Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/119

Paragraph 1- If Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon simultaneously and Shimon sold one average field to Levi, leaving no other average fields in Shimon’s possession, and Reuven’s creditor comes to collect, he can choose to collect from the average field in Levi’s possession or what is in Shimon’s possession. He can collect from Shimon, even if Shimon only has superior properties remaining in his possession. When is it true that the creditor may collect from Levi? Where Levi purchased average properties. If Levi purchased superior or inferior properties, however, the creditor would not be able to collect from him. There are those that say that the creditor may collect from inferior properties in the second purchaser’s possession if there are only superior properties remaining in the first purchaser’s possession. Similarly, if Shimon has average properties remaining in his possession, the creditor cannot collect from Levi, even if Levi purchased average properties. This is all only where Shimon purchased all the properties simultaneously. If he purchased them one after the other, however, and he purchased an inferior property last, the creditor cannot collect from Levi.

Paragraph 2- If a borrower made a condition with the lender that he may collect from superior properties, and the borrower sold the superior properties and retained average or inferior properties, the creditor cannot seize the superior properties that were sold.

Paragraph 3- If someone possessed superior, average and inferior properties, and he had a damage claim, a loan and a woman’s kesubah outstanding and he sold his properties to three individuals simultaneously, the purchaser would take the owner's spot and the damage would be collected from the superior property, the loan from the average property and the kesubah from the inferior property. If each purchaser claims when the creditor comes to seize that they purchased the property first and left other properties to be collected, there are those that say that we would listen to him and one cannot collect when in doubt. There are others that say that since it is unclear from the document because they all purchased on the same day and they don’t write the time in the document, all three purchases take effect at the end of the day and thus occurred simultaneously.

Paragraph 4- If he sold the properties to one after the other on three different days or if it was on one day but they wrote the time in the document, and the rules of precedence were not applicable, such as where all the creditors had the same date or he acquired the property after he was obligated to his creditors and he had written that he was mortgaging properties he would acquire in the future, they would all collect from the last property. If that does not suffice, they would collect from the property before. If that does not suffice, they would collect from the property before that one. If one of the creditor’s documents preceded the other’s and they come to collect together, the creditor with the first document would first collect from the last property, whether it was superior, average or inferior, the one after him would collect from the property before, and the one after him would collect from the property before that one. If the damage came first, followed by the loan and then the kesubah, the damage victim would collect first from the last property, even if it is inferior, the lender would collect from the property before, even if it was superior, and the keusbah-collector would collect from the property before, even if it is highly superior. If the damage victim convinces the original buyers to leave him property to collect from, the lender and kesubah-collector would not be able to object.

Paragraph 5- If he sold the each of the properties one after the other to one buyer, the buyer would take the place of the owner. When is this true? Where he purchased the superior last or he purchased them all simultaneously. If he purchased the inferior last, however, they would all collect from the inferior. There are those that say that even if he acquired the superior last, this rule only applies where the seller died. If, however, the seller was still alive, then he is able to return the inferior-document to the seller, in which case they would all need to collect from the seller. The same would apply if he purchased the inferior property last, and they would all collect from the inferior, even if the seller had died. If he purchased the average property last, the damages and loan would be collected from the average and the kesubah would be collected from the inferior.

Paragraph 6- If he sold each of the properties one after the other to one buyer, and he sold the superior properties last and the purchaser subsequently sold the inferior and average while retaining the superior, they would collect from the superior. If he sold the superior and retained the average and inferior, the damage victim would seize from the superior that is in the second purchaser’s possession. With respect to the average and inferior that the purchaser retained, the loan would be collected from the average and the kesubah would be collected from the inferior.