the previous [statement]. If the defendant admits that it was the property of the claimant yesterday, or in the past, his admission is heard, and it is judged accordingly, according to the correct view; because he then needs to explain the reason for its transfer to him, thus he becomes the claimant and requires evidence. It differs from evidence in two respects: one, it is stronger than evidence because it is a person's testimony against himself, and dispute is removed by it, unlike evidence; for this reason, it is heard [regarding something unknown, and a judgment is passed based on it, unlike evidence. Second, evidence is not heard] except regarding what he claimed, and the claim must be linked to the present, whereas an admission is heard from the outset. If the evidence testified that it was in his possession yesterday, there are two perspectives regarding its hearing. If the defendant admits to that, the correct view is that it is heard and judged accordingly, for the reasons we have mentioned.

Section: If one claims a slave girl is his and provides evidence, and they testify that she is the daughter of his slave girl, or he claims fruit and the evidence testifies for him that it is the fruit of his tree, it is not judged for him, due to the possibility that she gave birth to it before he owned her, and that the tree produced this fruit before his ownership of it. If the evidence says: "She gave birth to it during his ownership" or "It produced it during his ownership," it is judged for him; because they testified that it is the growth of his property, and the growth of his property is his property, unless a cause arises that transfers it from him. If it is said: "You have stated: Evidence for past property is not accepted, according to the correct view, and this is testimony for past property," we say: The difference between them, assuming admission, is that the growth is inherently linked to the property in its origin, so establishing his property in the past is done by way of being a consequence. It is treated the same as if one said: "I have owned it for a year" and provided evidence for that, for his property is established in the past as a consequence of the present, and he is entitled to the growth in the past. Furthermore, the evidence here testified to the cause of property, which is her birth or her existence within his property, so it was strengthened by that. This is why if they testified to the cause in the past, saying: "He lent him a thousand" or "He sold it to him," the property is established even if he does not mention it; so with its mention, it is even more appropriate. If the evidence testified for him that this [yarn is from his cotton], this flour is from his wheat, or that this bird is from his egg, it is judged for him even if they do not add it to his property; because yarn...