Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Introduction to Hilchos Zechiyah uMattanah

The purpose of these laws is to determine how a person acquires an ownerless article and the processes that he employs. They also explain the rules governing one who gives a gift and one who receives, and which gift is retracted and which is not. All these laws are explained in the chapters that follow.

Whoever takes hold of ownerless property acquires it. Any objects found naturally in deserts, rivers and streams - e.g., grass, trees, wild fruit and the like - are ownerless. Whoever first takes hold of such an object acquires it.

When a person catches fish in a sea or in a river, and similarly, when he catches fowl, or various wild beasts, since they are ownerless, he acquires them. He may not, however, hunt in a field belonging to a colleague. Nevertheless, if he snares an animal there, he acquires it.

If fish - or wild beasts or fowl - are in vivariums belonging to another person, they belong to the owner of the vivarium. A person who snares an animal there is considered to be a robber. This applies even if the vivarium is large and effort is required to snare the animal.

However, when a person takes a fish from the net of a colleague at sea, or takes a beast from a snare of a colleague set in the desert, this is prohibited by virtue of Rabbinic decree. If the snare could be considered to be a container, and the person took the fish or the animal from the container, he is considered to be a robber.

When a person spreads out a snare in a field belonging to a colleague, and traps a beast or a fowl, he acquires it, even though he does not have permission to do this. If the owner of the field was standing in the field at the time the animal was trapped, and said: "My field acquires this on my behalf," the owner of the field acquires it, and the owner of the snare does not acquire anything.

When fish jump into a boat, they become acquired by the owner of the boat, for the boat is considered to be a protected courtyard. It is not considered to be a moving courtyard, because the boat does not move on its own. It is the water that moves it.

When a convert dies without having fathered a Jew after his conversion, he has no heirs. Instead, the first person who takes hold of his property acquires it. A neighbor does not have the right to buy the property from the person who took hold of it, because this is considered to be a gift.

The following laws apply when there are two fields in an estate that belong to a convert, with one boundary marker between them. If a person manifests ownership over one of the fields with the intent of acquiring it, he acquires it. If he manifests ownership over it with the intent of acquiring both it and the other field, he acquires the field over which he manifested ownership, but he does not acquire the other field.

If he manifests ownership over one field with the intent of acquiring only the other field, he does not acquire either of them. He does not acquire the field over which he did not manifest ownership because he did not manifest ownership over it. He does not acquire the field over which he did manifest ownership because he did not manifest ownership with the intent of acquiring it.

If he manifests ownership over one field with the intent of acquiring it, the other field and the boundary marker between them, or if he manifests ownership over the boundary marker with the intent of acquiring both fields, there is an unresolved doubt with regard to the matter. If another person comes and manifests ownership over one of the fields itself with the intent of acquiring it, the latter person becomes the legal owner.

Similarly, when two houses are located one within the other, if a person manifests ownership over one of the houses with the intent of acquiring both it and the other house, he acquires only the house over which he manifested ownership. If he manifests ownership over one house with the intent of acquiring only the other one, he does not acquire even the house over which he did manifest ownership.

When a person takes hold over a deed of sale within the estate of a convert with the intent of acquiring the land mentioned in that deed, he acquires only the document itself. He may use it to wrap around the top of a bottle or the like.

When the boundaries of a field belonging to a deceased convert are clearly marked, when a person plunges a spade into the field in one place, he acquires the entire field. If the boundaries of the field are not clearly marked, by plunging the spade into that one place, he acquires only a portion over which a team of oxen will pass when plowing, before the team returns.

A boundary marker and a chatzav used to designate boundaries serve as cut-off points with regard to the estate of a convert. Whoever manifests ownership over the field acquires only up to the boundary marker or the chatzav.

Whatever is considered significant to create a separation with regard to the distribution of pe'ah is also considered significant to create a separation with regard to the acquisition of the property of a deceased convert.

What is implied? If there was a stream, an irrigation ditch or the like, the person seeking to acquire the field acquires only up to the stream or up to the irrigation ditch.

Whatever creates a distinction with regard to the domains of the Sabbath, creates a distinction with regard to the acquisition of the property of a deceased convert - for example, a situation where a private domain or a carmelit is interposed between two fields. Indeed, a distinction is created, even if the two fields were separated by a domain that is considered a distinction with regard to the transfer of a bill of divorce.

