Siman 275

A convert in ancient times who died and did not leave offspring whose conception and birth were in sanctity, even though he has sons whose conception was not in sanctity and whose birth was in sanctity, they do not inherit from him and his property is ownerless, and whoever is first to seize them acquires them, for he is considered like a newborn child. And not only this, but even those who acquire them are not obligated in his burial, for his property was not liened for his burial, as during his lifetime his property is not liened for his burial, and when he died the property immediately left his domain. And proof for this is from a creditor whose debtor's property was liened to him during his lifetime, and the debtor died and the creditor takes the property and is not obligated to bury him. And if we were to say that during a person's lifetime his property is liened for his burial when he dies, why would his property not be obligated for his burial? For behold, the lien of both of them is equal. And there are those who disagree on this, for a creditor's lien is from the Torah, but this person who acquired his property is certainly obligated in his burial. And furthermore, this is not "ways of pleasantness" that his property should be squandered and others should bury him, and there is a concern for strife [Bach].

A Canaanite slave who was emancipated also has the same law as a ger. And there was an incident in ancient times regarding an emancipated slave who died and did not leave offspring, and his assets were deposited in the hand of Reuven. However, Reuven did not wish to acquire them for himself, and several people came and said that they had deposited such-and-such with the slave. They ruled that they should swear that their words are true and take [the assets]. And if Reuven wishes, he can waive the oath for them, for behold, it is in his power to acquire all of them. And had he wished to acquire them, they would not have taken them even with an oath, for one does not extract money from the possessor with an oath; therefore, it is within his power to waive the oath, and what remains shall fall to charity [Hagahot Mordechai, Ketubot].

The chazakot that purchasers and recipients of a gift maintain, they also maintain regarding the property of a ger, though there are those that differ from one another as will be explained. Locking, fencing, and breaching, which were explained in siman 192, are also chazakot regarding the property of a ger. However, in a place where the delivery of keys and the like is required there, it is not required here; for there it is in place of the statement "go, perform a chazakah and acquire," and here this is not applicable. Similarly, all chazakot involving the body of the land, such as plowing and digging that benefits the land, are effective here as well. But regarding the quantity of the acquisition, there is a difference between this and a sale; for in a sale, even if he sold him ten fields in ten provinces and he performed a chazakah in one of them, he acquires all of them when he has given all the money, as I wrote there. But here, he only acquires that which he performed a chazakah upon, for there is no giving of money here nor another mind that transfers it to him. And even so, it is impossible to say that he should only acquire the small amount of land upon which he performed the chazakah, for if so, he would need to perform a chazakah on every single tefach, and this is not a logical reasoning at all. And how is their chazakah performed:

Our sages, of blessed memory, said [Bava Batra 54a] that a field that is defined by its boundaries, such that its boundaries are known, once one has dug in it a single digging that benefits the land, he has acquired all of it. If it is not defined by its boundaries, he acquires from it through that chazakah an amount equivalent to the distance that a pair—which are two plowing oxen—go and return and make another furrow. The measure of the length of this furrow was known to them. And some say that according to the measure of this furrow, he acquires in its four directions when he performed the chazakah in the middle of the field; and if he performed the chazakah in the middle of the boundary, he acquires in three directions; and if he performed the chazakah at the edge of the boundary, he acquires in two directions, to his right and to his left.

And just as a boundary path constitutes a separation, so too they had a type of herb called khatzav, and they would sow it between one field and another because that herb grows straight down and does not have roots that spread out. Therefore, our Sages, of blessed memory, said that the boundary path and the khatzav separate regarding the property of a convert, and with this herb they define the boundary and limit of every man, and with it Joshua demarcated the land for Israel. Therefore, anyone who takes possession of a field only acquires until the boundary path or the khatzav, even when there is not the measure of a pair of oxen as has been explained.

