ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
To’en veNit’an - Chapter 11
To’en veNit’an - Chapter 11
1Whenever landed property is known to have belonged to a person, we presume that he is the owner even though the property is now in the possession of another person.אכָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת הַיְּדוּעוֹת לְבַעְלֵיהֶן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן עַתָּה תַּחַת יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים - הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת בַּעְלֵיהֶן.
What is implied? Reuven was using a courtyard as a person would commonly use his own property, living in it, renting it to others, building and tearing down structures. After a while, Shimon came and lodged a claim against him, saying: “The courtyard that is in your possession belongs to me. I rented it to you,” or “... I lent it to you.” Reuven replied: “It was yours, but you sold it to me,” or “You gave it to me as a present.”1כֵּיצַד? רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בֶּחָצֵר כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעָם מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּחַצְרוֹתֵיהֶן, דָּר בָּהּ וְשׂוֹכְרָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים וּבוֹנֶה וְסוֹתֵר, וְאַחַר זְמַן בָּא שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָעַן עָלָיו וְאָמַר לוֹ 'חָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁתַּחַת יָדְךָ שֶׁלִּי הִיא, וּשְׂכוּרָה הִיא בְּיָדְךָ', אוֹ 'שְׁאוּלָה' אוֹ 'גְּזוּלָה', וְהֵשִׁיבוֹ רְאוּבֵן 'שֶׁלְּךָ הָיְתָה וְאַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי' אוֹ 'נְתַתָּהּ לִי בְּמַתָּנָה':
If Shimon does not bring witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him, Reuven is required to take a sh’vu’at hesset,2 and he is allowed to retain possession of the courtyard.3 If, however, Shimon brings witnesses who testify that this field belonged to him, our presumption is that Shimon is the owner. We tell Reuven: “Bring proof that he sold it to you or gave it to you.”אִם אֵין עֵדִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה יְדוּעָה לוֹ, נִשְׁבָּע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת וְיַעֲמֹד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא שִׁמְעוֹן עֵדִים שֶׁחָצֵר זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ הָיְתָה - הֲרֵי הִיא בְּחֶזְקַת שִׁמְעוֹן, וְאוֹמְרִין לִרְאוּבֵן 'הָבֵא רְאָיָה שֶׁמְכָרָהּ לְךָ' אוֹ 'נְתָנָהּ לְךָ'.
If he does not bring proof, we force him to leave and establish Shimon as the owner. This law applies even when Reuven does not admit that the field ever belonged to Shimon, because there are witnesses who support Shimon’s claim.וְאִם לֹא הֵבִיא רְאָיָה - מְסַלְּקִין אוֹתוֹ מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַחֲזִירין אוֹתָהּ לְשִׁמְעוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאוּבֵן מוֹדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁהִיא הָיְתָה שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ עֵדִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן.
2When do we require Reuven to bring proof that he acquired the field or to depart? When he did not use the property for an extended time.בבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמַּצְרִיכִין רְאוּבֵן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה אוֹ יִסְתַּלֵּק? בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה.
If, however, Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he partook of the produce of this field for three consecutive4 years and benefited from it in its entirety in the manner in which any person would benefit from that field, we allow Reuven to maintain possession. This applies provided that it was possible for the original owners to know that this person had taken possession of the field, and they did not lodge a protest against him. Reuven must take a sh’vu’at hesset that Shimon sold him the field or gave it to him, and then he is released of all obligation.5אֲבָל אִם הֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל פֵּרוֹת קַרְקַע זוֹ שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים רְצוּפוֹת, וְנֶהֱנָה בְּכֻלָּהּ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁנֶּהֱנִין כָּל אָדָם בְּאוֹתָהּ קַרְקַע, וְהוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה אֶפְשָׁר לַבְּעָלִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁיָּדְעוּ בְּזֶה שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק, וְלֹא מִחוּ בּוֹ - מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתָהּ בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן; וְיִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת שֶׁמְכָרָהּ לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹ נְתָנָהּ לוֹ, וְיִפָּטֵר.
The rationale for this decision is that we tell Shimon: “If your claim that you did not sell or give him the property is true, why is this person using your land year after year, when you do not have a legal document stating that it was rented to him or given to him as security for a loan, and yet you have not lodged a protest against him?”6מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹמְרִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן 'אִם אֱמֶת אַתָּה טוֹעֵן שֶׁלֹּא מָכַרְתָּ וְלֹא נָתַתָּ - לָמָּה הָיָה זֶה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ שָׁנָה אַחַר שָׁנָה בְּקַרְקָעַךָ, וְאֵין לְךָ עָלָיו לֹא שְׁטָר שְׂכִירוּת וְלֹא שְׁטָר מַשְׁכּוֹנָא וְלֹא מִחִיתָ בּוֹ'?
