Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

The following laws apply when a person sells seeds of garden vegetables to a colleague, when the seeds themselves are not eaten. If the seeds do not grow, the seller is responsible to reimburse him for the money that he took from him. For we can assume that he purchased the seeds to sow them.

The above applies provided that the seeds did not grow because of a problem with the seeds themselves. If, however, the reason they did not grow is that the land was smitten with hail or the like, the seller is not responsible for the loss, for perhaps the reason that the seeds did not grow is the hail. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

If, by contrast, a seller sold seeds that are eaten - e.g., wheat or barley -and the purchaser sowed them, and they did not grow, the seller is not responsible to reimburse the purchaser. Even if he sold him flax seeds, which most people purchase to sow, the seller is not responsible if they are destroyed when they are sown, since there are some who eat these seeds.

If, however, the purchaser notifies the seller that he is purchasing the seeds with the intent of sowing them, the seller is responsible for them. The same applies to objects that are purchased for medicinal purposes or for dyes. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

From the above, we can derive the following law. Whenever a person purchases an item from a colleague and informs him that he intends to transport it to another city to sell it there, and after he transported it there a blemish which nullifies the sale was discovered, the seller may not tell the purchaser: "Bring my article here." Instead, the seller must reimburse the purchaser, and the seller must take the trouble of returning the article to its original place or selling it in the place to which it was transported. Even if the article was lost or stolen after the purchaser notified the seller, it is considered to have been in the seller's domain.

Different laws apply, however, when the purchaser did not tell the seller that he was planning to transport the article to another country and transported it nevertheless. If he then discovered a blemish, the article is considered to be in the domain of the purchaser until he returns it with its blemish to the seller.

When a person purchases produce and discovers a blemish, and afterwards the article is lost or stolen, the article is considered in the domain of the purchaser until he returns it to the seller. If the produce becomes wormy and is spoiled because of the length of time it had been kept, it is considered to be in the domain of the seller. If the purchaser realized the difficulty and should have notified the seller, but failed to do so, the produce is considered to be in his domain.

When a person sells an ox to a colleague and it is discovered to have tendencies to gore, the seller can excuse himself from responsibility by saying: "I sold it to you for the purpose of slaughter." When does the above apply? When the purchaser buys oxen for both slaughter and plowing. If, however, the seller knows that the purchaser purchases oxen only to plow, the transaction is considered to have been conducted under false premises, and it is nullified. The same principles apply in all analogous situations.

The following rule applies when a person sells an animal to a colleague for slaughter, the purchaser slaughters it, and it is discovered to be trefah. If it can definitely be determined that it had been trefah when it was purchased, the purchaser should return the slaughtered animal, and the seller must return the money.

From this ruling, we can derive the following principles that apply when a seller sells an entity that possesses a blemish, and the purchaser makes another blemish before he discovers the first blemish. If the purchaser creates the blemish in the process of performing an act that would ordinarily be performed - e.g., one who slaughters an animal that is trefah - he is not liable. If, however, he deviates from ordinary practice and makes another blemish before he discovers the first blemish, he should return the article to its owner and reimburse him for the blemish that he made.

The following rules apply when a person purchases a garment and cuts it with the intent of making a cloak from it. If, because of the cut he made, he discovers a blemish in the fabric, he may return the pieces.

Should he sew the cloak and then discover the blemish in the fabric, he may return it. If he has increased its value, he may collect from the seller the value of the increase his sewing generated. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

The following principles apply when a person sells landed property to a colleague, the purchaser derives benefit from the property, and afterwards discovers a blemish in it. If he desires to return the land to its owners, he must reimburse them for all the benefit that he derived. If it was a courtyard and he dwelled in it, he must pay them rent.

When a person sells an article with a blemish that is not recognized, and the article that is sold becomes destroyed because of that blemish, the seller must return the money that he received.

What is implied? A person sold an ox that did not have molars. The purchaser placed that ox together with his cattle, placed food before all of them, and they ate. He did not realize that the ox he had purchased was not eating until it died of starvation.

In such an instance, the purchaser may return the corpse to the seller, who is required to return his money to him. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

Different rules apply if the seller is a broker who purchases from one person and sells to another without keeping the animal in his possession. For this reason, we assume that the broker did not know of the blemish. Therefore, the broker is required to take a Rabbinic oath that he did not know of the blemish, and then he is absolved of responsibility.

The rationale is that the purchaser had the responsibility of checking the ox he purchased independently and returning it to the broker before it died. The broker would then have returned it to the one who sold it to him. Since the purchaser did not do this, he caused himself a loss. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

The following rules apply when a person slaughters a firstborn animal, sells its meat, and then the purchaser discovers that the seller had not shown it to an expert: What the purchaser ate is not taken into consideration, and the seller is required to return to the purchaser the money he paid. The seller should receive the remainder of the meat from the purchaser and return his money to him.

Similarly, if a butcher slaughters a cow and sells it, and it is discovered that it was trefah, what the purchaser ate is not taken into consideration, and the seller is required to return the purchaser's money to him.The meat that was not eaten should be returned to the butcher, and he should return the money to the purchaser.