Since a boundary and a hewn area intervene, all the more so the things that intervene for pe'ah, for Shabbat, and for tum'ah intervene regarding the property of a ger for the matter of chazakah, such that he only acquires until the intervention. Regarding pe'ah, we hold that the pe'ah one gives from one field does not count for his other field, and the sages, of blessed memory, said that if there was a stream or a water channel between them, it intervenes for pe'ah and he must give from each one individually. Regarding the matter of Shabbat, we hold that one who carries out from a reshut hayachid to a reshut harabim is liable, and specifically if he carries out the measure of a dried fig, and that he carries out the dried fig to a single reshut harabim; but if he carried out half a dried fig to one reshut harabim and half a dried fig to another reshut harabim—for example, if there is an intervention between this reshut harabim and that reshut harabim, such as a reshut hayachid or a karmelit, and even a makom patur if it is only the measure that divides regarding the asking of permission in a get as explained in Even HaEzer siman 139—it intervenes in the reshuyot of Shabbat. Regarding the matter of tum'ah, the Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote in chapter 1 of Zechiyah: Anything that intervenes for tum'ah intervenes in the property of a ger. How so? For example, if a person entered this valley and there is tum'ah in the valley on its other side, and he does not know if he reached the place of the tum'ah or not, any place that they hold to be tum'ah is like another place divided by itself. Thus far his words. The explanation of his words is that we hold a doubt of tum'ah in a reshut hayachid, its doubt is tamei. And we learned in Tohorot chapter 6 that Rabbi Eliezer holds that specifically if he certainly entered this field, even though he did not know if he touched or did not touch, its doubt is tamei; but if he did not know if he entered this field at all, even though he certainly entered this valley, its doubt is tahor. And the sages hold that even a doubt of entry is tamei, and we hold like the sages. And the Rambam holds that only in a doubt of entry to this field do they declare tamei, but in a doubt of entry to the valley even the sages admit, for if not so, he would be tamei until the end of the world. Rather, it is certain that every valley is a reshut unto itself, and that which he wrote "and tum'ah in the valley" means in another valley, and everything that intervenes between valley and valley also intervenes in the property of a ger [Lechem Mishneh].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote [ibid.]: A large valley that contains many fields, and all of them belong to one convert, and there was neither a boundary nor a htzav nor any of the things that separate between them, and one came and performed a chazakah in part of the valley to acquire all of it—anything called by the name of that convert, he acquires it. Thus far his words. And they raised a difficulty against him, for it has already been explained in section 4 that when there is no boundary, he only acquires the amount of a tzemad [and in the Gemara it can be said that they disagree, or one can distinguish between irrigated land and rain-fed land]. And some answered that there it deals with a weak chazakah such as digging, and here it is a good chazakah. And some answered that there he performed a chazakah without specification, and here he performed a chazakah explicitly to acquire it all. And some answered that there is a distinction: if they were called by the name of the convert, then he acquires all of them, and if they were not called by his name, he only acquires like a tzemad. And it seems to me that the difference is explained in the words of the Rambam himself: for certainly if in the valley there are many fields of different owners, he does not acquire even in the fields of the convert except for the amount of a tzemad, for it is impossible to acquire in any other way since there is no separation between field and field, and the entire valley he cannot acquire since there are also fields of others. But when the entire valley belongs to the convert alone, he acquires all of it if he only intended to acquire it all, for every valley is distinct from a second valley and is considered like one field. And just as when there is a boundary between field and field he acquires the entire field, so too if there is no boundary, the entire valley is considered like one field; and if it is only called by his name and he intended to acquire it, he acquires all of it. And even when there is a small amount that is not called by his name and he does not acquire this, nevertheless it does not prevent [the acquisition] since all of it is his.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding the words of the Rambam that there are those who say specifically in a field of irrigated land, which requires watering and for which the rain of the heavens is not sufficient, one acquires the entire field with a single chazakah even if he did not explicitly state to acquire it all, provided he intended in his heart to acquire it all. However, in a field of rain-fed land, for which the rain of the heavens is sufficient, if he explicitly stated to acquire all of them, he acquires all of them; but if he performed the chazakah without specification and did not explicitly state to acquire all of them, he only acquires from the place where he performed the chazakah a furrow's length and width, as written in section 4. For a field of irrigated land has a greater connection to be called by a single name than rain-fed land, because it is known that from this cistern they water the entire field and it is well-recognized. And if it is a field that has a boundary, he acquires everything within the boundary.

Two fields among the properties of a ger with a single boundary between them, and he performed a chazakah in one of them to acquire it, he has acquired it. And if he performed a chazakah in it to acquire it and also to acquire its fellow, this one in which he performed the chazakah he has acquired, but the second he has not acquired, since the boundary separates them. And we do not say that since his intention was to acquire both of them and the second he did not acquire, he should not acquire anything at all; for even in a sale, a matter that is not subject to acquisition does not prevent a matter that is subject to acquisition, such as "acquire you and an animal" in siman 210, and all the more so in a case like this. But if he performed a chazakah in it to acquire only its fellow, he has acquired nothing at all; for the second he does not acquire since he did not perform a chazakah in it, and that one he did not acquire since he did not intend to acquire it, and every acquisition requires intention to acquire, as was written in siman 189.

