ב"ה
Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day
Mechirah - Chapter 19
Mechirah - Chapter 19
1It is forbidden for a person to sell a colleague landed property or movable property concerning which there is a dispute or a judgment pending, until he notifies the purchaser.1אאָסוּר לַמּוֹכֵר לִמְכֹּר לַחֲבֵרוֹ קַרְקַע אוֹ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן עַסִיקִין וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶן דִּין, עַד שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ.
This law applies even if the seller is responsible for the property if it is expropriated from the purchaser.2 The rationale is that a person does not desire to pay money for an object and then be forced to enter into litigation concerning it, because he is being sued by others.3שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָאַחֲרָיוּת עָלָיו, אֵין אָדָם רוֹצֶה שֶׁיִּתֵּן מָעוֹתָיו, וְיֵרֵד לַדִּין וְיִהְיֶה נִתְבָּע מֵאֲחֵרִים.
2When a person sells landed property to a colleague and claims of ownership are filed by others4 - after the purchaser acquires the property through one of the established modes of acquisition, but before he makes use of it - the purchaser may retract; there is no blemish greater than this. Before he has even made use of his purchase, claimants come and demand it.בהַמּוֹכֵר קַרְקַע לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְאַחַר שֶׁקָנָהּ הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּאֶחָד מִן הַדְּרָכִים שֶׁקּוֹנִין בָּהֶן, קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ, יָצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ מְעַרְעֲרִין - הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ; שֶׁאֵין לְךָ מוּם גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה, שֶׁעֲדַיִן לֹא נֶהֱנָה בּוֹ וּבָאוּ הַתּוֹבְעִין.
Therefore, the transaction should be nullified and the seller should return the money and enter into litigation with the claimants.5לְפִיכָּךְ יִבְטַל הַמִקָּח, וְיַחֲזִיר הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת הַדָּמִים וְיַעֲשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַמְּעַרְעֲרִין.
If the purchaser made any use of it whatsoever, even if he merely threw down its property marker and joined it to his own adjacent property, he may not retract.6 Instead, he must enter into litigation with the claimants.7 If they are successful in expropriating it from him in court, he may seek settlement from the seller, as is the law with regard to all from whom property is expropriated.וְאִם נִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהּ הַלּוֹקֵחַ כָּל שֶׁהוּא, וְאַפִלּוּ דָּשׁ הַמֶּצֶר שֶׁלָּהּ וְעֵרְבוֹ עִם הָאָרֶץ - אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ, אֶלָא עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם הַמְּעַרְעֲרִין; וְאִם הוֹצִיאוּהָ מִיָּדוֹ בַּדִּין, יַחֲזֹר עַל הַמּוֹכֵר כְּדִין כָּל הַנִּטְרָפִין.
3Whenever a person sells landed property, a servant or other movable property, he is responsible for them.גכָּל הַמּוֹכֵר קַרְקַע אוֹ עֶבֶד אוֹ שְׁאָר מִטַּלְטְלִין, הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן.
What is implied? If a litigant expropriates the purchased article8 from the purchaser because of the seller,9 the purchaser may collect all the money he paid from the seller, because the article was taken because of him.כֵּיצַד? אִם הוֹצִיאוּ הַמִקָּח מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ מֵחֲמַת הַמּוֹכֵר - חוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְנוֹטֵל כָּל הַדָּמִים שֶׁנָּתַן מִן הַמּוֹכֵר, שֶׁהֲרֵי נִלְקַח הַמִקָּח מֵחֲמָתוֹ.
This law applies with regard to all sales, even if the purchaser does not explicitly make this stipulation, but purchases the article without any qualification.10כָּךְ הַדִּין בְּכָל מִמְכָּר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא פֵרַשׁ הַלּוֹקֵחַ דָּבָר זֶה אֶלָא קָנָה סְתָם.
Even if he purchases landed property by virtue of the transfer of a legal document, and the seller’s responsibility is not mentioned in the document, the seller is responsible for the property. The fact that his responsibility is not mentioned is considered to be a scribal error.11אַפִלּוּ מָכַר הַקַרְקַע בִּשְּׁטָר, וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר בּוֹ הָאַחֲרָיוּת - הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָהּ; שֶׁהָאַחֲרָיוּת שֶׁלֹּא נִזְכַּר, טָעוּת סוֹפֵר הִיא.
