Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The following individuals are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership even though they have benefited from a property for three years: craftsmen, sharecroppers, guardians, partners, a husband with regard to property belonging to his wife, a wife with regard to property belonging to her husband, a son with regard to property belonging to his father, and a father with regard to property belonging to his son.

The rationale is that in all these instances the owners will not be irritated if the other uses the property. Therefore, the fact that they benefited from it does not serve as proof of ownership, even though the owner did not protest. Instead, the property should be returned to the owner, provided that they bring proof that this land was known to belong to them, and that they take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give away the land, as we have explained.

Similarly, the exilarchs of that period, a robber and a gentile cannot establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a property. The rationale is that they are men of force.

Similarly, a deaf-mute, a mentally or emotionally unstable person and a minor cannot establish a claim of ownership through benefiting from a property. The rationale is that they do not have a claim on which the property could be awarded to them. Instead, the property should be returned to its owners. Conversely, if a person manifests ownership over his property for three years, the fact that he benefited from the property is not considered proof of ownership.

What is meant by the statement that they are not given the privilege of establishing a claim of ownership over property? Reuven benefited from a field originally belonging to Shimon for a sufficient number of years to establish a claim of ownership. He claims that he purchased the land. Shimon brought witnesses who testify that the property was known to belong to him. Similarly, he brought witnesses who testify that Reuven was known to be his partner, his sharecropper or his guardian. For this reason, he claims that he did not protest. The field is returned to Shimon, provided that he takes a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give the property to Reuven. Similar laws apply with regard to the others mentioned above.

Different laws apply, however, if Shimon does not bring proof that Reuven was his partner or sharecropper, but instead, Reuven made this admission on his own initiative, saying: "Yes, he is my partner and he sold me the property." Since he benefited from the land for the number of years long enough to establish a claim of ownership and he could have said: "He was never my partner," his word is accepted like the word of other persons.

What is meant by the exclusion of craftsmen? If a person was building a property or repairing it for many years he cannot establish a claim of ownership over it.

If the craftsman abandoned his profession and benefited from a property for three years after he abandoned the profession, he can establish a claim of ownership.

What is meant by the exclusion of sharecroppers? For example, a person worked as a sharecropper for the father of the owner of the property, or for another member of the family. Since he is a sharecropper who has worked for the family, the owner will not lodge a protest against him. If, however, a person becomes a sharecropper for the first time and then benefits from the land for the length of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he is allowed to retain possession. We tell the owners: "How did you allow him to benefit from the property year after year without issuing a protest?"

Moreover, even when a sharecropper who has worked for the family brings other sharecroppers to work in his place, he may establish a claim of ownership. For ordinarily, there is no way that a person will bring sharecroppers into a colleague's property, and the latter will remain silent.

If, however, he divided the land among other sharecroppers who also worked on that property, he may not establish a claim of ownership. For it is possible that the owner appointed him as a supervisor over the sharecroppers.

When a sharecropper ceases working in that capacity and afterwards benefits from the produce of the land on which he had been working for three years, he establishes a claim of ownership.

What is meant by the exclusion of guardians? The exclusion applies whether the guardian was charged with caring for a particular field or all of an heir's properties, whether he was appointed by the court or appointed by the father of the orphans, and the orphans came of age and allowed him to remain in that capacity, or whether an adult appointed a guardian to supervise his income and expenditures. Since these persons have permission to use the property, they cannot establish a claim of ownership. If a guardian left his position and benefited from the property for three years after leaving, he establishes a claim of ownership.

What is meant by the exclusion of partners? When a person is a partner in a field that is not required to be divided, even though he alone benefits from the entire field for several years, the field is still presumed to be owned by both of the partners.

If, however, it is large enough to be divided and only one of the partners benefited from it in its entirety for the years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, he establishes such a claim. For he may tell his partner: "If it is true that you did not sell or give me your share of the field, why did I alone benefit from the entire field? Why did you remain silent and not protest for all these three years?"

Similarly, when a man who had stipulated that he waives the right to benefit from his wife's property nevertheless derives benefit from his wife's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, the fact that he derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even when - while she was consecrated but not yet married - he stipulated that he would not inherit her property, and afterwards derived benefit from it, built or destroyed structures on it, doing whatever he desired.

Similarly, when a woman derived benefit from her husband's property and made use of it as she desired for several years, the fact that she derived benefit is of no consequence. This applies even if her husband designated another field for her to derive her livelihood from, and she benefited from other fields.

Similarly, when a son receives his livelihood at his father's home and is considered one of the members of his household, if he benefits from his father's property for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, it is of no consequence. The same law applies when the father derives benefit from the property of this son, who derives his livelihood from him for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership.

If such a son leaves his father's household or a woman is divorced - this applies even if there is a question whether the divorce is effective - they are bound by the laws that apply to all other individuals.

The exilarchs of the Talmudic era could not establish a claim of ownership because they benefited from a field. The rationale is that they had the authority to rule over the people.

Similarly, when a person manifests ownership over property belonging to the exilarchs, even if he benefits from it for a number of years, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. The rationale is that the exilarchs do not protest because they have the power to remove the other person from the property whenever they desire. Instead, they must take a sh'vu'at hesset that they did not sell or give that person the property. Conversely, if they took possession of the property of another person, and that person says that he did not sell the property, that person must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he did not sell or give them the property.

What is meant by the exclusion of robbers? When a person is presumed to have stolen this field, or his ancestors were presumed to kill people in order to take their property, although he benefits from a field for several years, he does not establish a claim of ownership, and the field should be returned to its owners.

If any of the individuals who are not able to establish a claim of ownership by benefiting from a property bring witnesses who testify that the owner sold them this particular field or gave it to them as a present, the testimony is accepted as substantial. There are two exceptions: a robber, and a husband with regard to his wife's property. With regard to which property were the above statements made? With regard to nichsei tzon barzel, a field designated as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, a field belonging to her and mentioned in her ketubah, or a field that her husband had evaluated in her ketubah as a present for her. With regard to nichsei milog, by contrast, he may bring proof, as stated in Hilchot Ishut.

What is meant by saying that a robber cannot substantiate the sale of a property? Once it has been established that a person gained possession of a field through robbery, he cannot substantiate his possession of a field even though he brings proof that, in the presence of witnesses, the owner acknowledged the fact that he sold him this field and received payment for it. For the owner can say: "We never sold the field; we acknowledged [the sale] only out of fear." In such an instance, we expropriate the field from the robber, and he is not given anything.

If witnesses testify that the robber counted out a specific sum of money to the owner, we expropriate the field from the robber and require the owner to return the money, as stated in Hilchot Gezelah.

The following rules apply when the son of a craftsman, the son of a sharecropper, or the son of a guardian benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership. If these individuals claim that the owner sold the property to them, or gave it to them as a present, their claim is established. If, however, they claim that the property is an inheritance that they received from their father, who benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership, their claim is not accepted.

If they bring witnesses who testify that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold it or gave it to him, they are allowed to retain possession of the field.

Although the son of a robber brings proof that the owner acknowledged to their father that he sold a property to him, it is of no consequence, as explained above. When, however, a robber's grandson claims that he - or even his father - acquired a property, he can establish a claim of ownership. If, however, his claim is based on his grandfather's acquisition, he cannot establish a claim of ownership.

Even though a gentile benefited from a property for several years, he cannot establish a claim of ownership on this basis. If he does not bring a deed of sale, we require that the field be returned to its owner. An oath is not required, for a sh'vu'at hesset was ordained only when the plaintiff was Jewish.

When a Jew claims a property on the basis of the claim of a gentile, he is governed by the same laws as the gentile, and the fact that he benefited from the property is not significant.

If the Jew who acquired the property from the gentile claimed: "In my presence, the gentile who sold me the land acquired this land from the Jew who is disputing my claim," his claim is accepted, provided that he supports it with a sh'vu'at hesset. The rationale is that since the claimant could have asserted: "I acquired it from you and I benefited from it for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership," we accept his word when he asserts: "I acquired it from so-and-so who, in my presence, acquired it from you."

A claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to property inherited by a minor, even when the minor later attains majority. What is implied? A person benefited from property inherited by a minor for one year in the minor's presence before the minor attained majority, and for two years after he attained majority. Although he claims: "You sold it to me" or "You gave it to me," his claim is not accepted unless he benefits from the property for three consecutive years after he attains majority.

The following rules apply when a person maintains possession of property belonging to a minor for many years and claims: "I am maintaining possession of it as security, and I am owed this-and-this on its account." Since if he had desired, he could have said: "I purchased it," his word is accepted, for it has not been established that the property belonged to this person's father. Hence, the person in possession may collect what he claims from the property' s increase in value. The property itself is then returned to the orphans.

If, however, the property is reputed to belong to the orphans, the claim of the person in possession is not accepted. The rationale is that a claim of ownership cannot be established over property belonging to a minor. Instead, the field and all the produce that the person used must be returned to the orphans. When they come of age, the plaintiff will lodge a claim against them.

Different rules apply if the person in possession benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the orphans' father. Since he could have claimed that he is the owner because he purchased it from their father, we accept his word when he claims that a debt is owed him by their father. He collects the debt from the produce of the field. Since he could say that the produce belongs to him, he is not required to take an oath concerning it.

When a person has to flee because of a danger to his life - e.g., the king desired to kill him - a claim of ownership cannot be established with regard to his property. Even if the person in possession of it derived benefit for several years and claimed that he purchased it, the fact that he derived benefit is not significant. We do not tell the owner of the field: "Why didn't you protest?" For the answer is obvious; he was concerned over his life. If, however, a person flees because of financial matters, he is considered like any other person. Thus, if he does not protest, a claim of ownership can be established over his property.

A claim of ownership can be established over the property of a married woman.

What is implied? A person benefited from the land for a portion of the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership during the lifetime of the woman's husband, and for three years after the husband's death. If he claims: "You and your husband sold it to me," he is allowed to maintain possession. The rationale is that since the person in possession could say: "I purchased it from you after the death of your husband" - for he benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband and she did not protest his word is accepted with regard to the claim mentioned above.

If, however, he benefited from the property for several years during the lifetime of her husband, but did not benefit from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership after the death of her husband, he does not establish a claim of ownership.

Possession of property for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership is of no consequence unless it is accompanied by a claim of acquisition.

What is implied? A person benefited from the produce of a field for several years. Afterwards, the person raising the protest comes and claims: "How did you acquire this field? It's mine."

The person in possession responds: "I don't know who the owner is. Since no one said anything to me about it. I took possession of it."

This does not establish a claim of ownership. For he is not claiming that he acquired it, that it was given to him, or that he inherited it. Nevertheless, even though he does not issue such a demand, the field is not expropriated from him until the person protesting brings witnesses that the field belongs to him. When, however, he brings witnesses, the field and all the benefit that he received from it is expropriated from the squatter.

We do not open by asking the squatter: "Perhaps you had a deed of acquisition and you lost it." He must make such a claim on his own. If he does not make such a claim, he must return all the produce that he reaped. Similarly, when a person benefits from a field for the number of years necessary to establish a claim of ownership on the basis of a deed of sale, and that deed of sale was disqualified, the claim of ownership established is nullified. The field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the original owner.

When a person claims ownership of a field as an inheritance, he must bring proof that his father dwelled in or used this field for even one day. Once that is accomplished, since he benefited from the field for three years on the basis of his father's ownership, he is allowed to retain possession.

If, however, he did not bring proof that his father lived in it at all, the field and all of the produce reaped must be returned to the person lodging the protest, if he brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The rationale is that the person in possession does not claim that the owner sold or gave him the field, and it is not known that the field belonged to his ancestors.

If the person in possession brought proof that his father was seen in the field, it is of no consequence. Perhaps he went to inspect it and did not purchase it. Instead, he must bring proof that his father dwelled there for at least one day.

The following laws apply when a person benefited from a field for many years and the person raising the protest states: "What are you doing in this field?"

The person in possession acknowledges the truth of his statements, but says: "I know that it once belonged to you, but so-and-so sold it to me, and he purchased it from you."

The person raising the protest states: "So-and-so, the person who sold you the field, is a robber."

Since the person in possession admitted that the field belonged to him and that he did not purchase it from him, the field and all of its produce must be returned to the person raising the protest. This applies even though that person does not bring witnesses that the field belongs to him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If the person in possession brings witnesses who testify that the person who sold the field to him lived in it for even one day or he told him, "He purchased it from you in my presence and afterwards he sold it to me," he is allowed to retain possession, for he has a definite claim and he has established a claim of ownership. If he desired, he could have claimed: "I purchased it from you." His claim would have been accepted, for he lived in it long enough to establish a claim of ownership.

The following rules apply when a person raises a protest regarding the ownership of a particular field and brings witnesses who testify that it was known to belong to him. The person in possession produces a deed of sale that he purchased it from the protester and also brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from the land for enough time to establish a claim of ownership. We tell the person in possession at the outset: "Validate your deed of sale." If the deed of sale is validated, it is preferable, and the judgment is based on the deed of sale. If he cannot validate the deed of sale, we rely on the witnesses who testify that he has established a claim of ownership. The person in possession must take a sh'vu'at hesset that he purchased it from the protester.

When there are differences between the testimony of the two witnesses who testify that a claim of ownership has been established - e.g., one testifies that the person in possession benefited from wheat for three years and the other testifies that he benefited from barley - their testimony is accepted. For witnesses are not concerned with these particulars. If one witness testifies that the person in possession benefited from the property in the first, third and fifth years, and the other testifies that he benefited in the second, fourth and sixth years, their testimonies cannot be linked together. The rationale is that neither testified concerning the year about which the other testified. Hence, the land and its produce must be returned.

If a person took possession of a field on the assumption that he is the heir and benefited from the field, and then it was discovered that there was another heir who shared a closer connection and is fit to inherit the field, the person who took possession of the field first is obligated to return all the produce that he ate. This applies whether witnesses testified to the closer relative's identity or the person who first took possession of the property acknowledged it.

The following laws apply when two people are disputing the ownership of a field, each claiming it to be his own, but neither has proof of his claim. These same laws apply when both claimants bring witnesses who testify that the field belongs to them or to their parents, or when each of them brings witnesses who testify that the claimants benefited from the field for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership, and both pairs of witnesses testify about exactly the same time period. We leave the field in their hands, and whoever overcomes the other one assumes possession. If the other seeks to expropriate the field from him, he must bring proof of his ownership.

If a third party comes, seizes the property from them and takes possession of it, he is removed from it and it is returned to the others.

If one claimant brings witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, that he benefited from it for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership, and that it is in his possession, and the other brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from it for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership and that it is in his possession, the testimonies regarding the claims of ownership contradict each other. We grant the field to the person who produced witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors, and give him possession of it.

If the second person also brought witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, and so this testimony also involves a contradiction, the court rescinds its initial ruling, removes the first claimant from it, and leaves it in possession of both of them. The one who overpowers the other acquires the right of ownership.

When both claimants say that the field belonged to their ancestors, and one brings witnesses who testify that the field belonged to his ancestors, while the other brings witnesses who testify only that he benefited from the field for the period necessary to establish a claim of ownership, the field should be returned to the one who brought witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors. The other claimant must return the produce that he used. The rationale is that he did not issue a claim. Hence, his consumption of the produce does not serve as proof. For any claim of ownership that is not based on an assertion against the owners is of no consequence.

If the person in possession of the field retorts: "Yes. It belonged to your ancestors and you sold it to me. When I originally claimed that it belonged to my ancestors, I meant that my claim of ownership over it is so strong that it is as if it belonged to my ancestors," or he states: "It was my ancestors, because they purchased it from your ancestors, his claim is valid, for he gave an explanation for his original statements. Hence, we allow him to maintain possession.

If at the outset, he claimed: "It belonged to my ancestors and not your ancestors," we do not accept his later claim. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

The following rules apply when Reuven was in possession of a field and Shimon came and protested his ownership. Reuven responded: "I purchased this field from Levi and benefited from it for the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership."

Shimon answered him: "I have a validated deed of sale in my possession that I purchased the field from Levi four years ago."

Reuven retorted: "Do you think that it is only three years since I purchased. I purchased it many years ago? My claim precedes yours."

Reuven's claim is acceptable, for it is common for a person to call many years "the amount of time necessary to establish a claim of ownership." Therefore, if Reuven brings witnesses who testify that he benefited from the field for seven years - and he thus would have established a claim of ownership before Shimon purchased the field - he is allowed to retain possession. If, however, he benefited from it for less than seven years, the field is returned to Shimon. The rationale is that Levi could not have issued a greater protest over Reuven's use of the field than selling it to Shimon before Reuven established a claim of ownership.

The following rules apply when one claimant stated: "The field belonged to my ancestors" and brought witnesses who substantiate his claim and another claims: "It belonged to my ancestors," but does not have witnesses. The field should be returned to the one who brought witnesses. All the produce that the other claimant acknowledges consuming is expropriated from him, even though there are no witnesses that he consumed it. The rationale is that he admits that he consumed produce because the field belonged to his ancestors, and there are witnesses that the field belonged to the ancestors of the other claimant. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

We apply the principle of miggo in the following situation: One person is in possession of a field. Another raises a protest, bringing witnesses who testify that the field once belonged to him. The person in possession states: "I purchased it from you. Here is the deed of sale," and produces a deed that is validated.

The person raising the protest claims that the deed is a forgery. The one in possession admits this, but claims: "I had a valid deed of sale, but I lost it. I took this so that I would have something in hand to intimidate him, so that he would admit that he actually sold it to me."

Since he could have stood by his deed of sale, for it has been validated, his word is accepted. We do not expropriate the field from his possession. He must, however, take a sh'vu'at hesset to support his claim.

The following rules apply when a person protests a colleague's ownership of a field and brings witnesses who testify that the field belongs to him. The person in possession claims: "I purchased the field from you and benefited from it for the time necessary to establish a claim of ownership" and brings witnesses who support his claim.

The protester responded, claiming: "How could you claim that you purchased it from me on this date three years ago? At that time, I was not in this country."

To resolve the question, the court requires the person in possession to bring proof that the person raising the protest was together with him in that city at the time he claims that he sold him the field, even for one day, so that he could have sold it. If he did not bring proof, he is removed from the field.

The following rules apply when a person journeyed overseas, and the path to his field was lost. These laws apply whether the fields surrounding his field were owned by four different people or they were all purchased from one person. Each of the owners may turn away the claimant, telling him: "What makes you say that your way passes through my property? Maybe it passes through the property of my colleagues?" Hence, the claimant must purchase a path, even though it costs 100 maneh, or he must fly through the air.

Similarly, when the four fields belong to one person who purchased them from four people, he is not required to provide the claimant with a path. For he can tell him: "If I now returned each one his deed of sale, you would not be able to pass through the property of any one of them. And I purchased from each one every right that he possessed."

If, however, there was one person who owned all four fields, and he was this person's neighbor from the beginning until the end, the claimant can tell him: "You certainly must provide me with a path." Hence, he should be given the shortest path through any one of the fields that the owner chooses. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If the claimant takes possession of a path saying: "This is my path," he may not be removed from it unless the owner of that property brings explicit proof that it never belonged to him.