And if he performed a chazakah on one of them to acquire it and to acquire also the second and the metzar between them, or if he performed a chazakah on the metzar to acquire both of them, this is a doubt whether he acquired the second as well, because he did not leave a separation between them, or perhaps he did not acquire it since, ultimately, they are two fields and it is impossible to acquire them with one chazakah. Therefore, if another came and performed a chazakah on the second in order to acquire it, the latter has merited because his chazakah is certain and that of the first is a doubt, and seizing does not apply to land. And in a case where he performed a chazakah on the metzar to acquire both of them, and another came and performed a chazakah on one and afterwards performed a chazakah on the second, he has acquired both and the first has not acquired at all, since it is a doubt regarding both of them; for the doubt regarding a chazakah on a metzar is whether one acquires a field through a chazakah on a metzar. And the law is the same if he performed a chazakah on the metzar to acquire only one field [as is evident in Bava Batra 53b and in Rashbam s.v. "or perhaps this stands alone, the metzar etc."].

And similarly, two houses, one inside the other, where one performed a chazakah in one of them to acquire it and to acquire the second, he has only acquired that which he performed the chazakah in alone. And if he performed a chazakah in one of them to acquire the second, even this one in which he performed the chazakah he has not acquired. And there are those who say that if he performed a chazakah in the inner house in order to acquire it with the outer one, he has acquired both, because the outer one is subordinated to the right of passage of the inner one and they are considered as one house. And all this is regarding ownerless property, but regarding a sale, it has already been explained in siman 192 that even ten fields in ten provinces one acquires with a single chazakah when he has given the payment for all of them.

In the sale of lands, there are four modes of acquisition: money, a deed, chazakah, and kinyan sudar. However, regarding ownerless land and the property of a convert, they are acquired only through chazakah, for money and kinyan sudar are not applicable at all, and likewise a deed. And even if the convert had acquired it with a deed, and someone came after his death and took possession of this deed in order to acquire through it the land written therein, he has not acquired the land; he has acquired nothing but the paper alone to cover the mouth of his flask. And even though he did not intend to acquire the paper either, since his intention was not to acquire it, nevertheless, his courtyard acquires the paper for him [Shach].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote: The property of a proselyte who has no heirs, ownerless property, and a field that a non-Jew sold to an Israelite and he has not yet performed an act of chazakah upon it [according to the Tur in siman 194, as long as he has not received the deed], the law for all of them is the same: anyone who performs a chazakah upon them in one of the manners of chazakah explained in the Laws of Sale acquires them, except for the consumption of produce. How so? One who buys land from his fellow and performs a chazakah upon it by consuming its produce acquires it [according to the Tur in siman 192, he does not acquire it], but regarding the property of a proselyte or ownerless property, even if he ate the fruit of the tree for several years, he has acquired neither the body of the tree nor the body of the land until he performs an action upon the body of the earth or performs labor upon the tree. Thus far his words. Therefore, if he found the field of a proselyte plowed and he sowed it but did not cover it after the sowing, and it grew and he ate it, this is not a chazakah, for sowing in and of itself is not a chazakah at all, as the Rambam wrote: One who scatters seed into the furrows does not acquire, for at the time he cast the seed he improved nothing, and at the time it grew and improved, it is an improvement that comes on its own and he does not acquire. Thus far his words. Therefore, if his desire is to sow it and acquire it, he should cover it with earth after the sowing, for he performs an action that benefits the body of the land.

And so there are many things for which an act of chazakah for a sale is not effective, but regarding ownerless property it is effective, such as things that are not the way of acquisition but rather that he improved the property with beautiful drawings and the like; and regarding ownerless property he acquires, for he shows that he has taken possession of the body of the property and they become his from the ownerless state. How so? One who finds large palaces built on ownerless property and plastered them with lime, a cubit by a cubit, on the wall opposite the entrance, for there the beauty is recognizable to all who enter the entrance; and likewise if he carved one carving in them—which is to say that he formed a shape in it to beautify it—and he made the shape the size of a cubit by a cubit on the wall opposite the entrance, he has acquired. And if he did this not opposite the entrance, he does not acquire except with more than a cubit [Rashbam 53b], and it is possible that he requires two cubits.

