שֵׁנִי אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ אַחֲרָיוּת אֶלָּא מִזְּמַן הַשֵּׁנִי. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִזְּמַן רִאשׁוֹן עַד זְמַן שֵׁנִי מַחְזִיר אוֹתָם. וְאִם הָיָה עַל אוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה חֹק לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּכָל שָׁנָה. הַנּוֹתֵן אוֹ הַמּוֹכֵר נוֹתֵן אוֹתוֹ הַחֹק עַד זְמַן הַשְּׁטָר הַשֵּׁנִי:

Different rules apply if both legal documents mention a sale, or both mention a gift. If the second document adds any fact enhancing the position of the recipient or the purchaser, the first document is valid. We assume that the second was composed only because of the additional points. If no additional points were made in the second document, the second document nullifies the first, and the first owner's responsibility does not begin until the date mentioned in the second document. For this reason, the purchaser must return all the produce that he consumed until the date mentioned in the second document. If there is an annual levy from the king on that field, the giver or the seller is required to pay that levy until the date mentioned in the second document.