4When does the above apply? When the purchased article was expropriated from the purchaser in a Jewish court.12 For example, the purchased article was movable property and it was proven that it was obtained by theft or robbery, or landed property was taken by robbery, or a creditor of the seller came and expropriated it from the purchaser. All the above applies if the expropriation was dictated by a Jewish court.דבַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּשֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ הַמִקָּח מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה הַמִקָּח מִטַּלְטְלִין וְהָיוּ גְּנוּבִין אוֹ גְּזוּלִין, אוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה הַקַרְקַע גְּזוּלָה, אוֹ שֶׁבָּא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל מּוֹכֵר וּטְרָפָהּ מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ; וְהַכֹּל בְּבֵית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
If, however, a gentile13 expropriates the purchased article from the purchaser, whether through an edict of the king or through a secular court, the seller is not responsible for the article.14אֲבָל אִם הַעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים הוּא שֶׁהוֹצִיא הַמִקָּח מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ, בֵּין בְּדִין הַמֶּלֶךְ, בֵּין בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּהֶן - אֵין הַמּוֹכֵר חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ.
Although the gentile claims that the seller stole this article or robbed him of it and brought witnesses to that effect, the seller is not liable at all. For the expropriation of the article by gentiles is considered to be beyond the seller’s control, and a seller is not liable for losses that are beyond his control.וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים טוֹעֵן שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר גָּנַב חֵפֶץ זֶה אוֹ גְּזָלוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהֵבִיא עֵדֵי עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים עַל כָּךְ - אֵין הַמּוֹכֵר חַיָּב כְּלוּם; שֶׁזֶּה אֹנֶס הוּא, וְאֵין הַמּוֹכֵר חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּת הָאֹנֶס.
5When a person sells landed property to a colleague and the seller makes a stipulation that he will reimburse the purchaser for any loss of this property due to factors beyond his control, he is liable to pay even if a gentile comes and seizes by force15 the property due to the seller.16ההַמּוֹכֵר קַרְקַע לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁכָּל אֹנֶס שֶׁיִּוָּלֵד בְּקַרְקַע זוֹ יִהְיֶה חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם, אַפִלּוּ בָּא עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּגְזָלָהּ מֵחֲמַת הַמּוֹכֵר - חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם.
If, however, a stream that was watering the field dries up, the flow of a stream deviates and makes a portion of land into a pool, or an earthquake comes and destroys it, the seller is not liable.אֲבָל אִם נִפְסַק הַנָּהָר שֶׁהָיָה מַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ, אוֹ שֶׁחָזַר הַנָּהָר לַעֲבֹר בְּתוֹכָהּ וְנַעֲשָׂת בְּרֵכָה, אוֹ שֶׁבָּאָה זְוָעָה וְהִשְׁחִיתָה אוֹתָהּ - הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.
For matters of this nature are both beyond one’s control and infrequent. It would not have occurred to a seller to think about such an abnormal matter at the time he made this stipulation. Similarly, any other factor beyond one’s control that is abnormal is not included in this stipulation.שֶׁאֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי הוּא, וְלֹא עָלָה עַל לֵב הַמּוֹכֵר דָּבָר זֶה הַפֶּלֶא בָּעֵת שֶׁהִתְנָה, וְכָל אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי, אֵינוֹ בִּכְלַל תְּנַאי זֶה.
6This same principle applies with regard to any condition that is made with regard to monetary matters. We analyze the intent of the person making the stipulation. We include within its scope only matters that are well-known that we would assume to have been taken in within the stipulation, because they would have been in the mind of the person making the stipulation at that time.ווְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן, שֶׁאוֹמְדִין דַּעַת הַמַּתְנֶה, וְאֵין כּוֹלְלִין בְּאוֹתוֹ הַתְּנַאי אֶלָא הַדְּבָרִים הַיְּדוּעִין שֶׁבִּגְלָלָן הָיָה הַתְּנַאי, וְהֵם שֶׁהָיוּ בְּדַעַת הַמַּתְנֶה בְּעֵת שֶׁהִתְנָה.
7An incident occurred concerning a person who hired sailors to transport sesame seeds to a certain place. He made a stipulation with them that they are responsible for any loss that occurs because of factors beyond their control until the sesame seeds reach their destination. And then, the river on which they expected to transport the cargo ceased flowing.17זמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׂכַר מַלָּחִים לְהַעְבִיר שֻׁמְשְׁמִין לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וְהִתְנָה עִמָּהֶם שֶׁהֵן חַיָּבִין בְּכָל אֹנֶס שֶׁיֶּאֱרַע לָהֶם עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעוּ הַשֻּׁמְשְׁמִין לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וְנִפְסַק הַנָּהָר שֶׁהָיוּ מוֹלִיכִין בּוֹ.