Whenever a distinction is created with regard to the laws of ritual impurity, it also applies with regard to the acquisition of the property of a deceased convert.

What is implied? A person enters a valley. There is an object that conveys ritual impurity on one side of the valley, and the person does not know whether or not he has reached the place that is ritually impure. Wherever the person would be considered to be ritually impure is considered to be a separate entity from the field as a whole.

The following law applies when there is a large valley containing many fields, all belonging to one convert, and there is no boundary marker, chatzav or any other entity that creates a distinction between them. If one person comes and manifests ownership over a portion of the valley with the intent of acquiring the entire valley, he acquires all the land that is known to be owned by that convert.

When a gentile sells movable property to a Jew or buys movable property, he acquires and transfers the property through meshichah or through the transfer of funds.

Different rules apply with regard to landed property. A gentile does not acquire landed property from a Jew without a deed of sale, nor does he transfer property without a deed of sale. For he will not rely on anything but a deed of sale.

For this reason, if a Jew purchased a field from a gentile and paid the money for it, but before he could manifest his ownership over it, another Jew came and manifested ownership over it in a manner similar to that described above with regard to the acquisition of the property of a deceased convert, the latter person acquires the land. He must, however, repay the money to the purchaser.

The rationale for the decision is that the gentile abrogates his ownership over the property at the time he receives the money. And yet, the Jew purchasing the land does not acquire it until the deed of sale reaches his hand. In the interim, the property is like property in the desert concerning which the rule is: Whoever manifests ownership over it acquires it.

When does the above apply? When there are no known laws enforced by the governing sovereign. If, however, the law of the governing sovereign and his judgment is that only a person whose name is mentioned in the deed of sale - who paid money for the property or the like - can acquire the land, we follow the law of the governing sovereign. For we rule according to all the financial laws of the governing sovereign.

The property of a deceased convert who has no heirs, property that is ownerless, and a field that a gentile sold to a Jew who has not taken hold of it are all governed by the same laws. Whoever manifests ownership over them using a valid chazakah - to be described in Hilchot Mechirah - acquires them, with one exception: eating produce.

What is implied? When a person buys landed property from a colleague and manifests his ownership over it by eating produce, he acquires it, as we have explained. But with regard to the acquisition of ownerless property or property of a deceased convert, even if a person eats produce of a tree for several years, he does not acquire the tree itself or the land itself until he performs a deed involving the land itself or performs a task involving the tree.

An incident occurred when a woman ate the produce of a date palm for thirteen years, and then another person manifested ownership over the tree by performing a task involving the tree itself. The incident was brought before the Sages and they ruled that the latter person acquired it.

There are many acts that if performed by a purchaser to prove ownership of property are not effective, but when performed to manifest ownership over ownerless property, property belonging to a deceased convert or the like, are effective in acquiring it.

What is implied? When a person finds large palaces constructed on property belonging to a deceased convert or on ownerless property, if he paints them slightly or plasters them slightly - e.g., for a cubit or more opposite the entrance - he acquires them.

When a person makes a design in the property of a deceased convert, he acquires it. If he sets out mattresses in the property of a deceased convert, he acquires it. If he plows a field with the intent of leaving it fallow in the property of a deceased convert, he acquires it.

When a person cuts branches of a vine or of a tree, or fronds from a date palm in the property of a deceased convert, if his intent is to improve the tree, he acquires the property. If his intent is to feed the branches to his animal, he does not acquire the property.

What is implied? If the person prunes the branches of the tree from both sides, we can assume that he intends to improve the tree. If he cuts from only one side, it appears that his intent is only for the branches.

Similarly, when a person collects wood, grass and stones from a field, if his intent is to improve the land, he acquires the field. If his intent is to collect the wood, he does not acquire the field.

What is implied? If the person collected both large and small branches, we can assume that his intent was to improve the land. If, by contrast, he collected only large branches and not small ones, we can assume that his intent was to collect wood.

Similarly, when a person levels the surface of the land, if his intent is to improve the land, he acquires the field. If his intent is to level a place to use as a grain heap, he does not acquire the field.

What is implied? If the person takes earth from a high place and brings it to a lower place, it appears that his intent is to improve the land. If we see that he is not concerned with this and instead throws earth and stones anywhere without concern, we can assume that his intent is merely to level one limited area to use as a grain heap.

