Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/62

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If a woman transacts in the home and there were acquisition documents of land and slaves or loan documents that were written in her name and she says they belong to her, even on those documents that are in her possession she must bring witnesses that she had money set aside as proof to her words. They do not have to testify that these particular documents belong to her. The same would apply to moveable items that were discovered in her possession and she would have to bring proof even if she was a widow and even if the documents were in her possession. If a woman did not transact within the home and had documents written in her name, they belong to her. If the documents are written in her and her husband’s name, it belongs to the partnership of the two of them. The default is that a woman transacts in her home. If a woman writes to others that that which is in her possession belong to others and it is known that she has money that does not belong to her husband, she is believed and the husband cannot claim it is his. There are those that say that if the documents were written in her name, although she is not believed because she transacts within the home, if she dies we would claim for her inheritors that it belonged to her, as will be explained shortly with respect to the brothers. This seems to be correct to me. See more on these laws in Even Haezer Siman 86. Similarly, if one of the brothers transacts within the home and documents are produced in his name, which he claims fell to him from his mother’s fathers’ house and belong solely to him or that he found it or received it as a gift, the brother must bring proof with witnesses. If the brother dies and leaves orphans, the living brothers would need to bring proof with witnesses. This is only for matters that were not known to belong to the brothers. For matters that were known to belong to the brothers, however, the orphans have the burden of proof. If the brothers had split up with respect to their meals or any other matter, the brothers must bring the proof, even if the brother is still alive because we say the brother took from his portion. Even if he were to claim he received it from his mother’s father’s house he would be believed with a migu. This is only true for documents that were written in the brother’s name. If they were written in all of the brothers’ names or in the name of their father, the brother cannot say it belongs to him. Even if the brother would die, the orphans would need to bring witnesses as proof. This is all for a woman or brothers. A member of the household that transacts with the homeowner’s item, however, is assumed to be the owner of anything that is entrusted to him or that is found in his possession unless it is known that it belonged to the homeowner, even if this individual is not wealthy and it is known that he did not own anything other than what he had from the homeowner. If he died, we would give the items to his inheritors.