Our Sages said: This is an abnormal factor beyond their control. They are not likely to transport these sesame seeds on an animal to that place. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: זֶה אֹנֶס שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין לְהוֹלִיךְ שֻׁמְשְׁמִין אֵלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי בְּהֵמָה עַד אוֹתוֹ הַמָּקוֹם. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה.
8When a person sells landed property to a colleague and the seller explicitly stipulates18 that he is not responsible, the seller is not held responsible.19 This applies even if it becomes known with certainty that the property was stolen, and it is expropriated from the purchaser. Needless to say, should a creditor of the seller come and expropriate it from the purchaser, the seller is not liable to reimburse him. For any stipulation that is made with regard to financial matters is binding.20חהַמּוֹכֵר קַרְקַע לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְהִתְנָה הַמּוֹכֵר שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוּת, אַפִלּוּ נוֹדַע בְּוַּדַּאי שֶׁזּוֹ הָאָרֶץ גְּזוּלָה, וְיָצָאת מִיַּד הַלּוֹקֵחַ - אֵין הַמּוֹכֵר חַיָּב כְּלוּם. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם בָּא בַּעַל חוֹב וּטְרָפָהּ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַחֲזִיר לוֹ כְּלוּם. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן קַיָּם.
9The following rule applies when Reuven sold21 a field to Shimon without taking responsibility for it, and Levi comes and expropriates it from Shimon based on a claim against Reuven. If he desires, Reuven can22 enter into litigation with Levi. Levi cannot protest: “What business do you and I have together?23 You have no responsibility for the property.” For Reuven will tell him: “I do not want Shimon to have any claims against me, for he has lost money on my account.”24טרְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחֲרָיוּת, וּבָא לֵוִי לְהוֹצִיאָהּ מִיַּד שִׁמְעוֹן - אִם רָצָה רְאוּבֵן לַעֲשׂוֹת דִּין עִם לֵוִי, עוֹשֶׂה; וְאֵין לֵוִי יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לוֹ 'מַה לִי וְלָךְ, וַהֲרֵי אֵין עָלֶיךָ אַחֲרָיוּת' - שֶׁהֲרֵי רְאוּבֵן אוֹמֵר לוֹ 'אֵין רְצוֹנִי שֶׁתִּהְיֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן תַּרְעֹמֶת עָלַי, שֶׁהֲרֵי הִפְסִיד בִּגְלָלִי'.
10The following rule applies when Reuven sold a field to Shimon without taking responsibility and then repurchased it from him requiring Shimon to take responsibility. If a creditor of Reuven comes to expropriate the field from him, he may not require Shimon to pay for it.25 Although he did not accept responsibility when he sold it to Shimon, he took responsibility with regard to himself, that he should not be the seller and then expropriate the property himself.ירְאוּבֵן שֶׁמָּכַר שָׂדֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בְּאַחֲרָיוּת, וְחָזַר וּלְקָחָהּ מִשִּׁמְעוֹן בְּאַחֲרָיוּת, וּבָא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן לִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ - אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר עַל שִׁמְעוֹן; שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קִבֵּל עָלָיו אַחֲרָיוּת לְשִׁמְעוֹן, אַחֲרָיוּת עַצְמוֹ קִבֵּל, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה הוּא הַמּוֹכֵר וְהוּא הַמּוֹצִיא לְעַצְמוֹ.
If, however, a creditor of Jacob, their father, comes and expropriates the property from Reuven,26 Reuven may demand payment of the entire worth of the field from Shimon.27 For Shimon accepted responsibility for the field when he sold it back to Reuven, while Reuven did not accept any responsibility for others when he sold it to Shimon.אֲבָל אִם בָּא בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁל יַעֲקוֹב אֲבִיהֶם, וּטְרָפָהּ מִיַּד רְאוּבֵן - חוֹזֵר בְּכָל הַדָּמִים עַל שִׁמְעוֹן; מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁמְעוֹן קִבֵּל לוֹ הָאַחֲרָיוּת, וּרְאוּבֵן לֹא קִבֵּל לְשִׁמְעוֹן אַחֲרָיוּת אֲחֵרִים כְּלָל.
Footnotes
1.
This is a corollary to the law stated in the beginning of Chapter 18, for having to go to court concerning an object is considered a blemish that destroys its usefulness (Maggid Mishneh).
2.
I.e., if the property is expropriated from the purchaser, the seller is required to reimburse him.
3.
Even though the purchaser will not suffer financial loss, since the time and annoyance that litigation entails is undesirable, it is forbidden to sell him an object that will force him to enter litigation without previously informing him.
4.
The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 226:5) explains that this refers to a claim that has been lodged in court, and the court considers it worthy of investigation. Mere rumors of a claim, however, are not sufficient to cause a sale to be nullified.