If one drew a significant form on ownerless property, such as the form of a person or a beast or a bird which possess much beauty and are more significant than other drawings, he has acquired it even if it is not an amah by an amah and even if it is not opposite the entrance.

And similarly, one who spreads coverings on ownerless property acquires the land because he improved the land by spreading them. And some say that this is not an acquisition; since it is not a permanent thing, it is not considered an act upon the body of the land, but rather specifically if he spread the coverings and lay upon them, so that his body benefits from the body of the land, it is an acquisition. However, by lying on the land itself, it is not an acquisition since he did not innovate anything upon it. And also, if he found a bed already spread and lay upon it, he did not acquire it since he did not innovate anything. And if he set a table and ate upon it, some say that he acquired it, for he innovated something and benefited from the body of the land by eating from the table standing on the land. And the same applies if he set the food on the land itself and ate, he acquired it [it appears to me]. And that which he does not acquire by eating fruit, even though his body benefits from this, is because this is not a benefit from the body of the land. To what is this comparable? To one who acquired a slave and the slave cooked him a fine dish and he ate it, for this is not an acquisition even though he benefited from him, because he did not benefit from the body of the slave [Sma].

One who plows a field of ownerless property has acquired it, for plowing is a benefit to the land and the action is performed upon the body of the land. Similarly, if he dug in it and there is a benefit to the land in this, he has acquired the land.

One who splits vine-branches or the twigs of trees and palm-fronds in ownerless property: if his intent is for the cultivation of the tree, he has acquired it, and if his intent is only to feed them to an animal, he has not acquired it. How do we know? If he was cutting from here and from there, the presumption is that he intended for the cultivation of the tree, and if he was cutting from one side, he only intends for the wood; therefore, even if he explicitly intended to take possession, it is nothing, since he did not perform an effective act [the Maggid Mishneh]. And so too, one who gathers wood and stones from a field: if his intent is to prepare the land, he has acquired it, and if his intent is for the wood, he has not acquired it. How do we know his intent? If he gathered the large and the small ones, behold, the presumption is that he intended to prepare the land, and if he gathered the large ones and left the small ones, behold, the presumption is that he intended for the wood and the stones; and even if he says that he intends to prepare it, with this he has not acquired it, for we require that his actions prove the benefit to the land. And one should not ask: why did he acquire it even when there is benefit, for behold, this is not an act upon the body of the land? For in truth, since there was labor performed upon things that hinder sowing and he removed them, you have no greater act upon the body of the land than this.

And so too, one who levels the surface of the ground: if his intent is to improve the land, he has acquired it; but if his intent is only to level the place so that he may set up a threshing floor upon it, he has not acquired it, for this is not a benefit to the body of the land. How do we know? If he was taking soil from a high place and placing it in a low place, behold, he is improving the land. But if he is not particular about this, but rather throws the soil and the pebbles everywhere without concern, behold, it is under the presumption that he only intends to level the place to thresh upon it. And it appears to me that if he said he intends to improve the land, he has acquired it, for in any event he improved this place, and it constitutes a chazakah in the body of the land.

And similarly, one who opens a flow of water into the land: if his intent is to improve the land, he has acquired it; but if it is to catch fish, he has not acquired it. How do we know? If he made a place only for the water to enter, he intends to improve the land. But if he made two openings, one to bring the water in and one to let it out, he intends to catch fish, for the land derives no benefit in such a case. However, if according to that specific place there is a benefit in this, he has acquired it [it appears to me].

Just as sometimes one acquires ownerless property with a small act, such as a drawing as has been explained, so too conversely, there are times when one performs a great act but did not complete a small detail of it, he does not acquire. How so? One who builds a large palace on ownerless property but did not set up doors, and another came and set up doors for them, the latter has acquired. This is because the first person did nothing to the land itself, and he is like one who made a heap of stones, which does not acquire, for he did not provide a benefit in this since it is very wide and open, and the form of that building is of no use until he sets up doors. And even though he dug in the ground when he established the foundation of the building, it is of no use, for digging is only effective in land intended for plowing. And as for that which one acquires through a drawing, there the property is the palace and he benefited it, but here the property is the land, and the land was not improved at all, for it is not fit to dwell there as long as there are no doors. And even though it is fit to enter it in the heat because of the sun and in the rains because of the rain, nevertheless, it is not fit for a permanent dwelling without doors; on the contrary, he damaged the land, for previously it was fit for sowing and now it is not fit for sowing [Tosafot Bava Batra 53b]. And it appears to me that a door for one room of the building is sufficient, for in this room it is fit to dwell a permanent dwelling. And some say that if the first person dug for the foundations he acquired, for digging land for foundations is like plowing for a field [the Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ri Migash].

