ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
To’en veNit’an - Chapter 16
To’en veNit’an - Chapter 16
1A 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 proofs1 he brings concerning his ownership of that field.2 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?”3ארְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן, 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; שֶׁאוֹמְרִין לוֹ 'הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד עַל הַמֶכֶר וְתַחְזֹר וּתְעַרְעֵר'?
Similar concepts apply if Levi gives testimony in a legal document4 that speaks of “the field belonging to Reuven on the east” or “... on the west.”5 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?”6וְכֵן אִם הֵעִיד לֵוִי בִּשְּׁטָר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ "הַשָּׂדֶה הַפְּלוֹנִית שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן מִצַּד מִזְרָח", אוֹ "מַעְרָב" - הוֹאִיל וְעָשָׂה הַשָּׂדֶה סִימָן לְאַחֵר, וְהֵעִיד בִּשְּׁטָר, אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְעַרְעֵר; שֶׁאוֹמְרִין לוֹ 'הֵיאַךְ תָּעִיד בִּשְׁטָר זֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה הַזֹּאת מִצַּד פְּלוֹנִי וְתַחְזֹר וּתְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ'.
2If, in the above situation, the witness claimed: “There is one row7 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.8 He may protest the ownership of the entire field, with the exception of that row.בטָעַן הָעֵד וְאָמַר 'תֶּלֶם אֶחָד הוּא שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי סִימָן וְלֹא כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה, וְאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם הַסָּמוּךְ לַמֶּצֶר בִּלְבַד הוּא שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן - הֲרֵי זוֹ טַעֲנָה הַנִּשְׁמַעַת, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לְעוֹרֵר עַל כָּל הַשָּׂדֶה חוּץ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַתֶּלֶם.
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.9 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.10 Witnesses, by contrast, may not sign a legal document unless they read it in its entirety and paid attention to its details.11אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, אֶלָא בְּאֶחָד מֵעֵדֵי הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁבָּא לְעַרְעֵר. אֲבָל הַדַּיָּן שֶׁקִּיֵּם הַשְּׁטָר - יֵשׁ לוֹ לְעַרְעֵר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לִטְעֹן וְלוֹמַר 'לֹא יָדַעְתִּי מַה הָיָה כָּתוּב בִּשְּׁטָר', מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַדַּיָּנִין לְקַיֵּם אֶת הַשְּׁטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קְרָאוּהוּ. אֲבָל הָעֵדִים - אֵין חוֹתְמִין עַל הַשְּׁטָר אֶלָא אִם כֵּן קְרָאוּהוּ כֻּלּוֹ, וְדִקְדְּקוּ בּוֹ.
3The 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.12 He does not forfeit this right, because he did not perform a deed.13 He can tell Shimon: “I desired that the field leave the hands of Reuven, for he is a man of force,14 so that I could lodge a claim in court and take possession of my field.”גבָּא שִׁמְעוֹן, וְנִמְלַךְ בְּלֵוִי וְאָמַר לוֹ 'הֲרֵינִי קוֹנֶה שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִית מֵרְאוּבֵן, בַּעֲצָתְךָ שֶׁנִּקְנֶה אוֹתָהּ, אָמַר לוֹ לֵוִי 'לֵךְ וּקְנֵה', טוֹבָה הִיא - יֵשׁ לוֹ לְלֵוִי לְעַרְעֵר עָלֶיהָ, וְלֹא אִבֵּד אֶת זְכוּתוֹ; שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ לוֹמַר 'רְצוֹנִי הָיָה שֶׁתֵּצֵא מִתַּחַת יַד רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוּא אַלָּם כְּדֵי שֶׁאֶתְבְּעֶנָּה בַּדִּין וְאֶקַּח שָׂדִי'.
