Siman 135

Even though one who holds a movable object is believed to say that it is his, as written in siman 133, nevertheless, regarding living creatures such as domestic animals, wild animals, and birds, he is not believed when the claimant has witnesses that it was his. The holder is not believed without proof to say that he purchased it, for since they are living creatures, there is a concern that perhaps they entered his domain on their own, or perhaps he took them on the road and held them. Therefore, if he did not bring proof that he purchased them, the claimant swears a shevuat hesset that he did not sell it and did not give it to any person, and he takes them from the holder. If the claimant does not have witnesses that it was his, the holder swears a shevuat hesset and remains with his own. And in a case where the claimant takes them and must swear a shevuat hesset, the great later authorities agreed that first he takes them and afterwards he swears the shevuat hesset, and so it is implied from the Rambam [Chapter 10 of To'en]. However, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote that he swears a shevuat hesset and takes, and so wrote the Tur. And it appears to me that they spoke precisely, for even though according to the core law he takes first and afterwards swears, since the oath is only a rabbinic enactment, nevertheless we fear that perhaps when he takes it he will not want to swear; therefore, they do not deliver it into his hand until he swears. And the same applies in any place where there is an oath and one takes by means of the oath, he does not take until he swears. And that which we said, that when there are no witnesses for the claimant the holder swears, in what case does this apply? When the claimant claims with certainty that it was stolen from him. But if he claims with uncertainty, for example, the holder says "I bought it from so-and-so" and the claimant says "perhaps you know that it is mine," he does not swear [Netivot HaMishpat] but rather places upon him a kabbalah. And if the claimant admits to him that he took it from so-and-so, but says that that so-and-so stole it from him, even if he brings witnesses, he must return his money to him because of the market enactment, as written in siman 357. And in a place where it is the way to deliver the animal to the shepherd in the morning and take it from his hand in the evening, in a manner that it does not go alone at all, and similarly other living creatures that are guarded under the hand of their owners, their law is like other movable objects, and the holder is believed with a shevuat hesset to say that it is purchased by him. And if the holder claims that it caused him damage equal to its value, or that he owes him such and such, even if it did not come into his hand as a mashkon but rather he is seizing it for his debt so that he will pay him [Sma], he shall swear with a sacred object how much is due to him and take, even though the claimant has witnesses that it is his, since there are no eyewitnesses, as written in siman 133. And some say that if he held them for three years, in any case it is a hazakah like land; for even though regarding movable objects, in a place where hazakah is not effective it is not effective even in three years—for regarding movable objects we say that perhaps he lent them for more than three years or forgot to whom he lent them—but regarding living creatures we do not say so [Sma]. And such is the primary ruling [Shach].

An adult Canaanite slave has the legal status that he is not subject to chazaka until after three years, since he is mobile, and the possessor must bring proof that he served him for all three years in the manner of a slave to his master, for if not so, he has not established a chazaka properly. And if the slave is a minor who cannot walk on his feet, his legal status is like movable property and he is subject to chazaka immediately. Even if he has a mother who is accustomed to go in and out of the possessor's house, we do not say that she brought him there and left him, for there is a chazaka that a mother will not leave her son, and if he did not belong to the possessor, she would have taken him with her. And in siman 140 it will be explained if an oath is required for a chazaka of three years. And all the laws of chazaka and protest that will be explained regarding land apply to slaves and livestock. However, that which will be explained in siman 145—that when the possessor does not bring proof that he held possession for three years, he is obligated to return to the claimant all the produce he consumed—does not apply to slaves and livestock, for he would be no more than a robber, and he only pays according to the value at the time of the robbery, as will be explained in siman 363. However, the improvement that it improved, such as if she gave birth or is milking, if it was before despair, he pays for the improvement as in the case of a robber, as I wrote in siman 362. But for the labor that he profited from them, he does not pay, for in the case of a robber he is also exempt [it appears to me].