If the plaintiff responds to this by claiming that the news that the other person was using his property did not reach him because he was in a distant country, we tell him: “It is impossible that the information did not reach you in three years.7 And when the information reached you, you should have lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses,8 telling them that ‘So-and-so stole property from me, and in the future I will lodge a claim against him in court.’ Since you did not issue a protest, you caused yourself a loss.”טָעַן וְאָמַר 'מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא הִגִּיעַ אֵלַי הַדָּבָר, שֶׁהֲרֵי הָיִיתִי בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה' - אוֹמְרִים לוֹ 'אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעַ הַדָּבָר בְּשָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵלֶיךָ - הָיָה לְךָ לְמַחוֹת בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים, וְתוֹדִיעַ אוֹתָם שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי גָּזַל אוֹתִי, וּלְמָחָר אֶתְבְּעֶנּוּ בַּדִּין; הוֹאִיל וְלֹא מִחִיתָ, אַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ'.
Therefore, if there was a war or a disruption of travel routes between the place where Reuven was located and the place where Shimon was located, we expropriate the property from Reuven even if he benefited from its produce for ten years.9 We return it to Shimon, because he could say: “I did not know that this person was using my property.”לְפִיכָךְ אִם הָיְתָה מִלְחָמָה וְשִׁבּוּשׁ דְּרָכִים בֵּין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ רְאוּבֵן וּבֵין הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁהָיָה בּוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן, אַפִלּוּ אֲכָלָהּ רְאוּבֵן עֶשֶׂר שָׁנָה - מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וְחוֹזֶרֶת לְשִׁמְעוֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לוֹמַר 'לֹא יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁזֶּה מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּקַרְקָעִי'.
3Even in a situation where there was a war and a breakdown in communication,10 if Reuven brought witnesses who testify that each year Shimon came and stayed in this place11 for 30 days or less, we tell Shimon: “Why didn’t you protest when you came? You have lost your rights.”12גהֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים שֶׁהָיָה שִׁמְעוֹן בָּא בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה וְעוֹמֵד בְּמָקוֹם זֶה שְׁלוֹשִׁים יוֹם אוֹ פָּחוֹת - אוֹמְרִים לְשִׁמְעוֹן 'מִפְּנֵי מַה לֹא מִחִיתָ כְּשֶׁבָּאתָ? אִבֵּדתָּ זְכוּתְךָ'.
If Shimon claims: “I was very much occupied at the business fair13 and I did not know that so-and-so was in my courtyard,”14 his claim is respected.15 For it is possible that a person will be occupied at a business fair for 30 days. If he stayed for more than 30 days and did not protest, he loses his rights.16טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן וְאָמַר 'טָרוּד הָיִיתִי בַּשּׁוּק, וְלֹא יָדַעְתִּי שֶׁזֶּה בְּתוֹךְ חֲצֵרִי' - הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה, שֶׁכָּל שְׁלוֹשִׁים יוֹם יִהְיֶה אָדָם טָרוּד בְּשׁוּקוֹ. וְאִם עָמַד יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלוֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְלֹא מִחָה - אִבֵּד זְכוּתוֹ.
It appears to me that this law applies only in the villages, for the people there are very much occupied with their business fairs.וְיֵרָאֶה לִי, שֶׁדִּין זֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָא בַּכְּפָרִים, שֶׁהָעָם טְרוּדִין בַּשְּׁוָקִים שֶׁלָּהֶן.
4Why do we not tell Reuven: “If it is true that he sold the property to you or gave it to you as a present, why did you not take care of your deed of acquisition?” Because a person does not take care of his legal documents for his entire life, and it is an established presumption that a person will not take care of a legal document for more than three years.17 If by that time, he sees that no one is protesting his ownership, he will not take care of it any longer.דוּמִפְּנֵי מַה אֵין אוֹמְרִין לִרְאוּבֵן 'אִם אֱמֶת הוּא הַדָּבָר שֶׁמָּכַר לְךָ' אוֹ 'נָתַן לְךָ בְּמַתָּנָה, לָמָּה לֹא נִזְהַרְתָּ בִּשְּׁטָר שֶׁלְּךָ?' מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נִזְהָר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ כָּל יָמָיו, וַחֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם נִזְהָר בִּשְׁטָרוֹ אֶלָא עַד שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים; וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרוֹאֶה שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְמַחֶה בְּיָדוֹ, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ נִזְהָר.
