valid, because if we were to hear it, that would mean we had ruled that this person stole three years before he was born—an impossibility. Thus, if a claim is accompanied by something that disproves it, it is neither heard nor valid.

The third condition is that the claimant be presently able to demand the right. Thus, if he brings a claim concerning a deferred debt merely in order to establish it, saying, “I claim one hundred from him, due after one year,” this is not valid, because the claimant cannot presently demand it. Even if it were established in his favor, he would still be unable to demand it, since it is deferred. He should therefore be told: “Wait until it falls due; then bring your claim against him and demand it.” But before it falls due, we do not hear such a claim from you.

There is, however, a difference of opinion regarding this condition. The correct view is that a claim concerning a deferred debt may be brought in order to establish it. For the claimant may say to the judge: “Establish it for me. I am not demanding it now; rather, I seek to establish it for fear that the witnesses may die, forget, or the like.” This is undoubtedly a sound view, for the claimant has a valid consideration and is entitled to this.

The fourth condition is that the basis of entitlement be stated. A claim is therefore not valid without stating its basis, and this too is a matter of consensus. Thus, if someone claims an inheritance and says, “I am an heir of this deceased man,” we say: “What is your relation to him? What kinship do you have with him?” If he does not state the basis, the claim is not valid.

If someone were to say, “Hear the claim and request the basis,” that would be a reasonable view. For we say: it is true that the basis must be stated, and that he is not entitled to anything except by stating it; yet making this a condition for hearing the claim is open to question, even though some jurists have said: “There is no disagreement concerning this.” But it should be