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.
📣 Demanding = Not Done
When a seller repeatedly demands the balance of payment, this signals he has not yet mentally completed the sale. Even if deed was written or chazakah performed, the buyer does not fully acquire until payment is complete. If the seller sold because the property was inferior, pursuing the balance is not evidence of incomplete intent — and the sale stands.
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.
⚖️ Upper and Lower Hand
If the buyer retracts after partial payment, the seller gets the 'upper hand' — he can either return money or give land equal in value to the payment from the worst portion. If the seller retracts, the buyer gets the 'upper hand' — he takes money back OR takes land from the choicest portion.
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.
🧮 Errors and Future Sales
A miscounted payment does not void a kinyan — the buyer simply owes the remainder, even years later. A pre-sale agreement ('if I sell, it's yours first for 100') is binding for that price but not if the seller is later compelled to sell for more. Court valuations require full agreement by all designated judges.
6/7
🎓 Key Principles
Chapter 8
📣
A Seller's Pursuit Reveals His Inner Intent When a seller repeatedly pursues remaining payment, it demonstrates he never mentally completed the transaction. Jewish law reads internal intent from external behavior — persistent demands signal the kinyan was meant to be conditional on full payment.
⚖️
Retraction Penalties Protect the Innocent Party The party who retracts is penalized: if the seller retracts, the buyer gets the best land; if the buyer retracts, the seller gives the worst. This asymmetry discourages bad-faith retraction while ensuring the non-retracting party is made whole.
🧮
Payment Errors Don't Void Transactions Kinyan is not undone by an innocent mistake in payment amount. The buyer owes the remainder as a debt — the transaction stands. This prevents parties from exploiting minor discrepancies to escape a concluded deal.
🏦
Pre-Sale Agreements Are Binding but Contextual A right of first refusal for a fixed price is binding — but only when the seller actually decides to sell voluntarily at that price. If a higher offer compels the sale, the seller is considered to have been 'forced' to sell, and the original pre-sale right applies to the second buyer's price.