Plaintiff and Defendant Chapter 16

רְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר לְשִׁמְעוֹן שָׂדֶה וְהָיָה לֵוִי מֵעֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר וּבָא לֵוִי לְעַרְעֵר עַל הַשָּׂדֶה וְלִטְעֹן שֶׁרְאוּבֵן גָּזַל אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ וְאֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין עַל רְאָיוֹת שֶׁיָּבִיא עַל אוֹתָהּ שָׂדֶה וַהֲרֵי אִבֵּד כָּל זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד עַל הַמֶּכֶר וְתָבוֹא וּתְעַרְעֵר. וְכֵן אִם הֵעִיד לֵוִי בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן מִצַּד מִזְרָח אוֹ מַעֲרָב הוֹאִיל וְעָשָׂה הַשָּׂדֶה סִימָן לְאַחֵר וְהֵעִיד בַּשְּׁטָר אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וּלְעַרְעֵר שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לוֹ הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה הַזֹּאת מִצַּד פְּלוֹנִי וְתַחְזֹר וּתְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ:

A person's protests are not accepted in the following situation. Reuven sold a field to Shimon, and Levi was one of the witnesses who signed the deed of sale. Afterwards, Levi came and protested Shimon's ownership of the field, claiming that Reuven stole it from him. We do not heed Levi's protest, nor do we pay attention to the proofs he brings concerning his ownership of that field. He has forfeited all of his rights to it. For we tell him: "How could you serve as a witness to the sale and then come and protest?" Similar concepts apply if Levi gives testimony in a legal document that speaks of "the field belonging to Reuven on the east" or "... on the north." Since he referred to that field as an identification marker for the sake of another person and recorded this testimony in a legal document, he forfeited his right to it and cannot issue a protest concerning it. For we tell him: "How could you serve as a witness in this legal document that mentions this field being near another field and then issue a protest concerning it?"

טָעַן הָעֵד וְאָמַר תֶּלֶם אֶחָד הוּא שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי סִימָן וְלֹא כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה וְאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֵּצַר בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן הֲרֵי זֶה טַעֲנָה הַנִּשְׁמַעַת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְעַרְעֵר עַל כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם. וְאֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּאֶחָד מֵעֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁבָּא לְעַרְעֵר. אֲבָל הַדַּיָּן שֶׁקִּיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר יֵשׁ לוֹ לְעַרְעֵר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מֶה הָיָה כָּתוּב בַּשְּׁטָר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַדַּיָּנִין לְקַיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קְרָאוּהוּ. אֲבָל הָעֵדִים אֵין חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן קְרָאוּהוּ כֻּלּוֹ וִידַקְדֵּק בּוֹ:

If, in the above situation, the witness claimed: "There is one row? that I designated as a sign, but not the entire field. That row that is next to the boundary of the field alone belongs to Reuven," this is a claim that is worthy of being heard. He may protest the ownership of the entire field, with the exception of that row. All of the above concepts apply only with regard to one of the witnesses to the legal document who comes to protest. When, by contrast, a judge verified the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a bill of sale, he may protest the ownership of a field even though it was mentioned in that bill of sale. The rationale is that he can claim: "I did not know what was written in the bill of sale." For a judge may verify the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses to a legal document even though he did not read it. Witnesses, by contrast, may not sign a legal document unless they read it in its entirety and paid attention to its details.

בָּא שִׁמְעוֹן וְנִמְלַךְ בְּלֵוִי וְאָמַר לוֹ הֲרֵינִי קוֹנֶה שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית מֵרְאוּבֵן וּבַעֲצָתְךָ אֶקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ לֵוִי לֵךְ וּקְנֵה אוֹתָהּ טוֹבָה הִיא. יֵשׁ לוֹ לְלֵוִי לְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ וְלֹא אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לוֹמַר רְצוֹנִי הָיָה שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יַד רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוּא אַלָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶתְבָּעֶנָּה בְּדִין וְאֶקַּח שָׂדִי:

The following rules apply when Shimon comes and consults Levi, telling him: "I am buying this-and-this field from Reuven. I will buy it with your advice." Even though Levi tells him: "Go and buy it. It is good," Levi has the right to protest Shimon's ownership. He does not forfeit this right, because he did not perform a deed. He can tell Shimon: "I desired that the field leave the hands of Reuven, for he is a man of force, so that I could lodge a claim in court and take possession of my field."

רְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר עַל שִׁמְעוֹן וְשִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אַתָּה סָח אֶלָּא שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִלֵּוִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. אָמַר לוֹ רְאוּבֵן וַהֲלֹא עֵדִים יֵשׁ לִי שֶׁבָּעֶרֶב בָּאתָ אֵלַי וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי מְכֹר לִי שָׂדֶה זוֹ אֵין זוֹ רְאָיָה. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְשִׁמְעוֹן לוֹמַר רָצִיתִי לִקְנוֹת מִמְּךָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּעַרְעֵר וְלֹא תַּטְרִיחֵנִי בְּדִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הִיא שֶׁלְּךָ אוֹ אֵינָהּ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְאִם לֹא טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן טַעֲנָה זוֹ אֵין טוֹעֲנִין לוֹ:

The following rules apply when Reuven protests Shimon's ownership of a field, and Shimon tells him: "I don't know what you are talking about. I purchased this field from Levi. Here are witnesses who will testify that I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership." Reuven responds to him: "I have witnesses who will testify that yesterday evening, you came to me and asked me to sell you this field." This is not proof of Reuven's ownership. For Shimon could say: "I desired to purchase it from you so that you would not protest and trouble me to enter legal proceedings, even though I do not know whether or not it is really yours." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. If Shimon does not make such a claim, the court does not advance it on his behalf, n

רְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה. וּרְאוּבֵן אָמַר בְּגֵזֶל אָכַלְתָּ. בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל כְּלָל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁמְּחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּפֵרוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי מֵעַצְמוֹ הוֹדָה. וְזֶה הָעֵד שֶׁהֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים לְיַפּוֹת כֹּחוֹ שֶׁל אוֹכֵל הוּא בָּא וְאִלּוּ הָיָה עִמּוֹ אַחֵר הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּיָדוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְתַחְזֹר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה וְיִשָּׁבַע שִׁמְעוֹן הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לוֹ כְּלוּם בַּפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וְיִפָּטֵר:

The following rules apply when Reuven protests and brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him, and Shimon who is in possession of it claims: "You sold it to me and I benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership." Reuven responds: "You benefited from the field as a robber." Whether there were no witnesses that he benefited from the field or whether there was only one witness who testified that he benefited for three years, the person in possession is not required to return the produce that he consumed. The rationale is that he is claiming: "I consumed my own produce," and there are no witnesses who are obligating him for the produce. On the contrary, he acknowledged it himself. And the witness who testified that he benefited from the property for three years is coming to reinforce the power of the person who benefited. Indeed, if there were another witness with him, the person in possession would be allowed to retain possession of the field. Therefore, Reuven must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell the field, and then the field is returned to him. Shimon must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he does not owe Reuven anything because of the produce he consumed. He is then released of liability.

הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים מְעִידִים עַל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה יַחְזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה עֵד אֶחָד חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר עַל פִּיו שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מַכְחִישׁ הָעֵד אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר אֱמֶת הֵעִיד וְאָכַלְתִּי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וְשֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי. נִמְצָא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע וּמְשַׁלֵּם:

When there are two witnesses who testify that Shimon benefited from a field for less than the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he must return all the produce he consumed. Even if there is only one witness, he is liable to return all the produce because of his testimony. The rationale is that he is not contradicting the testimony of the witness. Instead, he is saying: "He testified truthfully. I did consume the produce for two years, but I consumed what was mine." He is thus obligated to take an oath, but unable to do so. Hence, he must pay.

כָּל הַמְחֻיָּב לְהַחְזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת אִם לֹא הָיוּ יְדוּעִין וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְשַׁעֵר אוֹתָן כְּשַׁעַר הַבָּתִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ. אֶלָּא הָיוּ פֵּרוֹת אִילָן אוֹ פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כָּאן טַעֲנָה וַדָּאִית יְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁיּוֹדֶה בּוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. וּמַחְרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁאָכַל יוֹתֵר וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם:

The following principle applies whenever a person is obligated to return the produce he consumed, the extent of the benefit is unknown, and the court is unable to estimate - i.e., in contrast to houses and the like, which have a standard rate - the benefit he received from the produce of trees or the produce of the fields. Since the owner does not have a definite claim, he is required to pay only what he admits to have consumed. We issue a conditional ban of ostracism against anyone who consumed more produce and did not make restitution.

כָּל הַמַּחֲזִיר קַרְקַע מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ אִם הִשְׂכִּירָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה מַחֲזִיק בָּהּ וְהָיוּ הַשּׂוֹכְרִין קַיָּמִין מוֹצִיאִין מֵהֶן הַשָּׂכָר פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע וְחוֹזְרִין וְתוֹבְעִין זֶה שֶׁהִשְׂכִּיר לָהֶם מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ:

The following laws apply whenever a person in possession of property is required to return it. If he rented the property to others while he was in possession of it, and the renters are accessible, we expropriate the rent from them a second time and give it to the owner of the land. They in turn should lodge a claim against a person who rented them land that he did not own.

אָסוּר לָאָדָם לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת שֶׁקֶר כְּדֵי לְעַוֵּת הַדִּין אוֹ כְּדֵי לְעַכְּבוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה לֹא יִטְעָנֶנּוּ מָאתַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְיִתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה. הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה מָנֶה וּטְעָנוֹ מָאתַיִם לֹא יֹאמַר אֶכְפֹּר הַכּל בְּבֵית דִּין וְאוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּמָנֶה בֵּינִי לְבֵינוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּב לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה:

It is forbidden for a person to lodge a false claim to distort a judgment or prevent its execution. What is implied? If a person was owed a maneh by a colleague, he may not lodge a claim against him for 200 zuz, so that he will admit owing the maneh and be obligated to take an oath. If a person owes a colleague a maneh, and the colleague claims 200 from him, he should not say: "I will deny the entire amount in court so that I will not be required to take an oath and acknowledge the debt of the maneh in private."

הָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה נוֹשִׁין מָנֶה בְּאֶחָד וְכָפַר בָּהֶן לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד תּוֹבֵעַ וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים וּכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ יַחֲלֹקוּ. וְעַל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הִזְהִיר הַכָּתוּב וְאָמַר מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק: סְלִיקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן בְּסַ"ד

When a person owes money to three people, and he denies owing a debt to one of them the three should not collaborate and perpetrate the following scheme. One person will claim the entire sum, and the others will falsely testify to his claim. When the money is expropriated from him, they will then divide it. With regard to things of this nature and the like, the Torah Exodus 23:7 warned us: "Keep a distance from words of falsehood." This concludes the Laws Governing Disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants, with G-d's help.