5If Shimon issued a protest in a distant country,18 why can Reuven not claim: “I did not hear that he lodged a protest against me so that I felt it necessary to safeguard my deed of acquisition”? Because we tell him: “Your friend has a friend, and his friend has a friend.19 And it is an established presumption that word of the protest reached you. Hence, since you know that he lodged a protest against you within the three years, if it is true that you had a deed of acquisition and you did not safeguard it, you caused yourself a loss.”ההֲרֵי שֶׁמִּחָה שִׁמְעוֹן בִּמְדִינָה רְחוֹקָה, מִפְּנֵי מַה לֹא יִטְעֹן רְאוּבֵן וְיֹאמַר 'לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמִּחָה בִּי כְּדֵי שֶׁאִזָּהֵר בִּשְׁטָרִי'? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹמְרִין לוֹ 'חֲבֵרְךָ יֵשׁ לוֹ חָבֵר, וְהֶחָבֵר יֵשׁ לוֹ חָבֵר אַחֵר, וַחֲזָקָה שֶׁהִגִּיעַ אֵלֶיךָ הַדָּבָר; וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיָּדַעְתָּ שֶׁמִּחָה בְּךָ בְּתוֹךְ שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים - אִם בֶּאֱמֶת הָיָה לְךָ שְׁטָר וְלֹא נִזְהַרְתָּ בּוֹ, אַתָּה הִפְסַדְתָּ עַל עַצְמְךָ'.
6Therefore, if Shimon lodged a protest in the presence of witnesses, but told them: “Do not utter a word about this protest,” the protest is of no consequence.20ולְפִיכָךְ אִם מִחָה שִׁמְעוֹן בִּפְנֵי הָעֵדִים, וְאָמַר לָהֶם 'אַל תּוֹצִיאוּ דָּבָר זֶה מִפִּיכֶם' - אֵין זוֹ מֶחָאָה.
If, however, the witnesses said on their own volition: “We will not utter a word about this,” the protest is significant. For a person will ultimately speak of a matter that he was not charged to keep private.21אֲבָל אִם אָמְרוּ הָעֵדִים מֵעַצְמָן 'אֵין דָּבָר זֶה יוֹצֵא מִפִּינוּ' - הֲרֵי גַּם זוֹ מֶחָאָה; שֶׁהַדָּבָר שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מְצֻוֶּה עָלָיו, אוֹמְרוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוָּנָה.
Similarly, if the original owner told the witnesses: “Don’t tell the person who took possession of the property about my protest,”22 or the witnesses said on their own volition: “We will not notify him,” the protest is of consequence. For even though they will not notify him, they will notify others, and ultimately the information will reach him.וְכֵן אִם צִוָּה לָעֵדִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם 'אַל תּוֹדִיעוּהוּ', אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ הֵן מֵעַצְמָן 'אֵין אָנוּ מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ' - גַּם זוֹ מֶחָאָה הִיא; שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן מוֹדִיעִין אוֹתוֹ, מוֹדִיעִין הֵם לַאֲחֵרִים, וְדָּבָר זֶה יַגִּיעַ אֵלָיו.
7What constitutes a protest? That the owner says in the presence of two witnesses:23 “So-and-so who is using my field is a robber. In the future, I will call him to court.”24זכֵּיצַד הַמֶּחָאָה? אוֹמֵר בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם 'פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁהוּא מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצֵרִי' אוֹ 'בְּשָׂדִי גַּזְלָן הוּא, וְלָעָתִיד אֲנִי תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בַּדִּין'.
Similarly, if he says: “The property is rented out to him or it was given to him as security for a loan. If he claims that I sold it to him or gave it to him as a present, I will lodge a claim against him in court.”וְכֵן אִם אָמַר לָהֶם 'שְׂכוּרָה הִיא בְּיָדוֹ', אוֹ 'מַשְׁכּוֹנָא', וְאִם יִטְעֹן עָלַי שֶׁמָּכַרְתִּי אוֹ נָתַתִּי, אֲנִי תּוֹבֵעַ אוֹתוֹ בַּדִּין.
