Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/194

Paragraph 1- A gentile cannot acquire property with taking possession or money, but only with a document that effects a kinyan with the giving of the money. A Jew who acquires from a gentile has the status of a gentile and can only acquire with a document. A rental from a gentile, however, can be acquired with just money. Similarly, if the buyer made a condition that he would acquire the property with just money, he would acquire the property immediately.

Paragraph 2- Because a gentile cannot acquire real property from a Jew and a Jew cannot transfer ownership to a gentile other than with a document, if a Jew purchased a field from a gentile and gave money, and before he had a chance to take possession of the property another Jew came and took possession in a manner that one takes possession of a convert’s property, the second Jew would acquire the property. There are those who say that even if the first Jew took possession, the second Jew would still acquire the property because the first Jew did not rely on the kinyan without a document. This seems to me be the correct ruling. If the first Jew took possession before he gave the money, however, everyone would agree that he acquires the property. The second Jew must give the first Jew the money paid. The reason for this law is because since once the gentile accepted the money his rights are removed, and the Jewish buyer has not yet acquired the property until he receives the document, this results in the property being treated as property in a desert where whomever takes possession first would acquire it. The guarantee would still be on the gentile. The second Jew is referred to as wicked, but if the first Jew were to use the gentile to remove the property from the second Jew, he is considered a snitch because the second Jew has paid him for it. When is this true? In a place where there is no known government regulation. If the law of that government was that one can only obtain property if his name was in a document or if he gave money or something similar, however, we would follow the government regulation. If a gentile had collateral or a deposit in Reuven’s possession and the gentile gave it to Shimon with a document, Reuven would acquire that which is in his possession because as soon as the gentile transferred ownership to Shimon, the gentile’s rights are removed but Shimon would not acquire the item until he pulls it. Thus, the property is considered ownerless and Reuven would acquire it just as he would if he acquired ownerless property.

Paragraph 3- There are those who say that even if the gentile wrote a document to the first Jew before another Jew took possession it is of no effect because once the gentile is removed he is like an unrelated third party. Rather, he must write the document before receiving the money. This all only applies to real property. With respect to movable items, however, the gentile would acquire the items by giving the money.