Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/147

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If Reuven sold a field to Shimon and Levi was a witness on the document and Levi now comes to object on possession of the field and claims that Reuven stole the field from him, we would not listen to him and we would not involve ourselves without any proofs he brings regarding the field. He has relinquished all his rights because we say to him how can you testify on the sale and then come and object? This is only where he signed with another witness. If he signed solo, however, he would not relinquish his rights because he knew that the signature of a solo witness is of no effect. Similarly, if he did not sign as a witness but simply as a form of honor, he would not relinquish his rights.

Paragraph 2- Similarly, if Levi testified in a document that said “such and such field of Reuven on the east side” or “west side,” because the field was used as a landmark for a third party and Levi testified in the document, he has forfeited his rights and he cannot revert on the testimony and object. If an appointed guardian or the court sold orphans’ field in this manner, the orphans would not forfeit their rights. If the objector rented land from the possessor, it is as if he signed on as a witness and he would forfeit his rights. See above in the beginning of Siman 142.

Paragraph 3- If the witness claimed he only made one row as a landmark and not the whole field, and only the row immediately adjacent to the border belongs to Reuven, it is a valid claim and he may object on the entire field with the exception of that row. This applies only so long as there are nine kavin on that row, which is the size of a field, assuming the document states “field.” If the document does not state “field,” but simply says “property,” the possessor would only retain a small row. If the possessor subsequently claims he now went ahead and purchased the row he confessed to and we do not have a record of his handwriting from another source or if he later took possession of the row, he would be believed. If the possessor claims the reason he used the field as a landmark for another is not because the field actually belonged to Reuven but just because that is how the property is referred to since it was Reuven’s originally, his claim would be valid unless the document explicitly said it belonged to Reuven.

Paragraph 4- If a judge signed on the verification of a document, he may still object, because he can say he was not aware what was written in the document since judges are able to verify a document even without reading it. If, however, he was a judge and collected the property on behalf of the possessor, he will have forfeited his rights.

Paragraph 5- If Shimon went and consulted with Levi, and said he is considering purchasing such and such field from Reuven and on Levi’s advice he will purchase the field and Levi told him to go and purchase the field because it is a good field, Levi may still object and he will not have forfeited his rights because he did not perform any action. There are those that say that this is only where the objector admits he gave this advice. If, however, the objector denies and says the incident never occurred, and the other party brings witnesses that it did occur, we would find against the objector on this basis.