Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/275

Paragraph 1- If a convert died and did not leave a son who was conceived and born while Jewish, even if he has children who were conceived as gentiles but born Jewish, all his properties would be ownerless and whomever comes first would acquire.

Paragraph 2- If a convert died and Jews took all his properties, those that acquired his properties are no more obligated in the convert’s burial than anyone else.

Paragraph 3- If a field was defined with borders, once someone digs one dig, he would acquire the entire field. If it does not have defined borders, he would acquire from the place he dug as far as an ox-driver goes and returns while plowing.

Paragraph 4- The boundary between fields and the squill used to indicate borders would serve as a break in a convert’s property, and one who takes possession of a field would only acquire until the boundary or the squill.

Paragraph 5- Anything that is a break for peah is a break for a convert’s property. How so? If there was a stream or water channel, one would only acquire until the stream or the channel. Anything that is a break for a public domain, would be a break for a convert’s property. For example, if there was a private domain or karmelis between two fields, or even a property that would divide for a divorce documents, it would serve as a break.

Paragraph 6- Anything that is a break for tumah is a break for a convert’s property. How so? For example, if a person entered into this valley and there was tumah in that valley on the other side and he is unsure if he reached that area or not, any place where we presume it has tumah is considered its own place.

Paragraph 7- If a large valley had many fields that all belonged to one convert, and there is no boundary or squill or anything else that would break them up, and one came and took possession of a portion of the valley in order to acquire the entire thing, he would acquire anything that is referred to by the convert’s name. There are those who say this is only in a field that requires irrigation. In a field that only needs rainwater, however, if he specified he was acquiring the entire field, he would acquire the entire field. If he took possession without specifying, however, and he did not explicitly say he was acquiring the entire amount, he would only acquire the area he took possession of, one row length and width. If it is a field with a boundary, he would acquire anything in the boundary.

Paragraph 8- If there were two fields in a convert’s property and a border between them, and one took possession of one to acquire it, he would acquire it. If he took possession to acquire that field and the other field, he would acquire the one he took possession of but not the other one. If he took possession of the field only to acquire the other field, he would acquire neither of them. He would not acquire the other field because he did not take possession of it, and he would not acquire this field because he did not take possession with the intent to acquire it.

Paragraph 9- If one took possession to acquire that field, the other field and the border between them, or if he took possession of the border to acquire both field, the law is uncertain and if someone else were to come and take possession in order to acquire it, the latter person would acquire.

Paragraph 10- Similarly, if there were two houses, one inside the other, and one took possession of one of them in order to acquire it and the other house, he would only acquire the house he took possession of. If he took possession of one to only acquire the other, he would not even acquire the one he took possession of. There are those who say that if he took possession of the inner house in order to acquire it with the outer house, he would acquire both.

Paragraph 11- If one takes possession of a document from the convert’s property in order to acquire the real property that is referenced in that document, he would only acquire that document to cover his flask with.

Paragraph 12- The properties of a convert with no inheritors, ownerless properties and a field that gentile sold to a Jew and he has not yet taken possession, all have the same rule. Whomever takes possession using one the methods of taking possession that were discussed in Laws of Sale would acquire, except for consumption of fruits. How so? If one purchases real property from another and takes possession by consuming the fruits he would acquire, as was discussed in Siman 192. In the case of a convert’s property or ownerless property, however, even if one consumed the fruits of the tree for many years, he would not acquire the actual tree or the actual property until he performs an action on the actual ground or he performs work on the tree. Thus, if one found a convert’s field plowed and he planted it without covering after the planting, and the fruits sprouts and he consumed them, he will not have taken possession.

Paragraph 13- There are many examples where if a buyer took possession he would not acquire, but if one took possession on convert’s property or ownerless property he would acquire. How so? If one finds large palaces built on a convert’s property or ownerless property and he puts on one measurement of plaster or tiles one tile, such as a tile of an amah or more opposite the entrance, he would acquire.

Paragraph 14- If one draws an image on a convert’s property, he would acquire.

Paragraph 15- If one spreads out mattresses on a convert’s property, because he has beautified the property with the spreading out, he will have acquired. There are those who say this is only true where he lied down on the mattresses. Because he benefited from the actual property and he spread them out, he will have acquired. If he set the table and ate on it, there are those who say he would acquire.

Paragraph 16- If one plows the field of a convert’s property, he will have acquired.

Paragraph 17- If one cuts the twigs of vines, tree-branches or branches of a palm tree on the property of a convert and his intention was to work the tree, he would acquire. If his intention was to feed wood to an animal, he would not acquire. How so? If he cut on both sides, the presumption is he intended to work the tree. If he cut on one side, his intention is for wood.