5.
Even if the seller’s claim to ownership is vindicated by the court, the sale is not automatically reinstated. Since it had been nullified, each has the option of retracting [Ramah, (loc. cit.)].
6.
Our Sages (Bava Metzia 14a; Ketubot 92b-93a) maintain that once a person has already derived benefit from property, he would prefer to defend his right to it in court, rather than cede it to a claimant and sue the seller for the return of the payment. It must be emphasized that Rabbenu Asher and the Tur (Choshen Mishpat 226) interpret this passage in a totally different fashion. Significantly, their interpretation is not cited by the Ramah. See Sefer Me’irat Einayim 226:10.
7.
The Kessef Mishneh states that this applies only when the seller has other property from which the purchaser could seek redress if this property is expropriated from him.
8.
The litigant may also collect half of the article’s increase in value from the purchaser, and the seller is required to reimburse the purchaser for this (Sefer Meirat Einayim 225:2). The Rambam also accepts this law, mentioning it in Hilchot Malveh ULoveh, ch. 21.
9.
I.e., if the litigant can prove that the seller owes him money, he is considered to have a lien on all the landed property that was in the seller’s possession at the time the debt was incurred, and he may expropriate the property from the purchaser (see the following halachah).
[With regard to a servant, if the seller designated him as an apotiki for a debt - i.e., he specifically said that this servant would be given as payment for the debt - the servant is considered to be on lien for the debt.
With regard to other movable property, even if the seller designated it an apotiki, it is never considered to be on lien to a debt. (See Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 18:5.)]
Alternatively, if the litigant can prove that the article that was sold belongs to him and was unscrupulously sold, he may expropriate it from the purchaser.
10.
I.e., although the legal document was prepared according to all the laws of contracts, and the clause mentioning the seller’s responsibility was omitted, we do not say that the omission was intentional, and that the purchaser did not require the seller to accept this responsibility (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 225:3).
11.
For it is an accepted presumption that a person will not spend money unless he is certain that his purchase is secure, and he will be able to maintain possession of the article he seeks to purchase (Ibid.:4).
12.
This would allow the seller ample opportunity to defend his claim and ensure that the property had not been expropriated unjustly.
13.
The Maggid Mishneh states that the same law applies even if it was a Jew who expropriated the property unjustly.
14.
The Kessef Mishneh states that if the gentile’s claim would be vindicated by a Rabbinical court, the seller is required to accept the responsibility for the property.
15.
In the Talmudic era, this was unfortunately a frequent occurrence, for the Romans would often seize Jewish property by force. The fact that it is quoted by the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 225:3) indicates that it persisted in later generations as well.
16.
I.e., the gentile seized the field because he claimed that the seller stole it from him. If, however, the gentile seized the field for other reasons, the seller is not liable, for he accepts responsibility only for losses to which he shares some sort of connection (Kessef Mishneh).
17.
Gittin 73a, which is the source for this incident, states that the river was dammed.
18.
In contrast to the situation mentioned in Halachah 3, where a contract did not mention responsibility at all, this contract explicitly stated that the seller would not be held responsible. Seeing such a clause, the purchaser should have realized that something was amiss and taken the proper precautions.
19.
The Kessef Mishneh notes an apparent contradiction between the Rambam’s ruling here and his ruling in Hilchot Edut 16:4, for both are dependent on the same Talmudic passage (Bava Batra 44b).
20.
Since the purchaser accepted the stipulation, the transaction is determined accordingly.
21.
If, however, Reuven gave the field to Shimon as a present, this law does not apply [Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 226:1)].
22.
He is not, however, obligated to do this. It is the immediate owner of the property who must handle the litigation, as stated in Halachah 2.
It is preferable for the seller to become involved in the litigation, for he knows the details of the history of the property better than the purchaser does (Maggid Mishneh in the name of the Ramban). Alternatively, if the seller designated the property as an apotiki to a creditor, he has the· fight to pay the creditor cash and thus prevent him from expropriating the field [Tur (Choshen Mishpat 226)].
23.
For one who is not an involved party in a transaction may not enter into litigation unless one receives power of attorney.
24.
And therefore, he is considered to be an involved party.
25.
Even though Shimon would be held liable if Shimon had sold it to anyone else and accepted responsibility.
26.
I.e., Reuven inherited the property from his father, Jacob. It was on lien, because of a debt Jacob had incurred, and ultimately that creditor expropriated it because of that debt (Maggid Mishneh).
27.
For there is a difference between his father’s creditor’s expropriating the property and expropriation by his creditor.
Rabbi Eliyahu Touger is a noted author and translator, widely published for his works on Chassidut and Maimonides.
Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
