Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/236

Paragraph 1- If a gentile was oppressing a Jew and sought to kill him until he redeems himself with his field or house, and once he gives it to the oppressor the oppressor will leave him alone, when the oppressor wants to sell this property, if the owner has the ability to buy it from him he takes precedence over anyone else. If the owner does not have the ability to buy the property or the property remained in the oppressor’s possession for 12 months, whomever comes and buys from the oppressor would acquire so long as he gives the original owner ¼ of the property or 1/3 of the money because the oppressor sells at a cheaper price given that he is selling property that does not belong to him. The oppressor sells at less than ¼ discount or close to that and that ¼ belongs to the owner since because of him the sale is cheaper. Thus, if the buyer buys from the oppressor for 30, he would give 10 to the owner or ¼ of the property and can then purchase everything. If the buyer does not give to the owner, the ¼ is theft in his possession. ''If the owner said he had the power to buy and the buyer says he did not, the owner has the burden of proof because real property is presumed owned by the buyers. There are those who say that this is all where the owners gave real property on their own to avoid being killed. If the thief took the property forcibly, however, the property would return to the owner and they would give the buyer what they benefited, as will be discussed later in seif 8. If a Jew pressured others by seizing and exaggerated that he would kill them until they needed to give, this law does not apply because they know that Jews are not murderers and they exaggerate and would not do it, and it is as if they did not have the power to kill him, as will be discussed in Paragraph 8.''

Paragraph 2- If the owner does not believe the buyer as to how much he paid, and there are no witnesses to say how much he paid, the buyer would swear to the owner how much he paid.

Paragraph 3- If the buyer purchased from the gentile within 12 months and the owners wants the buyer to return the property, the buyer must return it and the owner would give him the price the buyer purchased from the gentile. If the owner wants, it will be left in the buyer’s possession and the buyer will give him 1/3 of what he gave to the gentile.

Paragraph 4- Even within 12 months, if the buyer first purchased from the owner and then purchased from the gentile, the sale is valid. If he first purchased from the gentile and then from the owner, however, the sale is void, even if the owner made a document for him, unless the owner guaranteed it or confesses, or there are witnesses, that the owner accepted money from him.

Paragraph 5- If one purchased from the gentile, and held on to the property for three years and then sold it to someone else, the owners have no claim on the second buyer because we make a claim for him that the first buyer purchased it from them or gave him 1/3. The same would be true if the property only stayed in the first buyer’s possession for one day and three years in the second buyer’s possession. ''There are those who say this only applies where the first buyer is Jewish. If the first buyer was a gentile who sold to a Jew, however, the law is as if the second buyer purchased from the thief.''

Paragraph 6- The same rules would apply if the property was in the buyer’s possession for three years and he died and his inheritors inherited, and we would make a claim on behalf of the inheritors.

Paragraph 7- If a powerful gentile seized a Jew’s property and went down to his field because of debt owed by the field-owner, because of money the Jew owed him for damages or because of a loss to his money caused by the Jew, and after he seized the property he sold it to another Jew, the owner cannot remove the property from the buyer. When is this true? Where the owners admit that the gentile’s claim was true. Similarly, if there was a king or official in that locale that was able to force the gentile that sold the field to litigation and the owner did not make a claim against the gentile, he is unable to remove the field that the buyer purchased from the gentile, even if he does not admit to the gentile’s claim and even if there are not witnesses that the gentile was making a truthful claim, because the buyer can tell the owner that the if the gentile was a thief why didn’t you take him to court under their laws?

Paragraph 8- If a gentile comes after a Jew circuitously and took his field and the gentile did not have the authority to kill the Jew and he sold or gifted the field to another Jew, the recipient must return the field to the owners, even if it remained in his possession for many years. He does not have to return the property for no cost. Rather, we appraise how much he would have wanted to give the gentile to return the field to him and that is the amount he gives to the Jewish recipient. If the purchaser incurred expenses removing the property from the gentile, the owner must reimburse him up to the value of the house if he wants to take it. The owner does not have to pay more than the recipient incurred taking the property. For example, if the gentile likes him and gave it him for a low price, the owner only needs to pay the amount he gave the gentile, even though he could not have had paid that price to remove the property from the gentile. Even if the gentile gave him the property for free, he must also return it to the owner for free. If while the property was in the recipient’s possession he built on the property, he has the status of one who goes down into another’s property without permission and builds, where the owner can say take your woods and your stones. ''This only applies to real property where the owner does not give up hope. With respect to movable items, where the owner does give up hope, however, the recipient does not have to return the property to the owner, other than religious books, which he does not give up on because he knows they only sell those to Jews.''

Paragraph 9- When is this true? Where there are no judges that are able to rescue the field from the gentile. If there were judges in the area and it was possible to remove the field from the gentile by law and he did not do so, however, he has certainly given up hope and the property will remain in the buyer’s possession and he will not give the owner anything. ''This is all with respect to a thief that has no legal authority. With respect to an official or ruler that was angry at one of his slaves or servant and took his house, however, the law of the land is the law and the buyer is not required to give the owners anything. If a Jew gave land as collateral to a gentile and set a time to redeem it and he did not redeem it and the gentile sold it to a third party and it was sold for its worth, the sale is valid because he sold it legally. If he sold it for any amount less than its worth, however, it would go back to its owner.''