Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Whenever a person pays money, but does not perform meshichah on the produce, although the purchaser does not acquire the movable property, as we have explained, the person who retracts - whether the purchaser or the seller - is considered not to have conducted himself in a Jewish manner. He is liable to receive the adjuration referred to as mi shepara. Even if the purchaser only made a deposit, if either of the parties involved retracts, that party is eligible to receive the adjuration referred to as mi shepara.

What does receiving the adjuration referred to as mi shepara involve? He is cursed in court and told: "May He who exacted retribution from the generation of the flood, the generation who were dispersed, the inhabitants of Sodom and Amorah, and the Egyptians who drowned in the sea, exact retribution from a person who does not keep his word."

After this curse is administered, the seller should return the money.

The following laws apply when a purchaser pays - either completely or partially - for movable property that he desires to purchase and then retracts and the seller tells him, "Come and collect your money." The money is considered to be an entrusted object. If it is stolen or lost, the seller is not responsible for it.

If, however, the seller retracts, the money is considered to be within his domain, and he is responsible for it even though he tells the purchaser, "Come and collect your money." This applies until he receives the adjuration mi shepara and tells the purchaser afterwards: "Come and collect your money."

When a person is owed a debt by a colleague and tells him: "Sell me this jug of wine for the debt that you owe me," and the seller agrees, it is considered as if the purchaser paid the money at that time. If either party retracts, he is liable to receive the adjuration mi shepara.

Moreover, if he sold him landed property in exchange for the debt, neither party is allowed to retract. This applies even if the money given as a loan is no longer in the seller's possession at the time of the sale.

When a person purchases landed property, servants or other movable property from a colleague, a price is agreed upon, and the purchaser leaves collateral in place of the money, the transaction is not completed. Either of the two can retract; he is not even liable to receive the adjuration mi shepara.

The following rules apply when a verbal agreement alone was concluded with regard to the sale, a price was established, and the purchaser made a mark on the article so that he will have a sign that it is his. Even though the purchaser did not pay any money at all, if either of the parties retracts after the purchaser made the mark, he is liable to receive the adjuration mi shepara.

Moreover, if it is the accepted local business custom that making a mark constitutes a binding act of contract, by making that mark, the purchaser completes the transaction. Neither can retract, and the purchaser is liable to pay the price agreed to.

It is a clear fact that this law applies only when the mark is made in the presence of the seller, or if the seller says: "Mark your purchase." For this indicates that he has agreed to transfer ownership, as explained with regard to chazakah and meshichah.

When a person agrees to a transaction with a verbal commitment alone, it is appropriate for him to keep his word even though he did not take any money at all, did not make a mark on the article he desired to purchase, nor leave security. If either the seller or the purchaser retracts, although they are not liable to receive the adjuration mi shepara, they are considered to be faithless, and the spirit of the Sages does not derive satisfaction from them.

Similarly, if a person promised to give a colleague a gift and failed to do so, he is considered to be faithless.

When does the above apply? With regard to a small gift, because the recipient will depend on the promise that he was given. With regard to a large gift, by contrast, the giver is not considered to be faithless if he retracts, because the recipient does not believe that he will give him these articles until he transfers ownership through a formal kinyan.

The following rule applies when a person gave money to a colleague to purchase landed property or movable property, and the agent left his colleague's money in his domain and went and purchased the object for himself with his own money. The purchase he performed is concluded; he is, however, considered to be a man of deceit.

If the agent knows that the seller has affection for him and honors him and would sell the article to him, but not to the person who charged him with purchasing it, the agent is permitted to buy it for himself. He must, however, return and notify the one who sent him. If he is afraid that another person will come and purchase the article before him, he may purchase the article for himself and then notify the one who sent him.

Several Rabbinic authorities have ruled that if the agent purchased the article for himself using the money entrusted to him by his colleague after considering it to be a loan, he is considered to have purchased the article for himself. We accept his claim: "I considered the money that I was given to be a loan."