Similarly, when a person opens a flow of water into a field, if his intent is to improve the land, he acquires the field. If his intent is to catch fish, he does not acquire the field.

What is implied? If the person made only a place for water to enter, it appears that his intent is to improve the land. If he made two openings -one for the water to enter and one for the water to leave - it appears that his intent is to catch fish.

When a person builds large palaces on property belonging to a deceased convert, and another person comes and sets up the doors, the second person acquires the property.

The rationale is that the first person did not do anything with the land itself, It is as if he piled up stones on the land, an act that does not bring about his acquisition of the property.

Nor is his acquisition effective because by constructing the building he made a fence around the land since this fence is not useful, because the entrance to the building is wide enough and one can pass through it. Setting up the structure of this building is not at all useful until one sets up the doors.

When a person spreads seeds in rows in a field, he does not acquire the field. The rationale is that at the time he sowed the seeds, he did not improve the field at all. And at the time the produce grew, the benefit came as a result of a natural course of events. This is not sufficient for an acquisition to be made.

If a partition existed within the property of a deceased convert, and another person came and built another partition on top of the existing one, he does not acquire the field. This applies even when the first partition sinks into the ground, and the higher partition is still functional. The rationale is that at the time the partition was built, it was not beneficial. And when it became beneficial, the benefit came as a result of a natural course of events.

When a person manifests ownership over property belonging to a deceased convert or ownerless property, without the intent of acquiring it, he does not acquire it despite the fact that he built or erected a fence.

When a person plows on property belonging to a deceased convert under the mistaken conception that it is his own property, he does not acquire it.

If he plows on property belonging to one deceased convert, while he thinks that it belongs to another, he does acquire it. For he intended that his deeds acquire ownerless property.

If a convert was holding security belonging to a Jew, and when the convert died another Jew came and took possession of this security, it should be expropriated from him and returned to its owner. The rationale is that when the convert died, his lien on the article was nullified.

When a Jew was holding security belonging to a convert, the convert dies, and another Jew takes hold of the security, the creditor should receive payment for the money owed him from the security. If it is worth more, the second person acquires the remainder.

When does the above apply? When the security was not kept in a courtyard belonging to the first person. If it was kept in such a courtyard, his courtyard acquires it on his behalf, even without his knowledge, as we have explained with regard to an article that is discovered, and the person who takes hold of it afterwards does not acquire anything.

The following rules apply when a convert dies and Jews take possession of his property. If the estate contains Canaanite servants above the age of majority, they acquire their freedom. Servants below the age of majority, by contrast, are regarded as are livestock. Whoever manifests ownership over them acquires them. We have already explained the manner in which a person manifests ownership over servants and acquires them.

The following rules apply when it is rumored that a convert died and Jews take possession of his property, and then it is discovered that he did not die, that he has a child or that his wife is pregnant. They must all return the property.

If they all returned the property and then discovered that the first rumor had in fact been true and the convert had died at that time, that his son died before him, or that his wife miscarried, whoever takes possession at this time acquires the property. Those who originally took possession do not acquire it.

When a person gives a gift to a colleague, the recipient does not acquire it until he takes possession through one of the legal processes by which a purchaser takes possession of a purchase.

If the giver desires to give him movable property, the recipient must lift up the article, perform meshichah on an article that one would not ordinarily lift up, or acquire that article through one of the other means through which movable property is acquired.

If he is giving him landed property or servants, the recipient does not acquire them until he manifests ownership over them as a purchaser would, or until a legal document recording the gift reaches his hand.

A verbal statement is not sufficient. The recipient does not acquire the gift, and either one of them still has the option of retracting.

When, by contrast, a creditor forgoes a debt to a colleague or gives him an object that previously had been entrusted to the recipient for safekeeping, such a gift is made final by a verbal statement alone. Nothing further is necessary, as we have explained.

Similarly, if a person tells a colleague: "You owe me a maneh. Give it to this person," the intended recipient acquires it. Neither has the option of retracting. This applies whether he gave the recipient the maneh in payment for a debt he owed him, or whether he gave it to him as a gift. And it applies whether the maneh had been given to the person to whom the giver charged with making the gift as a loan or it had been entrusted to him for safekeeping, as we have explained.

Just as with regard to buying and selling, witnesses are necessary only to reveal the truth of the situation when there are claims and denials, so too, with regard to the waiver of obligations and gifts, witnesses are necessary only because of liars.

