Reuven has a garment. Shimon claims it was his and brings witnesses it was previously in his possession. What is the ruling?
Movable property in someone's possession is presumed to be theirs. Prior ownership established by witnesses does not override current possession for ordinary articles.
Question 2
Reuven owns large party cooking pots he rents out for a fee. They are found with Shimon, who claims Reuven sold them to him. What is the ruling?
Reuven takes his utensils back after taking a heset oath. Articles made from the outset for commercial rental remain presumed to belong to their original owner.
Question 3
Reuven claims his tool was stolen. Shimon, who has it, says: 'I don't know about that, someone sold it to me.' Even if it's a lend-and-rent item, what is the ruling?
When the owner's claim is theft or loss (not 'I lent it to you'), the possessor's claim of purchase stands — even for lend-and-rent items. There is no one making a specific claim against him.
Question 4
What is the test for whether an article qualifies as 'made to lend or rent'?
The Rambam is precise: 'made to lend or rent' means articles made by artisans specifically for commercial rental. Items that happen to be lent occasionally do not qualify.
Question 5
Reuven claims he rented his tool to Shimon. Shimon says Reuven sold it to him. The tool is an ordinary non-lend article. What is the ruling?
For ordinary articles, the possessor's claim of purchase prevails over a rental claim. Shimon takes heset denying the rental claim and keeps the tool.