Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/240

Paragraph 1- If two documents are produced on one field with one buyer and different dates, and the first document was a gift and the second was a sale, the second document would not void the first one because we can say that he wrote a second document as a sale to add to his rights, even if there was no guarantee on the document because the lack of a guarantee is the scribe’s error. Similarly, if the first document was a sale and the second was a gift, he would acquire the field effective from the first date because the gift document was only written to give him more rights with respect to the law of the neighbor’s right of first refusal or for other things where a gift has more rights than a sale. He may only show the later document in court because if he shows both the first one is primary. There are those who say that if the latter document is the sale, even if he shows both in court they will both be valid.

Paragraph 2- If both documents were sale documents or both were gift documents and anything was added in the second document, the first one is valid because the second one was only written for what was additional. If there was nothing added, the second document would void the first one and the seller would only have to guarantee from the second date and on. Thus, any fruits the buyer consumed between the first and second date must be returned. If that field had an annual tax from the king, the donor or seller must give that tax up until the second date. All the more so would this be true where he originally wrote a full field and subsequently wrote half a field. If a dying person said to give a maneh to so and so and then said it again, the recipient would only receive 1 maneh because he did not say “give him again.”

Paragraph 3- If two documents with the same date were written on one field, whether a sale document or a gift document, and it is not the practice of the people of that locale to document the hours, the ruling is at the judges’ discretion. Whomever they feel should be given this field would get the field. There are those who say that we do not allow judges to use their discretion unless the judge is an expert and the case is one of real property. There are those who say it would apply by movable items as well, so long as neither party has possession.

Paragraph 4- When is this true? With respect to a document where there is no other kinyan. Rather, the document states “acquire this field with this document” and we don’t know which one of the two received the document first. If each of the documents had their own kinyan, however, whomever had the first kinyan would acquire the property, and they would ask the witnesses. Similarly, if there were witnesses saying this persons received the gift-document first, he would acquire. If one gave a gift to another and specified which gift he was giving him, such as where he gave him real property or a place in the synagogue and he drew up borders, and then he subsequently gave a place in the synagogue without specifying or real property without specifying and he did not draw up borders, there are those who say that we say he may have given a different place or different real property to the second recipient, and the first gift will be effective. There are others who say that we say he certainly intended the place or property that we know is his and because we don’t know of any other place or real property, the second would acquire. This is only true with respect to a dying-gift who is able to retract a gift. With respect to a healthy-gift, however, the first recipient would acquire in all cases.