Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/95
Paragraph 1- The following are items on which one does not swear a biblical oath: real property- even in the Diaspora, slaves, documents, consecrated items and gentile property. There is no distinction whether one partially confessed, denied the matter in its entirety and had a solo witness contradict him or if it is a case of a guardian oath. Even if the guardian was negligent with these items and they were lost, he would be exempt from paying, regardless of whether he was an unpaid watchman, a paid watchman or a borrower. If the depositor made a condition that the guardian would pay for everything, we would follow the condition. One would, however, take a heses oath on these matters. Similarly, one could swear on these matters via a rolled-in oath. The aforementioned consecrated property is only where something was consecrated to God. Something that was consecrated for the poor, for a synagogue or for a Torah scroll or something similar can be sworn upon on just as we would swear on privately owned property. There are those that say that something that was detached and later attached to the ground does not have the status of real property. There are those that disagree. Therefore, if one borrowed a house and it was burnt, the borrower would be exempt from paying.
Paragraph 2-If the plaintiff made a claim on grapes that were ready to be harvested or dry grain ready to be harvested and the defendant partially confessed and denied the rest, the defendant would swear just as he would other moveable items. This is true only where the items do not need the ground because anything that is ready to be harvested is as if it was already harvested with respect to denials and admissions. If, however, the items needed the ground, it would have the status of the ground for all matters. There are those that say this is only where the plaintiff made a claim on the monetary value of the grapes. If, however, he made a claim on the actual grapes and the defendant partially confessed, it would be considered a case of “here it is,” even if they were ready to be harvested. There are others that disagree and hold that in all cases if he made a claim on the monetary value of grapes, it would be considered moveable items. Rather, the above case is referring to a case where the plaintiff made a claim on grapes and the defendant partially confessed and said he harvested them and ate them, so it would not be a case of “here it is.”
Paragraph 3- If the plaintiff claims the defendant lived in his courtyard for two months and he owes him two months’ rent and the defendant says he only lived there one month, the defendant is a partial confessor. If the value of the month that he was denying was worth two silvers, the defendant would swear because the claim is not on the actual property but on the rental money, which is a moveable item. The same would apply if the plaintiff made a claim on the money of real property that he sold to him and the defendant partially confesses, and it is as if he made claim on money since they are not disagreeing how much real property was sold and are just disputing the money. Similarly, if the plaintiff makes a claim on the value of the document paper, it is considered money.
Paragraph 4- If the plaintiff claims I gave you a document that gave me rights to 10 dinar and the defendant says this never occurred or he claims he lost the document, the defendant would even be exempt from a heses oath because even if he were negligent and lost the document he would be exempt as will be explained.
Paragraph 5- If the plaintiff made a claim on vessels and real property, whether the defendant confesses on all the vessels and denies all the real property, confesses on all the real property and denies the vessels or partially confesses on the real property and denies all the vessels, the defendant would be exempt from a biblical oath. If, however, he denies all the real property and partially confesses and partially denies the vessels, he would be required to swear a biblical oath. The same rule applies where the plaintiff makes a claim on vessels and slaves or vessels and documents.
Paragraph 6- If one digs a round pit, long pit or cave in another’s field and causes a loss and would be required to pay, whether the plaintiff claims the defendant dug and the defendant says he didn’t, the plaintiff says he dug two pits and the defendant says he dug one or there is a solo witness testifying that he dug and the defendant says he didn’t dig anything, the defendant would be exempt from a biblical oath. There are those that say that this is only where the plaintiff makes a claim for the diggings to be filled. If, however, the plaintiff makes a claim of payment on the openings, it has the status of any other monetary claim.