Siman 144

Two who held a field for six years, where one consumed its produce in the first, third, and fifth years, and the second consumed its produce in the second, fourth, and sixth years, a chazakah is not established for either of them. Even if it was the custom of that place to leave the field fallow for a year, and had the first been alone his chazakah would have been valid, nevertheless, now that the second also sowed it, he too lost his chazakah by allowing the second to sow it in the years it should have been fallow, thereby damaging the field and not maintaining possession properly. And even if it was the custom of that place to sow year after year and they are partners and claim that they purchased it from the challenger, they also have no chazakah, because the challenger can say: It is stolen in your hands, and I did not concern myself with protesting since I saw that not one of you held it for three consecutive years properly. Therefore, if they made a contract between them and brought their partnership contract to beit din, and it was written therein that they did so between themselves—that this one shall sow one year and this one one year—and they say that the bill of sale from the challenger was lost to them, once three years have passed it is a chazakah. For when they have a contract, they are both like one man, and even if each of them did not consume the produce for three years, and only between the two of them they consumed it for three years, it is a chazakah, for a contract has a voice and the challenger should have made a protest.

And so too, if they do not claim that they purchased it from the protestor, but rather they say that they purchased this field from so-and-so, and this seller made a deed of sale for them and they brought this deed to beit din, since three years have passed, the chazakah is established for them, provided it is clarified that their seller held possession of it for even one day; for in such a case, we plead on behalf of the buyer that the seller purchased it from the protestor, as has been explained in siman 146. And since they have a deed from this seller, they are considered as one. And the same applies to a slave that they held possession of in this manner, it is a chazakah, for there is one law for a slave and for land. And so too, three buyers join together when they have a deed from one to another, for example, if one consumed the produce for a year and sold it to another, and he also held possession for a year and sold it to a third, and he held possession for a year; if they sold to one another with a deed, the chazakah is established for them when the first one claims that he purchased it from the protestor or from another who purchased it from the protestor. And as has been explained, since there is a deed between them, they are all as one man, and without a deed, the chazakah is not established for them.

If one held a field for a year and died, and his son or another heir fit to inherit him inherited it [it appears to me] and consumed its produce for two years, or if the father consumed it for two years and the son for one year, this is a hazakah even without a deed; for a deed is not relevant to inheritance, and everyone knows that a son inherits from his father, and he should have made a protest. And even if the son was a minor at the time his father died, he should have also protested [Sma]. And even if the father consumed it for a year and the son for a year, and the buyer who bought it from the son for a year, this is a hazakah, and specifically when he bought it with a deed, as has been written.

If the possessor consumed the produce during the lifetime of the owner of the field for one year, and the owner of the field died, and he consumed it in the presence of his son for two years, or in the presence of the father for two years and in the presence of his son for one year, this is a chazakah, for the son should have made a machah, as the domain of the father and the son are one. And this is specifically when the son was an adult at the time of his father's death, for if he was a minor, one does not establish a chazakah in the property of a minor even if he later reached adulthood, as I wrote in siman 149. And some say further that it is specifically when the son was an adult at the start of the chazakah that took place in the presence of the father [Rashbam], for if he was a minor then, he would not know later even when he reached adulthood during his father's lifetime. And likewise, if the heir was in a distant place at the time of the death of his benefactor and arrived after the three years of chazakah, this is not a chazakah, for he did not know of his inheritance or that someone possessed the property of his benefactor; and even if caravans are frequent, for since the field was not his, he would not investigate the one possessing it [it appears to me]. And likewise, if he consumed it in the presence of the father for one year, and in the presence of the son for one year, and in the presence of a purchaser from the son for one year, this is a chazakah. However, this matter is impossible if the son sold this field alone, for if so, you have no greater machah than this, and the possessor should have been careful with his deed; but if he sold all his fields without specification, such that this field was automatically included in the general sale, this is not like a machah, since the possessor did not recognize that it was sold and therefore was not careful with his deed, and the son or the purchaser of all his fields should have made a machah. And even if he sold it individually, it is specifically when he sold it with a deed, but without a deed there is no public report and the possessor would not know to be careful with his deed. And some disagree on this, for specifically regarding purchasers who are the possessors do we require a deed, because the claimant does not have to investigate if they possessed it properly unless the matter is truly clarified by a public report; but the possessor must investigate that another does not sell his field [Tur]. Therefore, even if the claimant sold it without a deed, it is a machah. And likewise, if the claimant consecrated it within the three years, his chazakah is voided, for this is also like a machah [Sma]. And even if he sold it or consecrated it in a distant place where it is not heard by the possessor, nevertheless his chazakah is voided since the claimant made a machah [Netivot HaMishpat], as we explained in siman 143.