Can One Appoint an Agent for Denied Movables?

The Gemara restricts power of attorney when a defendant denies possessing movable goods, sparking a debate between the Rif and Rabbeinu Tam over whether courts fear creating a false impression.

The Mixed-Up Infants and Authorization

The Gemara discusses two women whose newborn sons were intermingled, where both fathers gave redemption money to a single kohen. One infant subsequently died within thirty days of birth. Under the Mishnah's rule, redemption money given for a child who dies within thirty days must be returned.

The kohen, however, deflects both fathers. He tells each man that the surviving child belonged to him and that the deceased child belonged to the other father. Shmuel resolves this impasse by explaining that one father wrote an הרשאה (authorization document) empowering the other to sue on his behalf,,. The combined claimant demands five selaim regardless of which infant died, leaving them empowered to sue together.

Authorizing Claims for Denied Movables

The Gemara immediately challenges Shmuel's solution from a ruling of the Sages of Neharde'a. Neharde'a established that a bet din (court) does not write an authorization for מטלטלין (movable property),. Coins are movable property, so how could the fathers draft an authorization against the kohen?

The Gemara answers that Neharde'a only forbade authorizations when the defendant actively denied the claim (היכא דכפריה). Here, the kohen admits receiving the coins. The commentators dispute whether the Talmudic limitation against authorizing claims for denied movables remains binding halacha, or whether customary practice permits it.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּכַפְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא כַּפְרֵיהּ — כָּתְבִינַן.

These words apply where he denied it; but where he did not deny it, we write. (Bekhorot 49a:2)

The Rif: The Appearance of Falsehood

The Rif and the Rambam maintain the rule of Neharde'a as authoritative law,. A bet din cannot compose an authorization for movable property that the defendant denies.

Rashi and Rabbeinu Gershom explain the reasoning of Neharde'a. Because the movable property is not physically present before the judges, signing such a deed appears as a falsehood (מיחזי כשיקרא),. The court's witnesses risk authenticating a claim that may be non-existent. Furthermore, the Rif rules that if a defendant denies a deposit even after the authorization was written, the deed becomes invalid immediately,.

דהואיל ואינן בעין מיחזי כשיקרא שמא אין בידו משל זה כלום וחתימי סהדי אשיקרא

Since they are not physically present, it appears as a falsehood, lest he has nothing belonging to this person in his possession, and the witnesses will have signed on a lie. (Rashi on Bekhorot 49a:2:1)

Rabbeinu Tam: Validating Common Practice

Rabbeinu Tam and Tosafot defend the widespread custom of writing authorizations even when the defendant denies the claim,,. They demonstrate from discussions elsewhere that the halacha does not fear false appearances regarding monetary documents,.

An authorization is fundamentally a mechanism of שליחות (agency) rather than an outright transfer of physical ownership. The Sages instituted this instrument so that claimants could appoint representatives to recover stolen property or debts across distances,. Barring authorizations whenever a defendant denies a claim would enable dishonest debtors to evade justice.

כותבין הרשאה אפילו אמטלטלי דכפרי ולמיחזי כשיקרא לא חיישינן

We write an authorization even concerning movable property that he denied, and we do not fear that it appears as a falsehood. (Piskei Tosafot on Bekhorot 109:1)

Halachic Scope of Authorizations

The practical difference centers on whether an authorized representative can litigate denied loans or disputed movable goods in court,. It also determines whether a subsequent denial in court strips the agent of standing,.

By strict Talmudic law, the Rambam limits authorizations to real property and undisputed deposits,. However, the Rosh and Tosafot affirm that prevailing practice follows Rabbeinu Tam, authorizing agents for all claims to protect plaintiffs from deceitful debtors,.

While the Rif and the Rambam forbid issuing an authorization for denied movable property due to the appearance of falsehood, Rabbeinu Tam and common practice allow it for all claims so defendants cannot avoid litigation.

Learn Bekhorot 49 on Super Daf