Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/145

Paragraph 1- If one of the possession witnesses attests that the possessor consumed wheat for the required years of presumption, and the second witness attests that he consumed barley, the testimony would be effective because the witnesses do not pay such close attention.

Paragraph 2- If one witness attests that the possessor consumed the first, third and fifth year, and the second attests that he consumed the second, fourth and sixth, the two testimonies would not be combined because the year one witness is attesting to is not the year the other witness is attesting to. The land and the fruits would revert to the prior owner.

Paragraph 3- If the possessor could only find witnesses for two of the years, he must return the property and the fruits he consumed, regardless of whether there are two witnesses on the two years or one witness on the two years. The fruits of the third year, however, do not need to be returned because if we believe him that he consumed them, he would retain possession of the land. Similarly, if the possessor brings one witness attesting that he consumed three years, he would return the land but not fruits for this same reason. It goes without saying that if there are no witnesses that he consumed the fruits he would only have to return the land and not the fruits.

Paragraph 4- In all of the aforementioned cases, the objector must swear that he did not sell or give the possessor anything and the possessor would return the land. The possessor would swear that he does not owe any fruits to the objector, and he will be exempt.

Paragraph 5- If three brothers each testify on one year, and another witness testifies with each of them, the testimony is valid and the possessor would obtain a presumption.

Paragraph 6- If a possessor is required to return the fruits he consumed and we don’t know how much he consumed and the court is unable to appraise the amount due like they can for home rentals which is known, because here he consumed fruits from a field or tree which is unknown, because the objector does not have a certain claim the possessor will pay back that which he admits to, and we would place a general cherem on someone who consumed more than he paid for.

Paragraph 7- In any case where the possessor must return the property in his possession, if he had rented out the property to a third party while he was in possession of it, and the renter was still alive, we would take the rental payment from the renter a second time and give it to the owner of the property and the renter would them make a claim against the possessor for renting him a property and collecting rent on the property when it did not belong to him.