Our last Mishna taught us that women, slaves, or children should not be permitted to provide deposits. In all of these cases, the money is likely not their own. If one did accept a deposit from a woman, it must be returned to her or to her husband if she died. Same for a slave - the deposit is returned to the slave or, if he has died, his master. If one accepts a deposit from a minor, it must be put into a safe investment. If the minor dies, the investment is returned to the minor's heirs.
In any of these cases, these people might have said on their deathbeds that their deposits belonged to the person whom was designated. However, the bailee is to ignore their explanations as if they are not competent and the bailee explains their explanations. The rabbis suggest that a proper investment for a minor comes is the purchase of a Torah scroll or a date palm, from which the minor will consume dates.
A father cannot establish chazaka for his son, nor can a son establish chazaka for his father. The rabbis argue about whether or not this is still the case when the father and son have grown and are separated. Perhaps we should listen to the baraita which teaches that a son who is separated from his father's finances and a wife who became divorced are like all other people regarding establishing chazaka.
The rabbis turn to a case where one brother was doing business in the house after the death of their father, and there were documents showing his name as the owner of the property and as a lender. He claimed that the documents were proof that these were his inheritance, but Rav suggested that he must bring proof of ownership. Shmuel said that his brothers must bring proof that the money/property belonged to their common father and should be divided equally.
Rav Huna bar Avin declared that any person established to be the owner possesses all items that are typically lent or rented. But Rav Chisda argues that proof of one's rights should be brought by the brothers to address the possibility that one brother might have removed money from the pot. Rabba teaches that proof comes in the form of a document ratified by the document that holds one's name. An example is shared: a woman who is in the same circumstance as the many in our previous paragraph - she is doing business from the home after her husband's death and she finds bills of sale and other documents with her name on them suggesting that she is the owner. She then claims them as her inheritance from the house of her father or from her father from the house of her grandmother. It is her responsibility to bring proof of her ownership.
What about taking possession of property according to three years of benefiting from the land? We are again told about the brother who was managing family finances after his father had died, and he found bills of sale and documents with his name on them as an owner and a lender. The brother might have said that the money and property are my inheritance from my maternal grandfather who is not related to the other brothers. Rav suggests he requires proof of ownership. Shumel says that the brothers must bring proof. Rav Pappa says that we cannot claim on behalf of orphans anything that their father could not claim for them. He removed a pair of scissors for cutting garments and a book of aggada from orphans without requires proof of ownership, and he would rule similarly with all things that are normally lent.
Rav Huna bar Avin send a ruling saying that one who says he owns items that are typically lent, he is not deemed credible. Rav Chisda says that Rav taught his ruling intending that one should not divide his property, but when this is done, one brother might remove money to pay for food, which would damage his accumulation of property. In this case, Rabba says that proof takes the form of witness testimony. Rav Sheshet says that proof requires a court's ratification of the document.
The rabbis discuss what should happen when the inheritance claimed is indirect and not automatic. Who should have to bring proof in these cases? The Gemara suggests that the Misshna is incomplete and that it is teaching that possession that is accompanied by a disputed claim is settled if one can claim chazaka based on three years of ownership. Possession not accompanied by a claim, because there is no argument, or one has been given a gift, or brothers who have divided their property, or where one possesses the property of a confer who has died - in these cases, the propriety is acquired without having to establish chazaka.
Our daf ends with a conversation about whether or not a person takes possession of the property by locking the door of the property, fencing in ti, or breaching it's fence even a bit. Rava believe that this means that if the act is performed in the seller's presence, the seller need not say to min, Go, take possession and thereby acquire the property! The seller already knows what is happening.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment