Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/141

Paragraph 1- The aforementioned three-year period is a full three years, to the day. Even if the possessor was only short one day he would not obtain a presumption of ownership and we would remove him from the property. When is this true? With real property that consistently produces fruits, such as homes, courtyards, pits, ditches, vaults, stores, inns, bathhouses, birds-nests, olive presses, irrigated fields that are constantly watered and planted and sprout, gardens, orchards and mobile slaves. A rain-watered field that only takes rain water and a tree-field, however, do not require full years to the day. Rather, once the possessor consumes three shifts of one grain, it qualifies as three years. How so? If the property was a date-field and he harvested three harvestings, if it was a grape-field and he harvested three harvestings or if it was an olive-field and he harvested three harvestings, it would qualify as possession of three years and he would obtain an ownership presumption, even if the trees were pressed together and did not have the appropriate amount of space between them, because since the trees will ultimately dry and he ate three periods from them, he has taken possession appropriately. ''There are those who say that even to obtain a presumption of a rain-watered field and a tree-field one would need three full years. This seems to me to be the appropriate way to rule.''

Paragraph 2- The aforementioned three-year period must be consecutive. Thus, if the possessor took possession and planted one year and left the field desolate for a year, he would not obtain a presumption, even if he did this for many years.

Paragraph 3- If the practice of the locale was to leave the field desolate for a year, even if there are some who plant every year, the possessor would obtain a presumption with non-consecutive years, because the possessor can say he only left the field desolate so that he would be able to plant a lot in the years he did plant.

Paragraph 4- If the possessor consumed three consecutive years in a place where the practice is to leave the field desolate, there are those who say he would obtain the presumption and there are those that say he would not. Paragraph 5- If the possessor plowed year after year, because he did not gain any benefit from the property, he has not obtained a presumption, even if he did it for many years. Similarly, if the possessor opened a path for water to flow and he smoothed out the land, because he did not consume any fruits he will not obtain a presumption.

Paragraph 6- If the possessor planted but did not turn a profit and instead planted a kur and only gathered a kur, he does not obtain a presumption because he did not get any benefit. If he incurred side expenses,howver, nullifying the profit, that would not void the presumption.

Paragraph 7- If witnesses saw the possessor plowing, harvesting, gathering, winnowing and selecting, but did not seem him bring in fruits, he would not obtain a presumption.

Paragraph 8- If the possessor built the homeowner’s ruins for three years or one of the three years that he otherwise lived there, he will not obtain a presumption. ''Similarly, if the possessor repaired a field by irrigating it, there are those who say he will not obtain a presumption since there is no benefit to the possessor with that activity. Similarly, if the possessor planted without plowing, there are those who say he will not obtain a presumption.''

Paragraph 9- Plowing is not effective for purposes of obtaining a presumption. Even those days that he plowed would not count for the three year presumption requirement, because we only begin counting from the time he planted and onward. There are those that disagree and hold that as soon as the possessor enters the field we begin counting the three years because he ultimately consumed the fruits. Paragraph 10- If the possessor consumed unfinished grain, he would not obtain a presumption. If the practice of that locale was to plant unfinished grain, he would obtain a presumption because the grain is expensive. Similarly, if the grains came to the possessor’s possession while it was unfinished, he would obtain a presumption three years to the day, even though he only consumed unfinished grains in the third year.

Paragraph 11- If the possessor consumed orlah, shmittah or kilayim, he would obtain a presumption, even though he benefited from a sin. There are those that disagree and hold that he would not obtain a presumption unless he ate the shells or something similar that is not prohibited.

Paragraph 12- If the place that the possessor took possession of was a rock or flint that is not fit for planting, he must benefit from it with something appropriate for it, such as spreading out his fruits or setting up an animal or something similar. If he did not benefit appropriately from it for all those three years, he would not obtain a presumption.

Paragraph 13- If a field was surrounded by a fence and the possessor comes and plants outside the fence and obtains a benefit from any area not surrounded by the fence, he would not obtain a presumption, even if he consumed year after year. The same would apply to anyone who plants in an unguarded area where everyone’s arms and legs are often found.

Paragraph 14- If the possessor consumed the entire property other than ¼ kav, he has obtained a presumption on the entire field except that ¼ kav because he did not benefit from it. Even if a flint was in middle of the field, because he did not use it appropriately, he would not obtain a presumption. If the area was less than ¼ kav, the area would be nullified to the field.

Paragraph 15- If the tree was shedding fruits before he plucked them, he would not obtain a presumption, even if the fruits remained on the tree until they completely grew because one does not obtain a presumption until he plucks the fruits with his hands.

Paragraph 16- If the field was planted with trees that only produce fruits once every three years, such as white-figs, there are those that say that if the possessor began the possession in the first year the fruits sprouted, locked and fenced the three years, tended to the needs of the trees and consumed the fruits in the third year, he would obtain a presumption.

Paragraph 17- If a tree-field had 30 trees within 30 seah and the possessor consumed 10 in the first year, 10 in the second year and 10 in the third year, he has obtained a presumption on the entire field, so long as the 10 he consumed each year were scattered throughout the entire three-seah area and the other trees did not produce fruits that year. If the other trees produced fruits and he did not consume them, however, he will only obtain a presumption on that which he consumed. When is this true? When he consumed some of the fruits and the public seized the rest of them. If he left the fruits on the trees, however, because he consumed from trees on all sides he has obtained a presumption on the entire field, even though he did not gather all the fruits. ''This is only where the trees are planted 10 trees per seah. If they were planted in more than a seah and he consumed the fruits from scattered trees, however, he would only obtain a presumption on the part of the property that is needed for the trees. There are those that say that the same would apply if there were more than 10 trees in a seah, while others say that he would obtain a presumption in such a case, unless they were within four amos.''

Paragraph 18- If the possessor took possession of a tree-field where the trees were planted in a row and he consumed all the trees every three years, he would obtain a presumption, even if they were planted less than four amos away from each other.

Paragraph 19- If one took possession of the trees and consumed their fruits and another individual took possession of the land and planted in it and consumed the fruits of such planted trees and each one claims he purchased the entire field and it belongs to him, the party that took possession of the trees and consumed its fruits for three years would obtain a presumption on the trees and the land needed for each of such trees, which is the amount required to be able to pluck figs from the tree with his basket, and the party that took possession of the land would obtain a presumption on the rest of the land.

Paragraph 20- If the possessor consumes all the fruits of a tree for three years and claims the owner of the tree sold him the tree and its land, he would obtain a presumption on the land under the thickness of the tree until the depths of the ground. Thus, if one sells a solo tree to another, he must object within every three-year period so that the buyer does not obtain a presumption on the land.