Siman 16

One of the litigants who requests time from the beit din to bring evidence or witnesses, if it is not known to the beit din based on the matter how much time is needed, they give him thirty days, for this is the time of a beit din. If it appears to the beit din that more time is needed, they give it to him. And if it appears to them that less than thirty days is sufficient, they give him only what is needed and no more; even if there is no loss in the extension of time, nevertheless, they do not give time in vain. After the time, they compel him to fulfill the judgment immediately. And if afterwards he brings evidence or witnesses, they shall overturn the ruling and rule according to the evidence or the witnesses.

When the defendant is obligated to take an oath and the plaintiff says to him, "Wait with the oath because I have evidence, and what will you lose by this?" the beit din sees if there is no loss to the defendant in the extension of time, they give the plaintiff as much time as he desires. But if they see that through this a loss will reach the defendant in his business affairs because of the talk of the people and he will lose his trustworthiness and the like, they do not give him more than thirty days' time, and afterwards he shall swear. And if afterwards he brings evidence, they shall rule according to the evidence.

In what case is this said, that they grant time to the claimant or the defendant? For example, where he sued him with an oral claim and the beit din issued a verdict, and the claimant argued, "I have proof, grant me time," they grant it to him; and likewise to the defendant when he requests time. However, if at the beginning of the claim the claimant argued, "I have proof or witnesses that money is due to me from this person," the granting of time is not relevant to this; rather, they say to him: "When you bring the proof, then stand in judgment, and as long as you do not bring it, the defendant is not obligated to respond to you." And if he recanted and said, "I have no proof," the defendant responds to him without proof as with all oral claims, and he swears and is exempt, and the claimant cannot bring proof anymore since he said that he has no proof.

If the defendant requests time to respond to the claims of the plaintiff, the beit din sees if he truly needs time to calculate his accounts and affairs and to take to heart the matters between him and the plaintiff, they give him time according to their assessment. And if it appears to them that he does not need time at all and it is merely a delay in order to evade, they do not give him time at all and he must respond immediately. And if the plaintiff showed a document between them in which they stipulated that he would pay him without any delay and without time from beit din, and the defendant does not claim regarding the document that it is forged, they do not give him time at all even if according to the matter he needs time, because any condition in monetary matters is valid.

If one of the litigants claimed, "I have merit through a proof or through witnesses, but I do not know in whose possession it is," the dayan is obligated to impose an issur upon anyone who knows of merit for him that they must inform the dayan. This applies even if the merit is in the possession of his opposing litigant, or if his opposing litigant knows where his merit and his proofs are located. On the contrary, it is a kal vachomer: since he knows of the merit of the one against him and he is claiming unlawfully, how could the beit din feed him a forbidden thing by collecting for him money that is not his? And even though in siman 28 it will be explained that when they impose an issur regarding testimony it does not apply to relatives, and certainly not to the litigant himself, it is different there; since their narration is of no legal utility whatsoever if they were to testify on the essence of the matter itself, therefore the issur does not apply to them. But in this law, where he knows where the merits of his opposing litigant are located, or he knows the witnesses who know of the incident—and we are not relying upon his word—it is simple that he is obligated to tell the truth since his narration will be effective. Nevertheless, if his response is good, such as if he says, "It is true that there is a contract there, but it is paid," he is believed with a migo. And even though he is forced to tell based on the issur that the beit din imposed, nevertheless he has not lost his migo. And similarly in other matters of this sort, when he has a migo he is believed. And in siman 71 it will be explained how they impose the issur, and in siman 92 it will be explained if he claims against his opposing litigant that he is disqualified from an oath, whether they impose an issur regarding this.

One who says to his fellow, "A shtar found in your hand contains some right for me; I desire that you bring the shtar to beit din so they may copy what is written in it regarding my right," whether he is his litigant or he is not his litigant—if the other admits that this person has a right in it, he brings the shtar to beit din and the beit din copies what is written in it regarding his right. But if he said that he does not have such a shtar in his possession in which a right for this person is found, if he is not his litigant, they do not obligate him to show his shtarot and papers to beit din, for one is not coerced to show his papers before others. And if he says that it is a doubt to him whether a right is found in it, as he himself cannot understand this from the writing, he is obligated to show it to beit din and they will understand. But if he is his litigant, even when he says that certainly no right is found for him, he is not believed and is obligated to show it to beit din, for behold, this claim is no worse than other claims that one has against his fellow when he sues him for a monetary matter.

That which we said, that one who is not his litigant, when he denies, does not need to show it to the beit din—nevertheless, the plaintiff may cast an interdict upon anyone who has in his possession a shtar or a paper in which he has a right and does not show it. And similarly, if he says the truth, that "I had such a shtar in which you had a right, but the shtar or the paper was lost," if the other party does not know whether it was lost or not lost, he also casts an interdict as we have written. And also regarding his litigant it is so, and we do not obligate him in an oath since he does not claim with certainty that it was not lost from him. But if he claims with certainty that it was not lost from him, and he knows clearly that the shtar is in his possession, we obligate this person in an oath, that he shall swear that it was lost from him, even when he is not his litigant. And let it not be difficult for you why we said that when he denies that such a shtar was ever in his possession, that an interdict is sufficient if he is not his litigant, even though it is a claim of certainty; it is different there, for since he denies the root of the matter and is not his litigant at all, how could we obligate him in an oath? And if we were to obligate an oath in such cases, you would not leave any life, for he would be able to cast himself upon many people and impose an oath upon them, and this is not "ways of pleasantness." However, when he admits that he had such a shtar and it was lost, and the other party screams that it is still in his possession, he becomes a literal litigant in this matter, and we do not exempt him with a migo, for we do not say migo to exempt from an oath [so it appears to me].

One who produces a shtar against his fellow, and his fellow requests that he give him a copy of the shtar, the owner of the shtar can say: "I will not give you a copy, for you wish to come against me with circuitous claims regarding my shtar and cause me loss; rather, I will produce the shtar before the dayanim and they shall read it." However, when he claims that there is a forgery in the shtar, and therefore he must receive a copy in order to examine it closely and show the place of the forgery, the owner of the shtar is obligated to give a copy into his hand. And even if it is written in the shtar "without taking a copy of the shtar," we do not pay heed to this since he claims there is a forgery in it. And some say that even without a claim of forgery, he is obligated to give him a copy when he requests it, because it is a remote matter that loss would reach him from this. And it appears that this depends on the assessment of the dayanim; if they see that truly this person must have the copy and no loss will reach the owner of the shtar from this, they shall command to give it to him, and if not, they shall not give it to him except in a claim of forgery. And heirs who request to examine the shtar of their testator when they are sued for money based on this shtar or another claim, and they request that the shtar be shown to them or they request a copy of the shtar, their claim is an excellent claim and it must be given to them, since the shtar is not theirs, they certainly have the right to see it and examine it closely [Birkei Yosef].