4The 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.15 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 you16 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.דרְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר עַל שִׁמְעוֹן, וְשִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר 'אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה אַתָּה סָח, אֶלָא שָׂדֶה זוֹ מִלֵּוִי לְקַחְתִּיהָ וַהֲרֵי עֵדִים שֶׁאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה' - אָמַר לוֹ רְאוּבֵן 'וַהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לִי עֵדִים שֶׁבָּעֶרֶב בָּאתָ אֵלַי וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי מְכֹר לִי שָׂדֶה זוֹ' - אֵין זוֹ רְאָיָה, וְיֵשׁ לְשִׁמְעוֹן לוֹמַר 'רָצִיתִי לִקְנוֹת מִמְּךָ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְעַרְעֵר וְלֹא תַטְרִיחֵנִי בַּדִּין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הִיא לְךָ אוֹ אֵינָהּ'. וְכֵן כֹּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה.
If Shimon does not make such a claim, the court does not advance it on his behalf.17 וְאִם לֹא טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן טַעֲנָה זוֹ, אֵין טוֹעֲנִין לוֹ.
5The 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.18 The rationale is that he is claiming: “I consumed my own produce,”19 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.20 Indeed, if there were another witness with him, the person in possession would be allowed to retain possession of the field.הרְאוּבֵן שֶׁעִרְעֵר עַל שִׁמְעוֹן, וְהֵבִיא עֵדִים שֶׁשָּׂדֶה זוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ טוֹעֵן 'אַתָּה מְכַרְתָּהּ לִי וַאֲכַלְתִּיהָ שְׁנֵי חֲזָקָה', וּרְאוּבֵן אוֹמֵר 'גָּזֵל אָכַלְתָּ' - בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים שֶׁאָכַל כְּלָל בֵּין שֶׁהָיָה שָׁם עֵד אֶחָד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים - אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחֲזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל, שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר 'שֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי', וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁמְּחַיְּבִין אוֹתוֹ בַּפֵּרוֹת, שֶׁהֲרֵי מֵעַצְמוֹ הוֹדָה. וְזֶה הָעֵד שֶׁהֵעִיד שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנִים לְיַפּוֹת כּוֹחוֹ שֶׁל אוֹכֵל הוּא בָּא, וְאִלּוּ הָיָה עִמּוֹ אַחֵר - הָיְתָה הַשָּׂדֶה עוֹמֶדֶת בְּיָדוֹ.
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 hesset21 that he does not owe Reuven anything because of the produce he consumed.22 He is then released of liability.לְפִיכָךְ יִשָּׁבַע רְאוּבֵן הֶסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְתַחְזֹר לוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה, וְיִשָּׁבַע שִׁמְעוֹן הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב לוֹ כְּלוּם בַּפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל וְיִפָּטֵר.
6When 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.23 Even if there is only one witness, he is liable to return all the produce because of his testimony.24 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,25 but unable to do so.26 Hence, he must pay.27והָיוּ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים מְעִידִים עַל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁאֲכָלָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי חֲזָקָה, יַחֲזִיר כָּל הַפֵּרוֹת שֶׁאָכַל. וְאַפִלּוּ הָיָה עֵד אֶחָד - חַיָּב לְהַחֲזִיר עַל פִּיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינוֹ מַכְחִישׁ הָעֵד, אֶלָא אוֹמֵר 'אֱמֶת הֵעִיד וְאָכַלְתִּי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וְשֶׁלִּי אָכַלְתִּי', נִמְצָא מְחֻיָּב שְׁבוּעָ, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהִשָּׁבַע, וּמְשַׁלֵּם.
7The 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,28 he is required to pay only what he admits to have consumed.29 We issue a conditional ban of ostracism against anyone who consumed more produce and did not make restitution.זכָּל הַמְּחֻיָּב לְהַחֲזִיר הַפֵּרוֹת - אִם לֹא הָיוּ יְדוּעִין וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין יְכוֹלִין לְשַׁעֵר אוֹתָן כְּשָׂכָר הַבָּתִּים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ שֶׁהוּא יָדוּעַ, אֶלָא הָיוּ פֵּרוֹת אִילָן אוֹ פֵּרוֹת שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָן יְדוּעִין - הוֹאִיל וְאֵין כָּאן טַעֲנָה וַדָּאִית, יְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בּוֹ שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ. וּמַחֲרִימִין עַל מִי שֶׁאָכַל יוֹתֵר וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם.