And some say that even with the installation of doors, he has not acquired as long as he has not locked them, so that there is no permission for another to enter without his permission. Therefore, even if the first one also made doors but did not lock them, and another came and locked them, the latter has acquired. And see in siman 192.

That which we have said, that the second person acquired it through the installation of the doors or by locking them, one must ask: behold, the building belongs to the first person, and it is in his power to take his wood and his stones and to demolish the building, so how can the second person acquire this building through the installation of doors? Therefore, there is one who says that this law only applies when he built with wood and stones that were not his, but rather were hefker, and he did not intend to acquire them through lifting them but rather through the building; and since he did not acquire the building without the doors, he acquired nothing, and everything remains for the second person. Or, for example, if he built via laborers, and since he did not perform an act of lifting with the wood and the stones, and also the laborers do not intend to acquire on his behalf, they consequently remained hefker and the second person acquired everything. And it appears to me that the second person must pay the laborers for their work. But if he built with wood and stones of his own, or of hefker and he acquired them through lifting or pulling into his domain—for according to this, even if he did not acquire the land, he is no worse than one who enters his fellow's ruin and builds it without permission, where he can say "I am taking my wood and my stones," as is written in siman 375. And since this is so, the latter person has not established a chazakah in anything, and the land is hefker as before. And according to this, if the first person desires to remove the doors of the second and install other doors, he acquires everything [Tur in the name of the Rosh and the Ramah].

And there is one who says that even though he built from his own or purchased them through hagbahah, such that he can say, "I am taking my wood and my stones," and the second is obligated to give them to him when he wishes to receive them, nevertheless the second acquires through the doors [ibid. in the name of the Ri"sh]. And it appears to me that the reason is that since the choice is in the hand of the first—that the second should appraise them for him like one who descends without permission and that the building should remain, and presumably in this way more money will accrue to him than if he takes his wood and his stones—therefore we consider it as if the building remained for the second, and he acquires through the doors. And there is one who says further that even if the first built with his own wood and stones, the second acquired the building as well; for since he built in order to acquire the land, and he did not acquire the land, everything becomes hefker and the second acquired them [the Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ri Migash].

And that which has been explained, that he did not acquire through the building, this is specifically when he did not build a building that is functional without doors, such as a building for a dwelling or for a storehouse; but if he made a building fit for standing an animal or chickens in it, he acquired the land through its building. And it has already been explained that regarding the digging of foundations, there is a dispute whether it is effective or not.

The erecting of partitions is effective to acquire ownerless property, for behold, he has fenced the place, and it has already been explained in siman 192 that a fence constitutes a chazakah, see there. And if there were built partitions in ownerless property and this person came and made other partitions upon those partitions, he has not acquired, for he has not effected anything. And even if the lower partitions were swallowed up and the upper ones remain and are effective, nevertheless he has not acquired, for at the time that he built he did not effect anything, and at the time that it became effective, the effectiveness came of its own accord, and it is like the one who sows in section 13.

One who takes possession of ownerless property without the intention to acquire it, even though he fenced it or built upon it, he has not acquired it, for acquisition requires intent, as was written in siman 189. Therefore, one who hoes or digs in ownerless property thinking that it is his own has not acquired it, for he did not intend to acquire. However, one who hoes in the property of this convert and intended to acquire it, but thought it belonged to another convert—since he intended through these actions to merit from ownerless property, he has acquired it; for in either case, there is no other mind transferring ownership here, and he is acquiring from ownerless property. And some say that regarding a gift, since there is another mind transferring it to him, even if he thinks it is his own, he has acquired it [Ktzot HaChoshen], and it requires further study for the practical law.