Just as a seller must define the property that he sells, as we have explained, so too, a person who gives a gift must define what he is giving.

What is implied? If a person writes a deed to a colleague which states: "Land from my property is given to you," or he writes: "All of my property is acquired by you with some exceptions," since he did not identify the property he was giving, and the recipient did not know what he was receiving, the recipient does not acquire anything. The recipient may not demand of the giver: "Give me the least valuable of your properties." Instead, he acquires nothing unless the giver defines the place that he is giving him.

Different rules apply, however, if the giver tells the recipient: "I am giving you a portion worth such and such in this and this field." Since he defined the field, even though he did not define the portion of the field, the recipient may collect a portion of that value from the least valuable portion of the field.

The following rules apply whenever a person gives a gift within the context of a conditional agreement. Whether the condition was stipulated by the giver or by the recipient, should the recipient take possession of and acquire the gift, the gift becomes binding when the condition is fulfilled. If the condition is not fulfilled, the gift is nullified and the recipient must return the benefit that he derived. This applies provided that the condition was stated in the proper manner.

We have already explained that with regard to all conditional agreements concerning gifts, purchases and sales, it is necessary that the condition be restated, that the positive dimension of the condition be stated before the negative, that the condition precede the deed, and that the condition is one that is possible to fulfill. If any one of these factors is lacking, the condition is nullified, and it is as if it had never been stated.

Whenever a person uses the expression: "conditional on the following," it is as if he said that the transaction will take effect retroactive to the present time; he does not have to restate the condition. Some of the geonim have ruled in this manner. And this is also my opinion.

My teachers ruled that there is no need to restate the condition or state the positive dimension of the condition first, except in cases of divorce and consecration. There is no proof to substantiate this approach.

Whenever a person gives a gift on the condition that it be returned, the gift is valid. The gift is valid whether the condition was made to return the article immediately, that it be returned after a specific time passes, that it remain as a gift for the entire lifetime of either the giver or the recipient, or that it remain as a gift for the entire lifetime of another person.

The above applies both with regard to movable property and landed property. The recipient may derive benefit from the gift for the entire time that it is his.

When a person tells a colleague: "I am giving you this ox as a gift on the condition that you return it," if the recipient consecrates the ox and then returns it, it is consecrated, and he has fulfilled his obligation to return it.

If, however, the giver tells the recipient: "I am giving it to you on the condition that you return it to me," the ox is not consecrated. For implied in the condition stated by the owner is that he return to him an article that will be fitting for him to use. The same applies in all analogous situations.

It is forbidden for a Jew to give a gentile a gift without charge. He may, however, give such a gift to a resident alien, as implied by Deuteronomy 14:21: "Give it to the stranger in your gates to eat or sell it to a gentile."

To a gentile, it must be sold; it may not be given. To a resident alien, by contrast, it may be sold or given. The reason for the distinction is that we are obligated to sustain a resident alien, as implied by Leviticus 25:35: "A stranger or a resident, he shall live among you."

When a person gives a gift to a Canaanite servant or a married woman, it is acquired by the husband or the owner. There is, however, a distinction between their powers of acquisition. The servant's master acquires the article itself, while the husband acquires merely the right to the benefit from the article.

Even if a person gives a gift to a married woman on the condition that her husband have no authority over it, or to a servant on the condition that his master have no authority over it, the master or the husband acquires it.

If, however, one gives a gift to a married woman or to a servant and the giver stipulates that the gift itself may be used for only this or this purpose, the master or the husband does not acquire it.

What is implied? When a person gives a gift to a married woman and tells her: "This money is given to you as a gift on the condition that you use it for clothing, that you use it for beverages or that you do with it what you desire without the permission of your husband," the husband has no authority over it.

Similarly, if a person told a servant: "This money is given to you as a gift on the condition that you use it for food and drink, that you use it to obtain your freedom or that you do with it what you desire without the permission of your master," the master has no authority over it. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person gives all his possessions to a servant as a gift, the servant acquires himself, and he becomes a free man. He then acquires all the other property.

If, however, the master retains for himself even the slightest amount of property - even movable property, the servant does not acquire anything.

The rationale is that the deed is not a complete bill of freedom, for the master retains some connection to the bill of transfer. Therefore, the servant is not freed, and since he is not freed, he does not acquire anything.