I differ and maintain that this ruling is not true. Instead, the purchase belongs to the principal, as will be explained with regard to the laws of an investment partnership.

The following rules apply when three people give money to one agent to purchase an article for them: If the monies were mixed together, and the agent used only a portion of the money to purchase the article, the article is considered the property of all the purchasers, and they divide ownership of it according to their share of the money. This applies even if the intent of the agent was that the article be purchased by only one of them.

If the money of one of the partners was bound up and sealed, and that money was used to complete the purchase, the partner whose funds were used alone acquires ownership. This applies even if the agent intended that the article be acquired by all the partnership as a joint enterprise.

The following rules apply when a person sold his field to a colleague for 1000 zuz, the purchaser paid a portion of the funds, and the seller was repeatedly demanding payment of the remainder. Even if there was only one zuz remaining unpaid, the purchaser does not acquire the entire field. This applies even if the seller had a deed of sale composed or the purchaser manifested ownership.

In the above situation, if the purchaser retracts, the seller is given the upper hand. If he desires, he can tell the purchaser: "Here is your money," or he can tell him: "Acquire a portion of the land equivalent to the money that you paid me." In this instance, he gives the purchaser the land of least value.

If the seller retracts, the purchaser is given the upper hand. If he desires, he can tell the seller: "Give me my money," or he can tell him: "Give me a portion of the land equivalent to the money that I paid." In this instance, he takes the choicest portion of the land.

If the seller was not repeatedly demanding payment of the remainder, the purchaser acquires the entire property. Neither can retract. The remainder of the money unpaid at the time of sale is considered as any other debt.

If a person sold his field because it was of inferior quality, even when the seller repeatedly demands payment of the remainder of the money, the purchaser acquires the entire property, and he is not entitled to retract. For the reason the seller is pursuing the purchaser and demanding payment is not that he has not agreed to transfer ownership, but to prevent the purchaser from retracting.

The same law applies with regard to the sale of movable property. Although the purchaser draws produce after him and brings it into his domain, if the seller repeatedly demands payment of the remainder of the money, the purchaser does not acquire the goods. The person who retracts has the lower hand, as has been explained above, unless the seller sold the goods because of their inferior quality. In such an instance, the purchaser acquires all the goods.

When a person buys a field worth 100 zuz for 200, and the seller repeatedly demands payment of the remainder of the money, the status of the transaction remains an unresolved question: Is the person considered to be one who sold his field because of its inferior quality, and he is demanding payment only because he sold it for more than its worth? Or he is not considered to be one who sold his field because of its inferior quality, and he is demanding payment because he did not decide to complete its sale until he received all the money?

Because the matter is unresolved, neither party is allowed to retract. If the seller seizes possession of a portion of the property that was sold equivalent to the worth of the money left unpaid, it should not be expropriated from his possession.

When a person acquires something from a colleague and pays him money, but errs in the amount of money he gave him the transaction is valid. If afterwards the seller lodges a claim against the purchaser, saying: "You were supposed to pay me 100 zuz, and you paid me only ninety," the transaction is still viable. The purchaser must, however, pay the additional ten zuz.

The above applies even though several years have passed since the transaction and applies with regard to the sale of both landed property and movable property.

The following rules apply when a person tells a colleague: "If I sell this field, it will be sold to you retroactively from the present time for 100 zuz" and confirms this with a kinyan. If the seller later sells it to another person for 100 zuz, it is acquired by the first person.

If he sells it for more than that amount, the second person acquires it. The rationale is that by saying: "If I sell," he meant "If I sell it with the same approach that I have now." And this person did not want to sell it; he sold it only because of the additional amount that the other person added on. It is as if he were forced to sell.

If the seller told the first purchaser: "If I sell this field, it will be sold to you retroactively from the present time for the price to be evaluated by a court of three," the price need be agreed on by only two of the three.

If he said: "As dictated by three," all three must agree. If he said: "As evaluated by a court of four," all four must agree. For the sale to the first purchaser to take effect, the judges must agree on the price, and he must sell it to another person as they agreed. Afterwards, the first purchaser acquires the property.