8The 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.30 They in turn should lodge a claim against a person who rented them land that he did not own.חכָּל הַמַחֲזִיר קַרְקַע מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, אִם שְׂכָרָהּ לַאֲחֵרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה מַחְזִיק בָּהּ, וְהָיוּ הַשּׂוֹכְרִין קַיָּמִין - מוֹצִיאִין מֵהֶן הַשָּׂכָר פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה, וְנוֹתְנִין לְבַעַל הַקַּרְקַע, וְחוֹזְרִין וְתוֹבְעִין זֶה שֶׁשָּׂכַר לָהֶם מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ.
9It 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 maneh31 100 zuz 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.32 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.”טאָסוּר לָאָדָם לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת שֶׁקֶר, כְּדֵי לְעַוַּת הַדִּין אוֹ כְּדֵי לְעַכְּבוֹ. כֵּיצַד? הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵרוֹ מָנֶה - לֹא יִטְעָנֶנּוּ בְּמָאתַיִם כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹדֶה בְּמָנֶה וְיִתְחַיֵּב שְׁבוּעָה. הָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בּוֹ מָנֶה וּטְעָנוֹ מָאתַיִם - לֹא יֹאמַר: אֶכְפֹּר בַּכֹּל בְּבֵית דִּין וְאוֹדֶה לוֹ בְּמָנֶה בֵּינִי לְבֵינוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְחַיֵּב לוֹ שְׁבוּעָה.
10When 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 nature33 and the like, the Torah Exodus 23:7 warned us: “Keep a distance from words of falsehood.”יהָיוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה נוֹשִׁין מָנֶה בְּאֶחָד, וְכָפַר בָּהֶן - לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶחָד תּוֹבֵעַ וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִים, וּכְשֶׁיּוֹצִיאוּ מִמֶּנּוּ יַחְלֹקוּ. וְעַל דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן הִזְהִיר הַכָּתוּב וְאָמַר "מִדְּבַר שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק" (שמות כג, ז).
This concludes the Laws Governing Disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants, with God’s help.סְלִקוּ לְהוּ הִלְכוֹת טוֹעֵן וְנִטְעָן בְּסִיַּעְתָּא דִשְׁמַיָא.
Footnotes
1.
I.e., the field is taken from him even if he brings witnesses who testify that it was his property (Maggid Mishneh).
2.
Sefer Me’irat Einayim 147:1 states that this applies even when Reuven, the seller, does not have witnesses who will substantiate his ownership of the field.
3.
I.e., if the field did in fact belong to you, you should not have taken part in its sale.
Ketubot 109a mentions the opinion of Admon, one of the leading judges of Jerusalem in the era of the Mishnah, who explains that the protester/witness may have desired the sale to be concluded, because the purchaser was a more easy-going individual than the seller. (See Halachah 3.) Hence, he expected him to respond to his protest in a more accommodating fashion. The halachah, however, does not accept this rationalization.
The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 147:1) states that this applies only when he signs the deed of sale together with another witness. If he signed alone, he could always claim: “I signed because I know that the signature of one witness alone is worthless.”
4.
See the gloss of the Maggid Mishneh, which states that the Rambam favored the text of the Jerusalem Talmud (Ketubot 13:6) rather than the text in the Babylonian Talmud, which speaks about the protester’s selling of the adjacent field himself and referring to the field in question as “the field belonging to Reuven.”
5.
I.e., when defining the boundaries of another field, he speaks of the field in question as “the field belonging to Reuven.”
6.
I.e., if the field belonged to you, you should not have signed a document that referred to it as belonging to someone else. Ketubot, loc. cit., states that even Admon accepts this ruling.