If the purchaser sold the meat that was trefah to gentiles, he should come to an understanding with the butcher with regard to the money for the trefah; the butcher should then return the remainder to him. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person sells meat to a colleague and it is discovered to be the meat of a firstborn animal, or he sells produce and it is discovered to be tevel, or wine and it is discovered to be wine used for idolatry, what the purchaser consumed is not taken into consideration, and the seller is required to return the money he paid to the purchaser.

The same laws apply to any substance from which it is forbidden to partake according to Scriptural Law. This applies both when the prohibition is punishable by karet, or when there is merely an ordinary prohibition involved.

Different rules apply if one sells an object that is forbidden by Rabbinic law to be eaten. If the produce exists, one should return the produce and receive in return the money originally paid. If, however, one ate them, then one has benefited from it, and the seller is not obligated to return anything to the purchaser.

Whenever it is forbidden to benefit from an object - whether by Scriptural or Rabbinic law - the seller must return the money he received.There is no binding legal convention governing such a sale.

There are four states applicable with regard to a seller:

a) The seller sold wheat assuring the purchaser that it was of a high quality, and it was discovered to be of a low quality. In such an instance, the purchaser may retract, but not the seller.

b) If the purchaser convinced the seller that the wheat was of a low quality, and it was discovered to be of a high quality. In such an instance, the seller may retract, but not the purchaser.

c-d) If the produce was said to be of a low quality, and it was discovered to be of a low quality, but not of the absolutely lowest quality, or he assured him that it was of a high quality, and it was discovered to be of a high quality, but not of the absolutely highest quality, we see if there was an unfair gain of one sixth of its value. If there was, neither may retract, but the unfair gain must be returned.

If, however, a person claims to be selling red wheat and in fact, it is white, white wheat and in fact, it is red, olive wood and in fact, it is from a wild fig tree, or wild fig wood and in fact, it is from an olive tree, wine and it is discovered to be vinegar, vinegar and it is discovered to be wine, both the seller and the purchaser can retract. For the object of the sale is not of the type that the seller stated he was selling. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person sells wine to a colleague and the purchaser transfers it to his own containers, even if it turns into vinegar immediately, the seller is not held responsible for it. This law applies even if the purchaser says: "I am purchasing it to use for cooking." If the seller knew that his wine was turning sour, the transaction is considered to have taken place under false pretenses.

Different laws apply if a person sold a colleague wine, and it remained in the seller's containers and turned into vinegar. If the purchaser told the seller: "I need this for cooking," and the wine turns sour, the purchaser may return it and say: "Here is your wine and your containers. I did not buy it to drink, but rather to use for cooking a little bit at a time."

If the purchaser did not say: "I need this for cooking," he may not return it. For the owner may tell him: "Why didn't you drink it immediately. You should not have left it until it turned sour."

The following rules apply when a person sells a barrel of beer to a colleague in a barrel belonging to the seller. If the beer becomes like vinegar within the first three days [after the sale], the change is considered to have taken place in the seller's domain and he must return the money he received. From that point onward, the change is considered to have taken place in the purchaser's domain.

The following rules apply when a person sells a barrel of wine to a colleague who intends to sell it little by little. If half or a third of the wine becomes sour, it may be returned to the seller. If, however, the purchaser changes the hole for the spout, or the market day came and he was lax and did not try to sell the wine, it is considered to be in the purchaser's domain. Similar laws apply when a person accepts a barrel of wine from a colleague with the intent of transporting it to a particular destination and selling it there. If the price of the wine decreases or it becomes sour before it reaches the destination, it is considered to be in the purchaser's domain, for the barrel and the wine are his. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person tells a colleague: "I am selling you fragrant wine," he is responsible for the wine to retain its fragrance until the holiday of Shavuot. If he tells him: "I am selling you aged wine," he must give him wine from the previous year. If he mentions vintage wine, it must be in its third year and must retain its flavor without turning sour until the holiday of Sukkot.

In a locale where there is a well-known custom, everything is determined by the local custom.

When a person tells a colleague: "I am selling you this cellar of wine for cooking," or merely "...a cellar of wine," the purchaser accepts the fact that the wine from ten containers out of one hundred will not be of as high a quality and will already have begun to sour. If more wine changes flavor, he has not acquiesced.

If the seller told the purchaser: "I am selling you a cellar of wine for cooking," or he told him: "I am selling you a barrel of wine," he must provide him with wine that is entirely of high quality and fit to be used for cooking. If he told him: "I am selling you this cellar of wine," he should provide him with wine similar to that sold in a store - i.e., of average quality, neither bad nor good. If he told him, "I am selling you this cellar," and did not mention that it contained wine, the purchaser must accept it, even if it was all vinegar. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

When a person tells a colleague: "I am selling you a wooden kneading tray," or "I am selling you a beam for an olive press," he may not give him a piece of wood that is fit to have a kneading tray hewn out from it, or a beam that is fit to be made into a beam for an olive press. Instead, he must give him a kneading tray that has already been fashioned or a beam for an olive press that has already been fashioned, one that any person seeing it will say: "This is a kneading tray," or "this is a beam for an olive press." Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

It is forbidden to deceive people with regard to a business deal or to beguile them. This prohibition applies equally to Jews and to gentiles.

