Sometimes the parties will have disputes even after competent attorneys thought that they had set down the precise agreements of the parties.
Sometimes the disputes arise as to the intent of certain words. Our law office litigated many lawsuits representing clients whose lawyers did write precise contracts, but the intent of certain words was somewhat vague or ambiguous, or one of the parties and his attorneys thought that the words meant something other than what the second party and his attorney thought they meant.

For example, the seller is from Canada and the buyer from the United States and the parties sign a contract in China specifying dollars. Did the parties mean Canadian dollars or American dollars?

Sometimes the agreement between the parties is not in writing. Beth Din has to determine the intent based upon testimony of the parties, witnesses and their lawyers. In most of these cases both parties are honest and each believes that his version is the truth. I will set forth just two of the many types of disputes discussed in the Shulchan Aruch and responsa literature.

1. Reuven the seller and Shimon the buyer enter into negotiations for the sale and purchase of Reuven's car. Reuven states, "I sell you this car for $200" and Shimon states, "I buy this car for $100". The parties then leave the scene of the negotiations, without any further conversation, each one convinced that the other acceded to his statement. They reassemble for a second time and Shimon performs the act of acquisition necessary to acquire the car in the presence of Reuven (such as Reuven giving the keys to Shimon and Shimon takes the car for a short ride.) Reuven then demands $200 and Shimon offers to pay only $100. Reuven sues Shimon in Beth Din for $200 that he says was agreed upon. The halacha is that if Reuven invited Shimon to the second meeting and gave Shimon the keys, Shimon pays only the $100 that he originally offered to Reuven. If Shimon came to the second meeting without Reuven having invited him, Shimon must pay $200 to Reuven. If the parties had in their first meeting discussed the terms of the sale, such as installment payments and warranties, these are held to be part of the transaction.

2. Reuven offered an expensive camera worth $1,000 for sale at a reduced price of $500, and Shimon and Levi each claim to have bought the camera and paid for it. The status of the law on this question finds its source in a passage in the Talmud (Tractate Kiddushin 73b). The Talmud states, 'The seller [Reuven] is believed by Beth Din when he testifies to having sold the article to Shimon and not to Levi, or vice versa.

This holds true provided that the article is still in the possession of Reuven. But if the article is no longer in the possession of Reuven, he is not believed." How is this Talmudic passage to be interpreted. There are many different views among the great Torah codifiers and commentaries regard- ing how this passage should be interpreted. I shall set forth what I believe is the current status of the halacha on this issue.

As stated in prior lessons, the payment for the camera by Shimon or by Levi did not transfer title to him. The payment of money is not an act of acquisition for personal property. The act of acquisition is usually the lifting of the camera with the consent of the seller to acquire the camera. The perfor- mance of an act of acquisition without the consent or the instruction of the seller is a nullity. In the case before us, Shimon gave Reuven $500, the money for the camera, Reuven handed the camera to Shimon and Shimon returned the camera to Reuven. Shimon claims he gave the camera back to Reuven for packing it up. Then Levi gave Reuven $500, the money for the camera, Reuven handed the camera to Levi and Levi returned the camera to Reuven. Levi claims he gave the camera back to Reuven for packing. Thus each claims that he returned the camera to Reuven, after each performed an act of acquisition and paid for it. Both Shimon and Levi plead that while the camera was in his hands he acquired the camera by lifting it up with the authoriza- tion of Reuven. Thereafter witnesses saw them both holding the camera, each claiming he purchased it. Once the witnesses saw them both holding the camera, a third person can take the camera on their behalf to Beth Din to decide who owns the camera. Beth Din must first decide if the camera is still deemed to be in the possession of Reuven

If Beth Din decides that the camera is deemed to be still in the possession of the seller, Reuven, he is believed to state to whom he sold the camera. That is, the halacha recognizes the statement of Reuven as it would the testimony of two witnesses to state that they saw the transaction take place; such testimony by two witnesses would be binding on the Beth Din. The Rabbis enacted that the seller in this case has the credibility of two outside witnesses. Thus if Reuven testifies that he sold the camera to Shimon and not to Levi, Shimon will win the case against Levi, without Shimon having to take an oath. Levi will lose the case even if he offers to take an oath that he now is the true buyer of the camera. Shimon will keep the camera and Reuven will return to Levi $500.

However, from the above facts, Beth Din will have trouble deciding that the camera is deemed to still be in the possession of the seller. Thus his statement that he sold the camera to Shimon and not to Levi is the testimony of a single witness. Since Shimon has a single witness, Reuven, to bolster his claim that he Shimon bought the camera, Shimon will not be required to take an oath in Beth Din that he bought the camera. However, if Levi will take an oath that he Levi bought the camera, the camera will be deemed to belong to both Shimon and Levi. Reuven will have to return to each Shimon and to Levi $250 each, one half of the money he is holding. Then Beth Din will have to make an arrangement what shall be done with the camera. A solution may be to have them flip a coin and the winner gets the camera and gives $250 to the other party. Or they can sell the camera on the open market and obtain $1000, the true value of the camera and they can divide the $1,000 each getting $500 in addition to the $250 that he obtained from Reuven. Having sat on Beth Dins for many years, I think the parties would take the first solution as being preferable.

The subject matter of this lesson is more fully presented in Volume VI Chapters 221-222 of"A Restatement of Rabbinic Civil Law" byE. Quint, published by Jason Aronson, Inc. and on sale at local Judaica bookstores. • Questions to quint@inter.net.il

[The Parshat B'har Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
[www.ou.org]