Sales Chapter 10

מִי שֶׁאֲנָסוּהוּ עַד שֶׁמָּכַר וְלָקַח דְּמֵי הַמִּקָּח. אֲפִלּוּ תָּלוּהוּ עַד שֶׁמָּכַר מִמְכָּרוֹ מִמְכָּר בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין בֵּין בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי אָנְסוֹ גָּמַר וּמַקְנֶה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא לָקַח הַדָּמִים בִּפְנֵי הָעֵדִים. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מָסַר מוֹדָעָה קֹדֶם שֶׁיִּמְכֹּר וְאָמַר לִשְׁנֵי עֵדִים דְּעוּ שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ שָׂדֶה פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֲנִי אָנוּס. הֲרֵי הַמִּמְכָּר בָּטֵל. וַאֲפִלּוּ הֶחֱזִיק כַּמָּה שָׁנִים מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ וּמַחֲזִיר הַדָּמִים:

When a person compels a colleague to sell an article and to take the money for the purchase - even if he hung him until he sold the article - the purchase is binding. This applies with regard to movable property and landed property. We say that since he compelled him, he committed himself to selling. This applies even if the seller did not take the money in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if the seller issues a protest before he sells and tells two witnesses: "Know that the reason I am selling this and this article - or this and this property - is that I am being compelled against my will," the sale is nullified. Even if the purchaser was in possession of the article or the property for several years, it may be expropriated from him, at which point, the seller returns the money.

וּצְרִיכִין הָעֵדִים לֵידַע שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר מִפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס וְשֶׁהוּא אָנוּס וַדַּאי. לֹא שֶׁיִּסְמְכוּ עַל פִּיו. וְכָל מוֹדָעָה שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בָּהּ וְאָנוּ הָעֵדִים יָדַעְנוּ שֶׁפְּלוֹנִי זֶה אָנוּס הָיָה אֵינָהּ מוֹדָעָה:

The witnesses must know that the seller is selling because of compulsion, and that he is actually being compelled against his will. Any record of a protest that does not contain the statement: "We the witnesses know that so and so the seller acted under compulsion - is not a valid protest.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמוֹכֵר אוֹ בְּעוֹשֶׂה פְּשָׁרָה. אֲבָל בְּמַתָּנָה אוֹ בִּמְחִילָה אִם מָסַר מוֹדָעָה קֹדֶם מַתָּנָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ אָנוּס הֲרֵי הַמַּתָּנָה בְּטֵלָה. שֶׁאֵין הוֹלְכִין בְּמַתָּנָה אֶלָּא אַחַר גִּלּוּי דַּעַת הַנּוֹתֵן שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לְהַקְנוֹת בְּכָל לִבּוֹ לֹא קָנָה הַמְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה. וְהַמְּחִילָה מַתָּנָה הִיא:

When does the above apply? With regard to a person who conducts a sale or who negotiates a compromise. With regard to a gift or a waiver of a debt, if the person issues a protest before giving the gift, the gift is nullified even though the person was not compelled to give the gift. The rationale is that with regard to a gift, the factor that is significant is the expression of the giver's will. Since he does not wholeheartedly desire to transfer ownership, the recipient does not acquire the gift. Waiving a debt is equivalent to giving a gift.

אֶחָד הָאוֹנֵס אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְּשֶׁהִכָּהוּ אוֹ תְּלָאָהוּ עַד שֶׁמָּכַר אוֹ שֶׁהִפְחִידוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בֵּין בִּידֵי עַכּוּ"ם בֵּין בִּידֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹנֵס. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׂכַר פַּרְדֵּס מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא הָיָה שְׁטַר חוֹב בְּיַד הַמַּשְׂכִּיר וְאַחַר שֶׁאֲכָלוֹ הַשּׂוֹכֵר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים אָמַר לוֹ אִם לֹא תִּמְכְּרֶנוּ לִי אֶכְבּשׁ שְׁטַר שְׂכִירוּת וְאֶטְעֹן שֶׁהוּא לָקוּחַ בְּיָדִי וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁזֶּה אוֹנֵס. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם תְּבָעוֹ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בְּבֵית דִּין וְכָפַר בּוֹ וְטָעַן שֶׁהַפַּרְדֵּס שֶׁלּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָסַר הַמַּשְׂכִּיר מוֹדָעָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מָכַר לַשּׂוֹכֵר שֶׁכָּפַר בּוֹ הֲרֵי הַמִּמְכָּר בָּטֵל. שֶׁהֲרֵי יֵשׁ לוֹ עֵדִים שֶׁהוּא אָנוּס. וְהֵם הָעֵדִים שֶׁכָּפַר בִּפְנֵיהֶם בְּבֵית דִּין וְהֵם עֵדֵי הַמּוֹדָעָה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