If a seller knows that the article he is selling has a blemish, he must notify the purchaser about it. It is even forbidden to beguile a person with false flattery.

One may not improve the appearance of a man being sold as a servant, nor of an animal, nor of old utensils, by making them appear to be new. One may, however, improve the appearance of new utensils, by polishing them, ironing them and beautifying them as much as necessary.

One may not feed a man water in which bran was cooked, which causes his body to swell, making his face appear larger. One may not paint one's face with rouge and the like.

One may not inflate intestines that are being sold in a butchery, nor may one soak meat in water. All practices similar to the above are also forbidden.

One may not sell a gentile meat from an animal that was not ritually slaughtered on the pretense that it was ritually slaughtered, although religiously there is no difference to him whether or not ritual slaughter was performed.

It is permitted to remove the husks from kernels of grain or beans, provided one does not do so only on the top of the grain sack, for doing so creates a false impression that the entire quantity has been husked.

It is permitted for a merchant to distribute roasted seeds and nuts to children and maidservants so that they will frequent his establishment. A merchant may discount the ordinary market price of an item to increase his volume of customers. The other merchants in the market place may not prevent him from doing so, nor is this considered to be deceiving a customer.

One may not mix two batches of the same species of produce together. This applies when both batches are freshly harvested. Certainly, it is forbidden to mix produce harvested previously with freshly harvested produce. This applies even when previously harvested produce is more expensive than the freshly harvested, because the purchaser may desire to store the produce for an extended time.

An exception was made with regard to wine, and it is permitted to mix stronger wine with lighter wine during the time the wine is fermenting alone, because one improves the flavor of the other. If the flavor of the wine added is distinct, it is permitted to mix them at any time. For whenever an entity is distinct, its presence can be detected by a purchaser. And therefore, mixing it in is permitted.

Water may not be mixed together with wine that one intends to sell. When water has been mixed with a person's wine, he should not sell it in a store unless he notifies the customers. He should not sell it to a merchant, even if he notifies him, lest the merchant deceive others. In a place where it is customary to add water to wine, one may do so, provided one does so at the time the wine is fermenting.

A merchant may take from five wine vats and store the mixture in one tank. He may take from five granaries and store the mixture in one warehouse, as long as he does not intend to mix the produce.

It is forbidden to mix dregs with either wine or oil. Mixing even the slightest amount is forbidden. One may not even mix the dregs produced yesterday with the dregs produced today.

If, however, one pours wine from one container into another, one may add the dregs to the wine.

When a person sells "refined oil" to a colleague, the purchaser refuses to accept any dregs at all. If he sells him oil without mentioning any descriptive term, the purchaser is willing to accept that one and a half log from every 100 log will be dregs. And he accepts the fact that the remainder of the oil will have dregs; thus, it will be murky, with dregs being suspended in the oil in addition to the quantity of dregs that is standard in that locale.

When does the above apply? When he pays the money in Tishrei, when oil is cloudy, and receives the oil in Nisan according to the measure of Tishrei, which is larger because of the unrefined oil above. If, however, the purchaser takes the measure given in Nisan, which is smaller because the oil has already become clear, he accepts only the measure of dregs mentioned in the previous halachah.

When a person sells wheat to a colleague, the purchaser accepts that he will receive one fourth of a kav of legumes for every se'ah. When he purchases barley, he accepts that he will receive one fourth of a kav of dried-out kernels for every se'ah. When he purchases lentils, he accepts that he will receive one fourth of a kav of pebbles for every se'ah. When he purchases figs, he accepts that he will receive ten wormy ones for every hundred.

If a person sells any other type of produce to a colleague, the purchaser accepts that he will receive one fourth of a kav of dirty produce for every se'ah.

If the amount of lower quality produce exceeds these measures, the seller must sift the entire batch and give the purchaser sifted and cleaned produce that has no undesirable qualities.

All of the above applies only in a place where there is no established custom. In a place where there is an established custom, everything follows the established custom.

There are places where it is customary for all produce to be sold when it has been cleaned and sifted, removing all foreign bodies, and for the wines and the oils to be clear, without selling any dregs at all. And there are other places where produce is sold even when there are half dregs, or there is half the amount of sand, straw or another substance in the produce.

Therefore, in such a locale, if a person takes a stone from a colleague's grain heap, he must reimburse the owner as if the stone he took were wheat. For if he had left it there, it would have been sold as part of the measure of wheat. If one would say, "Let him return the stone," this is forbidden, for it is forbidden to mix even the slightest amount of foreign substances into produce.

When a person sells barrels in the Sharon in a place where there is no established custom, the purchaser accepts that out of 100 barrels, he will receive ten that are of inferior quality. Even these must, however, be attractive and fixed with pitch.