If three or four people evaluate it and the seller says: "I will not sell it until three or four others evaluate it," we do not heed him. For he confirmed his commitment to sell retroactively with a kinyan.

The following rules apply when a person sells an article to the Temple treasury. If the representative of the treasury asks him: "How much are you selling it for?" and the person says: "Ten zuz" even if it is worth 100, once he said ten he cannot retract. For making a promise to the Most High is considered equivalent to transferring the article in question to the possession of a colleague.

Whether a representative of the treasury buys or sells an article, he is always given the upper hand if there is a fluctuation in the article's value.

What is implied? If the representative paid with money from the Temple treasury, but did not perform meshichah on the produce, although the value of the produce increases, the Temple treasury nevertheless acquires the produce, as prescribed by Scriptural Law. If the value of the produce decreases, the Temple treasurer may retract, for he did not perform meshichah, and the legal power of an ordinary person should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury.

Similarly, if the Temple treasurer sold an article that had been consecrated, the purchaser performed meshichah, but did not pay for it, and then the value of the article decreases, the transaction is finalized. For the legal power of an ordinary person should not be greater than that of the Temple treasury. If the value of the article increases, the representative of the treasury may retract, for he did not accept payment, and consecrated articles may be acquired only through the payment of money, as implied by the verse: "And he shall give the money and it will be established as his." The representative of the treasury is not liable to receive the adjuration mi shepara.

Property belonging to orphans is governed by the same rules as those governing the Temple treasury.

What is implied? When orphans sell produce, and meshichah is performed on the produce, but they have not yet received the money for it, they may retract from the agreement if the value of the produce increases. For like consecrated property, property belonging to orphans can be acquired only through the transfer of money.

If the value of the produce decreases the transaction should be allowed to stand. For the legal power of an ordinary person should not be greater than the legal power of orphans.

Similarly, if orphans received payment, but meshichah was not performed on their produce before it increased in value, they may retract as may ordinary individuals. If, however, the value of the produce decreased and the purchasers desire to retract, they may do so, but they must receive the adjuration mi shepara, as would be the law with regard to others.

They are allowed to retract because if we required them to keep the produce, as would be required by Scriptural Law, this would be a disservice to the orphans. For if this were the law, when the orphans desire to sell an object, they would never find anyone who would be willing to pay them money unless the object were handed over first.

Similar principles apply if orphans purchase produce and perform meshichah on the produce, but have not yet paid for it. If the value of the produce increases, the legal power of an ordinary person should not be greater than their legal power. Therefore, the transaction should be allowed to stand.

If the value of the produce decreases, they are not allowed to retract. For this would be a disservice to them. If they were given this privilege, should they desire to purchase produce, they would not find anyone who would sell it to them before they made payment.

If the orphans paid for produce but did not perform meshichah, and then the value of the produce decreases, they may retract, for the legal power of an ordinary person should not be greater than their legal power. If the value of the produce increases, the sellers may retract if they desire and receive the adjuration mi shepara. For if the law were that the orphans acquire the produce by the payment of money, the seller would tell them that the produce was destroyed by fire or another factor beyond human control after the produce entered their property, at the time payment was made.

On four occasions during the year, our Sages restricted their enactments and applied Scriptural Law with regard to the purchase of meat, for on these days, all people need meat. The times are the day before Shemini Atzeret, the day before the first day of Pesach, the day before Shavuot and the day before Rosh HaShanah.

What is implied? If a butcher had a steer that was worth even 100 dinarim, and he took one dinar from the purchaser in exchange for meat that he would slaughter, he cannot retract, even if enough money is not collected to pay for the entire value of the steer. Instead, the butcher is compelled to slaughter against his will. He is forcibly made to slaughter the steer and provide the purchaser with meat.

For this reason, if the steer dies before being ritually slaughtered, the purchaser suffers the loss.