Paragraph 18- Similarly, if one plucks wood or stones from the field and his intention was to improve the ground, he would acquire. If his intention was for the wood, he would not acquire. How so? If he plucked thick and thin items, the presumption is he intended to improve the ground. If he plucked thick, but not thin, items, the presumption is his intention was for the wood. Even if he says he intended to improve, he would not acquire, because we need his actions to prove it.

Paragraph 19- Similarly, if one smooths the ground and his intention was to improve the ground, he would acquire. If his intention was to smooth the area so that he could erect a threshing floor, he would not acquire. How so? If he was taking dirt from a high area and putting it in a low area, he is improving the ground. If he was not concerned about that and threw the dirt and pebbles everywhere without being careful, the presumption is that he intended to smooth an area to thresh.

Paragraph 20- Similarly, if one opens water into the ground and his intention was to improve the ground, he would acquire. If his intention was to trap fish, he would not acquire. How so? If he made an area where just water could enter, his intention is to smooth the ground. If he made two entrances, so that one allows the water to enter and the other allows it to leave, his intention is to trap fish.

Paragraph 21- If one builds large palaces on the convert’s property and another comes and erects doors, the latter would acquire because the first individual did not do anything to the ground, and it is as if he created a pile of stones which does not acquire given that he did not affect anything with this fence because it is wide and open and such a building does not help for anything until doors are erected. There are those who say that the same is true if the first individual created doors but did not lock them, and the second came and locked them, in which case the second would acquire. There are those who say that all this is where one built with wood and stones that did not belong to him, such as where they belonged to the convert, and he did not intend to acquire them other than through the building, or he built with employees. If he acquired them or they were his originally, however, in which case he can say I am taking my wood and stones, the latter has not taken possession of anything and thus the land would be ownerless as it was originally and whomever comes first would acquire. There are others who say that even if he built with his own materials the second would acquire everything. This that the first individual does not acquire with a building on the ground is where he did not build an effective building. If he created a building that was fit to keep animals or chickens or he dug in the foundation and built, however, he would acquire the land with his building. There are those who disagree and hold one does not acquire by digging into the foundation.

Paragraph 22- If one throws seeds into the furrows, he would not acquire because at the time he threw the seeds he did not improve the land and when the seeds sprouted and the land improved, it was improvement that came on its own, and thus he would not acquire.

Paragraph 23- If there was a partition on the convert’s property and one came and created another partition on top of it, he would not acquire, even if the lower partition sunk and the upper one was still standing, because at the time he built it he did not effect any change and when the partition did effect change, it happened on its own.

Paragraph 24- If one takes possession of a convert’s property or ownerless property and his intention is not to acquire, even if he fenced or built he would not acquire.

Paragraph 25- If one hoes on a convert’s property and he thought it was his, he would not acquire.

Paragraph 26- If one hoes on one convert’s property and he thought it belonged to another, because he intended to acquire ownerless property with his actions, he would acquire.

Paragraph 27- If a convert had the collateral of a Jew in his possession, and when the convert died another Jew came and took possession of the collateral, we would remove it from him because once the convert died his lien on the item was void. The same is true if the convert had a loan document giving him real property as collateral.

Paragraph 28- If a convert’s collateral was in Jew’s possession and another Jew came and took possession of it, the lender would take the amount corresponding to his money, and the second Jew would acquire the rest. When is this true? Where the collateral was not in the first Jew’s courtyard. If it was in his courtyard, however, he would acquire the collateral without his knowledge and the second Jew would have no rights to it. The same is true with respect to a convert’s deposit that is in a Jew’s hand. If it was something that the courtyard owner wouldn’t have known about, however, he would not acquire. See above Siman 268. If the convert owed a Jew via document or witnesses, nobody is able to take possession of that loan. Anyone who takes possession of the convert’s property has the status of an inheritor and someone who comes to collect from him would be like someone coming to collect from inheritors.

Paragraph 29- If a convert died and Jews took possession of his properties and the convert had adult slaves, the slaves would acquire themselves as freed men. With respect to the minor slaves, whomever takes possession would acquire.

Paragraph 30- If a convert died and Jews took possession of his properties and then heard that he did not yet die or that he has a son or pregnant wife, they would all be required to return the properties. If they all returned the properties and then heard that the original report was accurate and he had died originally or his son died earlier or his wife miscarried earlier, whomever takes possession a second time would acquire. Those that took possession the first time would not acquire.

Paragraph 31- If a convert died and Jews took possession of his property and he had outstanding debts, any debt that could be collected from inheritors and buyers would be collected from these people that acquire the property. One could only collect from them with an oath. If many people had taken possession, the last to take possession would lose out. If he does not have enough to pay the debt, they would go to the one before him.