Whether one compels a colleague to sell by hitting him, by hanging him or by threatening to employ a measure against him through gentiles or through Jews, he is considered to have been compelled against his will. An incident occurred with regard to a person who had rented an orchard from a colleague for ten years, and the landlord of the orchard lost the debt contract. After the tenant derived benefit from the orchard for three years,the tenant told the owner: "If you do not sell it to me, I will hide the rental contract and claim that I purchased it." The Sages explained that this is considered to be compulsion. The same principles apply in all similar situations. For this reason, if the landlord issued a claim against the tenant in court and the tenant denied it and claimed that the orchard was his, and afterwards, the landlord issued a protest, and then sold the property to the tenant who denies having rented it, the sale is nullified, for there are witnesses that the landlord was compelled against his will. These are the witnesses in whose presence the tenant denied the rental of the property in court, and they are the witnesses before whom the protest was issued.The same principles apply in all similar situations.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאַנָּס שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא חַמְסָן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוֹפֶה אֶת הַמּוֹכֵר לִמְכֹּר שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְצוֹנוֹ. אֲבָל הַגּוֹזֵל וְהֻחְזַק בְּגַזְלָן וְאַחַר כָּךְ לָקַח שָׂדֶה שֶׁגָּזַל אֵין הַמּוֹכֵר צָרִיךְ לִמְסֹר מוֹדָעָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת גְּזֵלָה:

When does the above apply? With regard to a person who forces a colleague to sell. He is considered a chamsan because he compels a colleague to sell his property against his will. When, however, a person steals property - is established as a thief - and afterwards purchases the field that he stole the sale is nullified automatically. The seller does not have to issue a protest, as explained in Hilchot Gezelah.

עֵדֵי הַמּוֹדָעָה יֵשׁ לָהֶם לַחְתֹּם הֵם עַצְמָן בְּאוֹתוֹ הַמִּמְכָּר שֶׁנִּמְסְרָה לָהֶם הַמּוֹדָעָה עָלָיו וְאֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם. וַאֲפִלּוּ אָמַר לָהֶם בִּפְנֵי הָאַנָּס בִּרְצוֹנִי מָכַרְתִּי בְּלֹא אֹנֶס הֲרֵי הַמּוֹדָעָה קַיֶּמֶת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲנָסוֹ שֶׁמָּכַר בְּלֹא רָצוֹן כָּךְ אֲנָסוֹ עַד שֶׁאָמַר בִּרְצוֹנִי אֲנִי מוֹכֵר:

The witnesses to the protest may themselves sign the deed of sale concerning which the protest was issued to them; their participation is of no consequence. Even if the seller tells them in the presence of the person who is compelling him: "I am selling the property willfully, without compulsion," the protest is still viable. Just as the other person compelled the seller to sell unwillingly, he compelled him to say that he was selling it willingly.

וְכֵן אִם הוֹדָה בִּפְנֵיהֶם שֶׁלָּקַח הַדָּמִים אַחַר שֶׁמָּסַר מוֹדָעָה עַל כָּךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר כְּלוּם. שֶׁהָאוֹנֵס אֲנָסוֹ עַד שֶׁיּוֹדֶה וְהָעֵדִים כְּבָר יָדְעוּ שֶׁהוּא אָנוּס. אֲבָל אִם מָנָה הַדָּמִים בִּפְנֵיהֶם חַיָּב לְהַחְזִיר:

Similarly, if the seller admitted in the presence of witnesses that he received money after he issued a protest, he is not obligated to return anything to the thief. We say that the person compelling him compelled him to make this admission. This statement is not heeded for the witnesses already knew that he was compelled against his will. If, however, the robber counted money out to the seller in the presence of the witnesses, the seller is obligated to return the money when the sale is nullified.

הֵעִידוּ עָלָיו עֵדֵי הַמֶּכֶר שֶׁבִּטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָה הֲרֵי הַמּוֹדָעָה בְּטֵלָה. וְאִם אָמַר לְעֵדֵי הַמּוֹדָעָה הֱיוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁכָּל קִנְיָן שֶׁאֲנִי לוֹקֵחַ לְבַטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָה וּמוֹדָעֵי דְּמוֹדָעֵי שֶׁהַכּל בָּטֵל וְאֵינִי אוֹמֵר כָּךְ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי הָאֹנֶס שֶׁאַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין וְאֵין בְּדַּעְתִּי לְהַקְנוֹת לְזֶה הָאַנָּס לְעוֹלָם. הֲרֵי הַמֶּכֶר בָּטֵל. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּנוּ מִיָּדוֹ לְבַטֵּל הַמּוֹדָעָה עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

If the witnesses to the sale testified that the seller nullified the protest, the protest is nullified. If the seller tells the witnesses to the protest: "Know that every kinyan in which I engage to negate a protest, and a protest regarding a protest are all nullified. I am engaging in them only because of the factor compelling me, of which you are aware. I do not ever have the intention of transferring my property to the person compelling me," the sale is nullified despite the fact that the seller performed a kinyan to nullify his protest, in the manner we have explained.