Similarly, if he makes other analogous statements, the protest is of consequence even though he did not issue it in the country where the person in possession of the land is located.וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה - הֲרֵי זוֹ מֶחָאָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא מִחָה בִּמְדִינָה זוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בָּהּ זֶה.
If, however, he told them merely: “So-and-so who is using my field is a robber,” that is not a valid protest, for Reuven will say: “When I heard this, I said to myself: ‘Maybe he was merely slandering me.’25 Therefore, I was not careful about keeping my deed of acquisition.”אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהֶן 'פְּלוֹנִי שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בַּחֲצֵרִי גַּזְלָן הוּא' - אֵין זוֹ מֶחָאָה; שֶׁהֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן אוֹמֵר 'כְּשֶׁשָּׁמַעְתִּי, אָמַרְתִּי שֶׁמָּא חֵרַף אוֹתִי בִּלְבַד, וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא נִזְהַרְתִּי בִּשְׁטָרִי'.
8A protest made in the presence of two witnesses26 is of consequence.27 They may compose a legal record of it,28 even if the owner does not tell them to compose it.חמֶחָאָה בִּפְנֵי שְׁנַיִם- וְכוֹתְבִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָהֶם 'כְּתֹבוּ'.
Once the owner issued a protest in the first29 year, he does not have to issue another protest each year.וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמִּחָה בְּשָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַחֲזֹר וּלְמַחוֹת בְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה.
There must not, however, be three full years between each protest. He must, therefore, issue a protest at the end of each three-year period.30אֲבָל צָרִיךְ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה בֵּין מֶחָאָה לְמֶחָאָה שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים גְּמוּרוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ צָרִיךְ לְמַחוֹת בְּסוֹף כָּל שָׁלוֹשׁ.
If he protested, delayed for three full years and protested afterwards, the protest is of no consequence.31וְאִם מִחָה, וְעָמַד שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים גְּמוּרוֹת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִחָה - אֵינָהּ כְּלוּם.
9If Reuven brought witnesses who testify that Shimon, the owner of the field, gathered the produce of the field together and gave it to Reuven,32 he is allowed to retain possession of the field.33 This applies even if Reuven claims that Shimon sold him or gave him the field that day.34 The rationale is that if he did not give him or sell him the field, he would not have helped Reuven in the field and given him its produce.טהֵבִיא רְאוּבֵן עֵדִים, שֶׁזֶּה שִׁמְעוֹן בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה קָבַץ פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה זוֹ וּנְתָנָם לִי - תַּעֲמֹד הַשָּׂדֶה בְּיַד רְאוּבֵן, וְאַפִלּוּ טָעַן שֶׁשִּׁמְעוֹן מְכָרָהּ לוֹ אוֹ נְתָנָהּ לוֹ הַיּוֹם; שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא מָכַר אוֹ נָתַן - לֹא הָיָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת רְאוּבֵן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ פֵּרוֹתֶיהָ.
10If Shimon responds, claiming: “It’s true; that event transpired. I sold him the rights to the field’s produce and it belonged to him, but I never sold him the field itself,” his word is accepted and the field should be returned to Shimon. There is, however, an exception: when Reuven partook of the produce for three years with Shimon’s know ledge and Shimon did not protest against him, as explained.35יטָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן וְאָמַר 'אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר, וְלַפֵּרוֹת הוֹרַדְתִּיו, וְשֶׁלּוֹ הָיוּ הַפֵּרוֹת, אֲבָל הַגּוּף לֹא מָכַרְתִּי' - נֶאֱמָן, וְחוֹזֶרֶת לְשִׁמְעוֹן, אֶלָא אִם כֵּן אֲכָלָהּ רְאוּבֵן בְּפָנָיו שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְלֹא מִחָה בּוֹ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ.
Footnotes
1.
If, however, the person in possession does not claim that he acquired it, and instead states that he saw open land, so he occupied it, it is returned to its original owner after he brings witnesses that it belongs to him (Chapter 14, Halachah 12).
2.
As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 1, although Scriptural oaths are not taken with regard to movable property, a sh’vu’al hessel is.
3.
His word is accepted on the basis of the principle of miggo. Had he desired to lie, he could have claimed that the field had belonged to his family (Maggid Mishneh).
4.
See Chapter 12, Halachah 4.
5.
The Rambam offers a further explanation for this ruling in Halachah 4.
The Maggid Mishneh notes that there are other opinions that maintain that if the defendant benefited from the field for three years, it is not even necessary for him to take a sh’vu’al hessel. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpal 140:1) follows the Rambam’s view.
6.
