camel.” Or she says, “You gave me this house as my bridal gift,” and he says, “Rather, this house”—meaning another house. In that case, the husband’s statement is accepted, and accordingly she is bound by what he says, because the presumption is that her claim is not established. This is what the jurists have stated.

This case differs from the previous one. In the previous case, they disagreed over the amount, while agreeing on the lesser amount. Here, however, they have not agreed on anything: each of them makes a claim different from that of the other. Nevertheless, the jurists say that the husband’s statement is accepted; he must swear an oath, and she is entitled only to what he states.

However, it should be said that his statement is accepted only so long as he does not claim something less than the customary bridal gift for a woman of her standing. It should not be accepted if he does. That is, if she identifies something that could reasonably constitute the customary bridal gift for someone like her, while he identifies something worth less than that customary amount, then there is no doubt that her statement should be accepted.

For example, the customary bridal gift for a woman of her standing may be fifty thousand. She says, “You gave me this house as my bridal gift, and it is worth fifty thousand, or close to it.” He says, “Rather, I gave you this house,” when it is worth no more than twenty thousand. The view closer to what is correct is hers. Thus, it should be said that the author’s unrestricted statement is open to reconsideration. What is closer to the customary bridal gift should be taken into account, because an indicative circumstance, when there is no evidence, is a legally valid proof.

When the two women brought their dispute over the child before Solomon, peace be upon him, he said, “Cut him in two, and divide him between you.” The older woman said, “Yes,” while the younger said, “No.” So he awarded the child to the younger woman without evidence (1).