Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/225

Paragraph 1- Anyone who sells real property, a slave or movable items is required to take responsibility. How so? If a third party comes and seizes the item from the buyer because of the seller, the buyer can go back and take all the money he gave from the seller because the item was taken from him because of the seller. This rule applies in all sales, even if the buyer did not explicitly say this but acquired without specifying. Even if the sale was real property with a document and the document did not mention responsibility, the seller would still be responsible because the absence of responsibility is the scribe’s error.

Paragraph 2- When is this true? Where the item was seized from the buyer in a Jewish court, such as where the item was movable and it was stolen or robbed, it was real property that was stolen or the seller’s creditor seized it from the buyer, and it was all done in a Jewish court. If it was a gentile who seized the item from the buyer, however, regardless of whether it was done by government law or secular court, the seller would not be responsible. Even if the gentile were to claim the seller robbed or stole this item from him and brings witnesses to that effect, the seller would not be required to pay anything because this is considered an unavoidable accident and the seller is not responsible for an unavoidable accident.

Paragraph 3- When is this true? Where the seller did not make a condition with the buyer. If they made a condition that the seller will be responsible for anything that happens to this property, however, the seller will even be required to pay where a gentile came and stole the property because of the seller. If the river that irrigated the field stopped or the river crossed over onto the property turning it into a pool or an earthquake destroyed it, however, the seller would be exempt because these and similar types of accidents are uncommon and the seller never considered such an unusual occurrence when he made the condition. The same applies to any other monetary condition. We evaluate the intent of the person making the condition and we only include those known things the condition was made for and that were in the party’s mind at the time he made the condition.

Paragraph 4- An incident occurred where one hired sailors to bring sesame to a certain place and he made a condition with them that they would be liable for any accidents that occurred before it arrived to that place. The river that they were travelling on dried up and the Rabbis said this accident is uncommon and the sailors are not required to transport the sesame via animal until it arrives at that destination. The same applies to anything similar.

Paragraph 5- If the seller explicitly conditioned that he takes no responsibility, even if it is known that the property was certainly stolen and the victim seized the property from the buyer, the seller is not responsible. It goes without saying that if a creditor seized the property the seller would not have to return anything to the buyer, because any monetary condition is valid.

Paragraph 6- If one sells a barrel of wine to another and they made a condition that the seller will only have responsibility if the barrel breaks or spills, and that the buyer will only have responsibility for the taste, such as where it spoils, and subsequently the wine was poured by a gentile, the seller would have responsibility.