I.e., the fact that the plaintiff has remained silent for all these years reinforces the defendant's claim.
7.
Because wayfarers will communicate the news.
8.
For as stated in Halachah 5, the protest need not be made in the presence of the defendant himself.
9.
Today, with the advances that have been made in communications, it is unlikely that there would be a situation where these laws would apply.
10.
This addition is made on the basis of the interpretation of Rav Hai Gaon cited by the Maggid Mishneh.
11.
I.e., in the city or locale where the property in question is located.
12.
And the field is allowed to remain in Reuven’s possession.
13.
Our translation is based on the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh, which notes that the marketplaces (the ordinary translation of shuk) of cities are busier than those of country villages. Therefore, he suggests that the intent is the country fairs, which are not usual events and attract a large amount of commercial activity.
14.
There are some who offer a different explanation of the same situation, explaining that the reason the owner gives is that he was so busy that he did not have time to issue a protest (Maggid Mishneh).
15.
If, however, witnesses testify that the original owner did receive knowledge that someone else was living in his property, and yet did not protest, he forfeits his right to the land (Maggid Mishneh).
16.
For it is not logical that a person would be in his hometown for more than 30 days and not hear about what is happening in his own courtyard.
17.
The Kessef Mishneh, in his gloss on Chapter 12, Halachah 1, states that in certain instances, the intent is not three years, but rather three harvests.
In the present age, when most transactions involving landed property are registered in the government deed office, different rules apply, and the statements of the deed office are accepted.
18.
Without sending a direct message to Reuven or the court where his property is located. See Halachah 7.
19.
And thus the word will spread through gossip. In that vein, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 146:1) states that even if the witnesses to the protest are old and sick and will certainly not convey the message to Reuven themselves, the protest is binding, because we can assume that it spread via word of mouth.
20.
For since the matter will not be publicized, of what value are his statements?
The Siftei Cohen 146:3 states that even if the witnesses actually told the squatter of the owner’s protest, the protest is not significant. For since the squatter knew that the owner was hesitant about lodging a protest, he did not have to take precautions.
21.
Since the person was not charged with keeping the matter private, ultimately his loquacity will get the better of him and he will gossip about the charge that the owner gave him.
22.
This wording implies that he should not tell that person about the matter, but that he can tell others. And once he tells others, the information will ultimately reach the person in question.
23.
Needless to say, the two must meet the criteria for acceptable witnesses.
24.
There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis with regard to the law if the owner says: “So-and-so has robbed the produce of my field.” Rabbenu Ya’akov maintains that the protest is of consequence, while Rabbenu Chanan’el differs. Although the Tur maintains that the Rambam shares Rabbenu Chanan’el’s perspective, the Beit Yosef states that there is no clear indication in the Rambam’s words of which opinion he would follow. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 146:4) quotes the Rambam’s words, while the Tur and the Ramah share Rabbenu Yaakov’s view.
25.
I.e., since the owner did not say that he was going to lodge a claim against the person in possession of the land, that person might think that he was merely disgruntled and was speaking in general, without necessarily focusing on the field in question.
26.
The Siftei Cohen 146:4 states that the protest need not be made in front of both witnesses together. The owner can make his statement to one in one place and later repeat the matter to the other.
27.
I.e., the protest need not be made in the presence of three men who would thus constitute a court of law.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 146:2) records a difference of opinion whether a protest made in the presence of a witness and the person in possession of the field is of consequence.
28.
The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 146:5) notes that testimony must be delivered verbally, and a legal record is not sufficient. Hence, he states that the witnesses must write that the owner charged them to act as his agents in protesting the sale.
29.
Or in any of the first three years (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 146:12).
30.
If, after protesting originally, the owner sold the field to another person, neither the owner nor that other person have to issue another protest (Maggid Mishneh in his gloss on Chapter 15, Halachah 7).
31.
For since the person in possession of the field did not hear a protest for three years, he no longer felt it necessary to safeguard his deed of acquisition (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 146:13).
32.
The Tur and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 142:1) quote the Rashbam’s interpretation of Bava Batra 35b. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 142:1 states, however, that there is no difference in law between the two approaches.
33.
For this indicates the owner’s acceptance of Reuven’s ownership, as the Rambam continues to explain.
34.
This applies even though he did not have a claim of three year’s ownership (Maggid Mishneh).
35.
In Halachah 2. If, however, he protests after three years, the protest is of no consequence. Therefore, if he sold him the produce for three years or more, he must lodge a protest within those three years to protect his rights [Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 142:1); see also Halachah 7].
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