A convert who died and has no heirs, all debts that he has against others, the borrowers merit them. And even if there was a mashkon in his hand, and when he died another came and seized the mashkon, we remove it from his hand and return it to the borrower, for when he died his lien was cancelled. And even if he took the mashkon not at the time of his loan, where he acquired the mashkon, nevertheless it is only like a lien [Tosafot and Nimukei Yosef, chapter 5 of Bava Kamma]. And there are those who disagree on this [Shach]. And all the more so a shetar chov in his hand is nothing. And even if there was in his hand a shetar mashkanta on the fields of the borrower from which the convert ate the produce, nevertheless another cannot seize it, since his lien expired upon his death, automatically the land remains to the borrower. And even if the shetar or the mashkon is placed in the hand of another, the bailee cannot merit them, for since his lien expired, what right does the bailee have to hold onto it [ibid.]. And even a shetar and mashkon do not avail, and he returns them to the borrower [it appears to me].

And if the ger was indebted to a Yisrael by a deed, or by witnesses, or by his own handwriting [ibid.], no person can take possession of the assets of the ger to the extent of the debt, for the one who takes possession of his assets has the status of an heir, as the lien is from the Torah and his assets were liened during his lifetime, and even if the deed is post-dated [Beit Yosef]. And one who comes to collect from him is like one who comes to collect from the heirs and does not collect except with an oath. And if the mashkon of the ger was in the hand of a Yisrael and another came and took possession of it, the first takes from him corresponding to his money and the second acquires the remainder. In what case does this apply? When the mashkon was not in a guarded courtyard of the first, but if it was in his guarded courtyard, his courtyard acquires for him without his knowledge and this latter person has nothing. And such is the law regarding his deposit that was in the hand of a Yisrael: the bailee acquires it if it was placed in a guarded location of the bailee. However, if it is a matter that would not have become known to the bailee, like the incident that occurred in the days of the early ones where a ger died at someone's place and left a belt, and another came and found gold in the belt, which was possible to never have been known, such as if it was hidden in it in a manner that is not recognizable at all, and they ruled that the second acquired it, as I have written in siman 268.

A convert in ancient times who died and his property was plundered, and there were adult slaves among them, they acquired themselves as free men, for they have the agency to acquire themselves. Regarding minors, whoever seizes them acquires them, as has been written in siman 273. And a convert who died and his property was plundered, and they later heard that he had not yet died, or that he has a son, or that his wife is pregnant, everyone is obligated to return the property. And if they returned it, and later heard that the first report was true—that he had already died, or his son died beforehand, or his wife miscarried—even though it was revealed that their first seizure was a valid seizure, nevertheless, if others seized the property after the second report, they have acquired it, and those who seized it at first did not acquire it. The reason is that from the moment they heard the report that nullified their seizure, they withdrew from the seizure. And some say that if at the time they seized it at first he had already died, the property remains in the possession of the first ones even though they later heard that he had not died, since the report was false; only when they seized it while he was still alive is that seizure worth nothing [Rashbam 142a]. And when his wife was pregnant and she miscarried, the seizure they performed while she was pregnant is effective, since the fetus had not emerged into the air of the world [ibid. according to Rava, and the Rambam had a different version as wrote the Gra, subsection 29].

A convert who died and his property was plundered, and there were debts upon him, any creditor whose debt is collected from heirs and purchasers is also collected from those who acquired his property. And the creditor does not collect except with an oath, as I wrote in section 29. And if many people seized the property, the last one is at a loss; and if they do not suffice against the debts, they collect from the one before him, for at the time the first ones seized, the remaining property was considered as unencumbered property, and therefore they collect from them first. And as I wrote in siman 111, this law also exists regarding a gift. [And it requires further study from Gittin 50b, for it implies that there is no precedence except for the reason that it is a benefit to him, see there. And it is possible that those who acquire from ownerless property are superior, for as soon as he acquired it, it became his, and for the creditor it still remained.]

There is one who wished to say that a kinyan agav is effective even regarding hefker, and if one performed a chazakah on land of hefker and intended to acquire through it also movable property of hefker, he has acquired them [Ktzot HaChoshen]. And there are those who hesitate regarding this, for we learned of kinyan from a verse, and in the verse we find it only where there is the intent of another party who transfers ownership [Netivot HaMishpat]. And it appears to me that regarding items piled upon the land it is effective. And if one appointed an agent to take possession of property of hefker, his agent is like himself. And if the agent did not intend to take possession but the sender intended to take possession, there is reason to doubt whether he has acquired it or not [see Netivot HaMishpat].