1. The following laws apply when a person owns landed property that another person is using or he has movable property that he had given him as an entrusted object, and he seeks to appoint an agent to carry out legal procedures with that other person and expropriate that property or entrusted object from his possession. He must compose a deed granting him power of attorney. And he must perform a kinyan certifying that he was granted power of attorney, telling him: "Take it to court, acquire it, and expropriate it for yourself," or the like.

If the principal does not compose such a deed for the agent, he may not enter into litigation on his behalf, for the defendant will argue: "You are not the party with whom I have contention."

Even if the principal does compose such a deed, the agent is no more than that, and any property that he acquires belongs to the principal. And any expenses undertaken by the agent with regard to the dispute for which he was given power of attorney must be borne by the principal. For this is also written in the deed granting power of attorney: "Any expenses that you undertake in this case, I undertake to pay."

2. If the principal transfers ownership to the person to whom he gave power of attorney, granting him only a third or a fourth of the property his colleague is holding, the person granted power of attorney may enter into litigation concerning the entire holding. Since he is entitled to enter into litigation concerning the portion that he owns, and he is justified to enter into litigation with him on that, he may enter into litigation concerning the entire amount.

3. When one of a group of brothers who have not divided an estate between themselves, or one of a group of partners comes and lodges a claim on a portion of the property they assert to be their own, his claim involves the entire property. The defendant must respond to him. Since this person owns a portion of the property in question, he does not need power of attorney from the other partners.

If the defendant prevails, another one of the partners cannot lodge a claim against the partner who engaged in the litigation, telling him: "If I had been there, I would have raised other arguments and caused the defendant to be held liable," for the partner who engaged in the litigation can tell him: "Why didn't you come and raise those arguments?"

For this reason, if the other partner was in another country, that partner can seek out the defendant and enter litigation against him, telling him: "I do not agree with all the arguments my partner raised."

Accordingly, the defendant can delay, telling the first partner: "Either enter into litigation concerning only your share, or bring me power of attorney from the other party. For I am holding property belonging to both of you, and you both are involved parties in this case. Tomorrow, your brother - or your partner - will come and also lodge a claim against me."

4. A husband needs power of attorney to lodge a claim concerning his wife's property. If, however, there is produce on the property, he has the right to lodge a claim concerning the produce - for it belongs to him - he may also lodge a claim about the property itself. For if his wife does not own the property, he has no right to the produce.

5. Although a person has entrusted an object to a colleague or given him a loan - whether movable property or money - and appointed an agent in the presence of witnesses to bring that object or loan back to him, the option belongs to the borrower or the lender. If he desires to give it to the agent, he is no longer liable, and is free of responsibility if it does not reach the principal, for he gave it to his agent.

If he does not desire to give it to the agent, he is not required to do so. For the agent is not the litigant. This applies unless the agent brings power of attorney from the owner of the entrusted object.

Every person who comes to demand payment from a colleague, using power of attorney, is described by the verse (Ezekiel 18:18 : "He did what is not good among his people."

6. When a person lodges a court claim against a colleague for either movable property or money he entrusted to him, and the defendant has already denied it, the plaintiff cannot write a bill giving another person power of attorney to collect this property or money from that person. The rationale is that he appears to be making a false statement. For he says: "I am granting you power of attorney to take everything that I own that so and so has," and so and so has already denied possessing anything belonging to the principal.

Similarly, if a person is required to take an oath in response to a colleague's claim, that colleague cannot grant another person power of attorney to have the oath administered. The rationale is that he is not transferring to the prospective agent an object of substance. And a person cannot transfer power of attorney on a claim that involves merely words. For words cannot be transferred unless they are associated with a financial claim.

7. When a person has entrusted money to a colleague and desires to grant an agent power of attorney to bring it, a kinyan chalifin is not effective. For money is not acquired through a kinyan chalifin.

What should he do? He should give the agent a portion of land of any sizeand transfer the money to him by virtue of his acquisition of the land with the intent that he expropriate it with this power of attorney. The agent may then go, enter into litigation, and expropriate the money.

