Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/199

Paragraph 1- There is a case where money would acquire. How so? If the buyer had money that was not counted or weighed in his hand and he tells another, “sell me your item for the money in my hand,” and the seller took the money and did not care to know its amount, the buyer would acquire the item and neither party can retract. Because it is an uncommon occurrence, the Rabbis did not make a decree. Even if the buyer knew the amount of money, but just told the seller to sell me for this money and the seller did not count the money, there are those who say the buyer would acquire.

Paragraph 2- Similarly, if Reuven sold movable items to Shimon for a maneh, and Shimon acquired the items and owed Reuven the money, and Shimon subsequently had other movable items to sell and Reuven told him sell me the items for the money of mine that you have, and Shimon agreed, Reuven would acquire those movable items wherever they are, even though he did not pull or lift them, because this is also an uncommon case and the Rabbis did not make a decree. If Shimon had a debt with Reuven outside the context of a sale and Reuven said to sell the items for the money he owes and they both agreed, however, Reuven would not acquire. There are those who say, however, that this only applies where he said “sell to me for the benefit of having me waive your debt.” If he says, “sell me for the money of mine that you have,” however, he would not acquire. See later 204:10.

Paragraph 3- There is a time where money acquires and the Rabbis kept the biblical law: when the transaction is meat at one of four times during the year. These are those times: the eve of the last day of Sukkos, the eve of the first day of Pesach, the eve of Shavuos and the eve of Rosh Hashana. If the butcher had an ox worth 100 dinar, and he accepted a dinar from the buyer in order to give him meat once the animal is slaughtered, and the butcher did not raise the amount needed for the entire ox, we would force the butcher to slaughter against his will in order that he provide meat to the buyer. Thus, if the ox were to die, the buyer would suffer and lose his dinar. There are those who say that the same would apply for someone who gives money for wine for kiddush on Friday and he would acquire because in all these types of cases, the Rabbis kept biblical law.

Paragraph 4- If orphans or their guardian sold movable items and the buyer pulled them but did not yet give the money and the value went up, the orphans and guardian can retract, like the biblical law that pulling does not acquire and only money does. The buyer would nevertheless have the status of a paid watchman on the item. It is only in this regard that the law of orphans is different than the law of others. In all other scenarios, however, the law of orphans is the same as anyone else in this context. This is only true for orphans. With respect to hekdesh and charity, however, one would acquire with money. Thus, if one gave money to hekdesh for an item and the item went up in value, hekdsh would not be able to retract.