We were discussing the following situations in our learning.

1) If a person has a shtar which he believes to be true and thus otherwise meeting the standards of some court, such as a shtar that established the prior ownership of the Brooklyn Bridge by the one from whom he bought it, and that shtar was witnessed by both Rashi and Rambam (I understand that there is a legend they had dined together, but the author of their biographies states that their lifetimes did not overlap)...

Could he effect consecration of the bridge, or rather, an item which some legimitate court might be persuaded about regarding a forged shtar (and please see note 1B)?

Perhaps without someone demonstrating that this shtar was not valid, or in a case which could even be one or lost through technicalities, or the specific viewpoints of a given set of judges...

Do we say that since a shtar is suitable proof to exact posession through some legal proceedings (I'll assume well intended, sincere, but even incorrect) that a bath house owner could consecrate the bath house based on his knowledge that he has the shtar in his posession?

Or perhaps do we say he only has proof suitable to exact posession after there really is a court case and all appeal rights of the other party have been exhausted?

1B) I recall there was a case in another gemara where an authentic shtar was lost, but a big rabbi had a fake shtar made up which did actually pass the Beis Din's test. After he one the case I think the other party did admit that the judgement was accurate, and then the rabbi also admitted that the shtar was a forgery, but that the real shtar had existed and the other party knew it, and that was why the other party was pursuaded?

Thus its not unthinkable that a forged/fake shtar could be of use, or that it could be pursuasive.

2) If a Jew who is the rightful heir to a painting that was in their family but stolen by nazi murderers and is currently hanging in an Austrian museum (not counting the possible tie-in to above if some art dealor had given that museum or a temporary holder of the paintaing a phony, false, or mistakenly recreated title)...

If that Jew knowing that the painting exists and where it is were to declare it Hekdesh, would it take effect, eventhough there is a museum alarm system and a whole Austrian legal system to contend with before he could achieve physical custody?

That is, comparing this case to the case questioning Rav Huna's standard, of where neither a thief nor a rightful owner could make a consecration declaration to have any effect... I think that the reason why the rightful owner cannot is because he is not certain that the item exists or where it is... but in our scenario here those two aspects are present.

Robert Chesler