daf bit: Bava Batra 34

[cellio]

Two men were arguing over the ownership of a riverboat, each claiming to own it. One went to the beit din (court) and said: attach (that is, impound) the boat until I can bring my witnesses. Should the court do so? Rav Chuna says yes, and Rav Yehudah says no. The beit din attached the boat and the man was not able to find his witnesses; he then asked them to release the boat (so the two men could fight over it). Should they release? Rav Yehudah says no; Rav Papa says yes. The halacha follows Rav Yehudah: the court should not attach in the first place, but if it did so it should not then release it. (34b)

The reasoning, explained in a note in the Soncino edition, is that once the court has possession, it should only release to the rightful owner (and we don't know who that is). I'm not sure why it's not ok for the court to restore things to their prior status, but that appears to be the law.

Comments

[sethg]

I would interpret this as a "possession is nine-tenths of the law" (the equivalent Hebrew maxim is ha-motzi me-chaveiro `alav ha ra`aya, "one who wants to take from his neighbor has the burden of proof") issue. When the litigant has possession of the boat, the court has no authority to take it without due process. But once the court has taken possession, even incorrectly, then the litigant has no right to get it back without proving his rightful ownership.

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

In particular, I'd think that the court giving the object to the wrong person would be tantamount to stealing it from the rightful owner.

[geekosaur]

This is my understanding, yes. Once the court has taken possession, they are obligated to determine the correct possessor; there is no legal "un-take" operation.

[cellio]

Giving it to the wrong person would seem equivalent to stealing to me, too. I was imagining a release of claim as opposed to a transfer of ownership -- essentially, "tomorrow at 9AM this beit din is going down to the dock to remove our locks and chains; what happens after that is not our concern". By declining to impound they're essentially saying "not our concern"; I wondered that they can't return to that state.