7.
I.e., a stretch of earth large enough to sow nine kabbim of grain. Nothing smaller than that could be referred to as a field (Maggid Mishneh, based on Hilchot Sch’chenim 1:4).
8.
Even though Reuven was in possession of - and transferred to Shimon - the entire field (Maggid Mishneh).
9.
If, however, he initiated legal action on behalf of the person mentioned in the bill of sale, he can no longer protest his ownership [Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 147:4)].
10.
For his responsibility is to authenticate the signature of the witnesses, making sure they are not forgeries - not to focus on the subject of their testimony.
11.
For their purpose is to testify to the truth of the statements in the document.
12.
Levi’s actions reflect a lack of moral integrity, for it is forbidden to save one’s own wealth at the expense of someone else (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 146:39). Nevertheless, there is no legal difficulty with his giving Shimon the advice.
The Maggid Mishneh cites the Rashba as stating that this law applies only when the advisor/protester admits giving this advice. If, however, he denies giving the advice, and afterwards witnesses testify that he did, he is denied the right to protest. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 146:17) quotes this ruling.
13.
I.e., he did not perform an act - e.g., signing the deed of sale - that has legal significance.
14.
From whom it would be difficult to expropriate the field using legal process, and from whom I might suffer reprisals.
15.
And he brings witnesses that Levi benefited from this field for at least one day, as stated in Chapter 15, Halachah 6.
16.
At a minimal price.
17.
Instead, the field is given to Reuven, the claimant. The fact that Shimon did not advance an alibi to resolve the statements of Reuven indicates that it belongs to him.
18.
I.e., since the person in possession does not have witnesses who can substantiate his claim that he benefited from the field for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he is required to surrender the land. One might think that he would also be obligated to pay for the produce he consumed. For since the land is not his, the produce also is not. Nevertheless, he is not obligated to pay for the produce, for there are no witnesses who testify against him and maintain that he is obligated to do so.
19.
I.e., if we believe his claim that he partook of the produce, we must also accept his claim of ownership of the property [Tur; Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 145:3)].
20.
I.e., one might think, as indeed is the case in the following halachah, that the testimony of the witness would obligate the person in possession. This is not so, for the reason explained by the Rambam.
21.
The commentaries cite this law as an affirmation of the Rambam’s thesis that when a person is obligated to take an oath, that obligation remains in force despite the fact that he has a witness who testifies in favor of his position.
22.
The wording of the oath must be chosen carefully so that he is not claiming the field as his, in the process of denying responsibility for the produce.
23.
This applies even if the witnesses intended their testimony to benefit the person in possession of the field. Through their testimony, they established that he benefited from the field for two years. This is not sufficient to establish his claim of ownership, and hence, he must pay the owner for the benefit he derived from the field.
24.
Whenever the testimony of two witnesses would obligate a person to make financial restitution, the testimony of a witness obligates him to take an oath to free himself from responsibility. Nevertheless, for the reasons the Rambam continues to explain, the person is not able to take an oath in this situation.
25.
I.e., a Scriptural oath that he did not benefit from the land.
26.
For he agrees with rather than contradicts the witness’s testimony.
27.
As explained in detail in Chapter 4, Halachah 8, and notes.
28.
Moreover, since the owner does not have a definite claim, the person in possession is not required to take even a sh’vu’at hesset to support his statements. For a sh’vuat hesset is required only when the plaintiff issues a definite claim (Chapter 1, Halachah 7).
29.
For there is no way of clarifying the amount he owes.
30.
Note the repercussions of this ruling in Chapter 12, Halachah 2.
31.
100 zuz.
32.
The plaintiff will then lodge other claims against the defendant that would not ordinarily require an oath, but because of the principle of gilgul sh'vu'ah, could be included in the oath the defendant is required to take (Sh'vuot 31a).
33.
Sh’vuot, loc. cit., quotes this as the proof-text prohibiting all the above and other similar ruses.
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.
