Siman 148

Reuven, who had a field with a path leading to the field, and he went to a distant land, and when he returned the path was lost to him because the owners of the fields surrounding him sowed it and it is impossible to recognize the location of the path that he had—if all the fields surrounding him were not owned by one man, but rather by several people, each one can push him away and say to him: "Perhaps your path is not by me, and perhaps it is by the other." Therefore, he must purchase a path for himself for a hundred maneh or fly in the air, for he has no one from whom to claim specifically. And even if at the time he went the surrounding fields belonged to one man and afterwards he sold them to several people, each one pushes him away to the other. And even if they belonged previously to several people and afterwards they sold to one man, such that he could say, "In any case, my path is with you, so give me some path," nevertheless, since he comes from the power of all of them and they were able to push him away, he also has this power, for he says to him: "If I return to each one his deed, you would not collect from any of them, and I purchased from each of them every right that he has." Therefore, even when he did not return the deeds to them, he has their right, as written in siman 118, that wherever he has a gain by returning the deed, we view it as if he returned it. And if the sellers died, he is obligated to give him a path, for he is unable now to return the deeds to them [Shach]. And there are those who disagree on this, for in any case they possess their right [acharonim]. And the first opinion appears primary, for from the perspective of their right alone he is unable to merit the path, since it is a certainty that this person's path is with him, and his entire right is only because of the returning of the deeds, and since they all died, it is impossible for him to return them. And if all the fields belonged to one man and even now they are his, or he sold them to another and that other to another, nevertheless, since he is a single individual, this person says: "In any case, my path is with you." However, the choice is in the hand of the owner of the fields to give him even a short path, and in whichever field he desires that he should walk through there.

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 15 of To'en: If one has established a hold on a path and says, "This is my path," we do not remove him from it except with clear proof. Thus far his words. And some say that this is specifically when he has established a hold for the years of chazakah, and according to this, even if they belong to several people, he merits by virtue of chazakah. And some say that even if he has not established a hold for the years of chazakah, since he is currently seizing it, we do not extract it from him. According to this, this law only applies to one who is obligated to give him a path, but has the ability to give him whichever path he desires; therefore, if he seized a certain path, we do not extract it from him, and he also does not require an oath. However, in a place where one is not obligated to give him a path at all, by what power could he seize it? [Sma and Lechem Mishneh]. And some say that even in such a case he merits it, since he claims with certainty that this is his path, while for them it is a "perhaps," and in a case of "certainty and perhaps" where he has seized it, we do not extract it from his hand [Shach]. And so it appears to be the primary view, if only he claims with certainty that "it is my path," and he shall swear a hesset oath that it is so. But in a case where by law one is obligated to give him a path, if he seized a certain path, even if he does not claim with certainty, we do not extract it from his hand, and therefore he also does not require an oath, unless the owner of the fields claims with certainty that "this path is not yours" [it appears to me].

There is one who says that regarding one who comes with the power of all of them, where we explained that one does not need to give him a path, this is specifically when the land itself did not belong to the one who lost [the path] but rather he only had the right of passage; however, when the land itself was his, one must give him a path, for in any event, the land of this one is in his possession. But it does not appear so from all the poskim, for it is explicitly implied that there is one law for one who comes with the power of four and for four who come with the power of four, and in such a case it is simple that each one may deflect him. So too here, regarding one who comes with the power of four, for they all sold him their rights, and it is in his power to return their deeds to them, as has been written.

If Reuven had a right of passage in Shimon's courtyard in an unspecified location, such that Shimon was able to grant it to him in any place he desired, and afterwards Shimon sold his courtyard to two people: if he sold to them one after the other, the right of passage remains upon the second, for the first who purchased was able to deflect him toward Shimon; and if they purchased simultaneously, the obligation remains upon both of them, and they shall reach a compromise between them [Netivot HaMishpat].