If a person lent money to another person, he cannot compose a bill transferring power of attorney concerning it. This applies even if the loan is recorded in a legal document.The rationale is that a loan was given with the intent that the borrower spend the money. Thus, the money given by the lender no longer exists. And a person cannot transfer ownership over an entity that does not exist. The only way a person can transfer ownership of a debt is through a ma'amad sh'loshtan - which is a dictate whose rationale cannot be explained, as mentioned above, or through transferring the debt by writing a deed transferring ownership of the promissory note and giving it to the recipient, for in this way one transfers the lien that the note conveys.

This is my understanding of the law from the Gemara. The Geonim have, however, ordained that one may also grant power of attorney with regard to a loan, so that no one should take money belonging to a colleague and go to a distant country.

They also ordained that if a person was granted power of attorney to collect money belonging to a colleague that was held by another person or to demand payment of a loan from him, and the person transferring the debt did not own land, he could transfer to him four cubits of his heritage in Eretz Yisrael, and then transfer the money to him, by virtue of his acquisition of the land.

Such statements appear to me extremely flimsy and insubstantial. For who is to say that this person has a portion in Eretz Yisrael? And even if he is fit to receive a portion of the land, it is presently not in his possession. The Geonim who ordained this ruling did not say: "Let the law pierce the mountain." Instead, they explained that the ruling was issued only to intimidate the defendant, so that if he desires to enter into litigation and pay the money when presented with this power of attorney, he is no longer under obligation.

Why is he no longer under obligation? For a person who brings this insubstantial power of attorney is no worse than an agent appointed in the presence of witnesses. If, however, the defendant does not desire to enter into litigation with the person granted the power of attorney, he is not compelled to give him the money or take an oath until the principal comes himself.

Similarly, the Geonim ruled that if a person granted a colleague a loan, whether it is supported by a promissory note or by a kinyan observed by witnesses, even though the person denied his obligation in court, a deed granting power of attorney can be composed, because the defendant is denying a claim involving a lien on property. If, however, the loan is supported by a verbal commitment alone, and it is denied, the Geonim did not ordain that a deed granting power of attorney be composed concerning it.

8. When a person granted power of attorney to one individual and then desired to nullify his agency and grant power of attorney to someone else, he may nullify his first appointment.

The person granted power of attorney, however, may not grant power of attorney to another person. For the principal might not agree, saying: "I do not want my property entrusted to another individual." Therefore, if the agent had stipulated that he be given the right to grant power of attorney to someone else, and have that person grant power of attorney to another, the agent may write a deed granting power of attorney to a second individual, and the second individual may do so for a third. Everything follows the stipulation.

9. When a person who was granted power of attorney waives the payment owed by the defendant, sells him the article he was sent to collect, waives his obligation to take an oath, or negotiates a compromise with him, his actions are of no substance. For the principal will tell the agent: "I sent you to improve my position, not to impair it."

Therefore, if the agent had the principal stipulate that the agency is effective whether he improves his position or impairs it, his acts are binding, even if he waives payment of the entire obligation.

10. When Reuven is granted power of attorney and files a claim against Shimon, Shimon cannot turn him away, saying: "Maybe the principal who sent you appointed another person and nullified your agency." For Reuven will tell him: "Give me the article that was entrusted, and I will leave the deed recording my power of attorney with you." If the principal does in fact grant another person power of attorney, he has caused himself a loss. Shimon is not liable, for he gave the object to a person with power of attorney.

11. The following law applies when Reuven comes with power of attorney from Shimon and demands payment from Levi, and Levi tells him: "Nothing like that ever happened, but if Shimon wants, he may take an oath and collect the article he claims." We expropriate the money from Levi and have it kept in court until Shimon comes, takes the oath and collects the article.

Similarly, with regard to any other claim that Levi makes that is dependent on Shimon, Reuven should enter into litigation regarding the matter, and the property should be placed in the court until Shimon comes and is questioned. Reuven may have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who issues a false claim to withhold payment and delay it.

If Levi is required to take an oath, he may not delay and say: "I will not take an oath until I have a ban of ostracism issued in the presence of Shimon against anyone who issues a false claim against me." For the issuance of this ban of ostracism is merely a minor ordinance that the later Geonim ordained so that the litigants will be forthright in their claims. And we do not delay having the defendant take an oath, because of this minor ordinance.