Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/220
Paragraph 1- One who sells a boat has sold the flag-pole, the flag, the fork-like iron that keeps the boat in place, all the accessories that direct the boat, including the ropes used to pull the boats to the port, the ramp, the wooden planks one uses to climb on and off the boat and the water-hole. He would not have sold the small boats, however, regardless of whether they were meant to travel with to dry land or to trap fish. He would not have sold the slaves that work on the boat, the luggage bags or the merchandise on it. In a situation where the seller said he is selling the boat and everything inside, all of the foregoing would be sold.
Paragraph 2- If one sells a wagon, he has not sold the mules that are not tied to the wagon. If he sold the mules he has not sold the wagon. If they were tied to each other and he sold the wagon, he will have sold the mules. If he sold the mules, he will not have sold the wagon.
Paragraph 3- There are those who say this only applies in the case of a sale. If one his renting out his wagon, however, he will also have rented out the mules, even if they are not tied to the wagon.
Paragraph 4- If one sells a yoke, he will not have sold the cattle. If he sold the cattle, he will not have sold the yoke, even in a place where some refer to a yoke as cattle. This is only where they are not tied together. If they were tied together, however, they would both be sold.
Paragraph 5- If one sells the yoke, he has sold the cow. If he sells the cow, he has not sold the yoke. There are those who disagree and hold that if one sells the yoke he has not sold the cow, and this seems to me to be the primary view.
Paragraph 6- If one sells a wagon, he has sold the cattle. If he sells the cattle, he has not sold the wagon. There are those who disagree, as was discussed.
Paragraph 7- If one sells a donkey, he has sold its saddle and seat, even if they are not on the donkey. He has not, however, sold the sack or woman-saddle, even if they were on the donkey at the time of the sale, unless he told the buyer he is selling everything on the donkey.
Paragraph 8- In all of the foregoing cases, the cost would not be proof. If the error in cost was a reasonable error, the laws of overcharging or a voided sale would apply like any other seller or buyer. If the error was an unreasonable amount, the sale would not be void because the party gave the other party a gift. This is only in a place where they refer to cattle as cattle and a yoke as a yoke. If the majority of people refer to a yoke as cattle, however, they we say the cost would be an indication. If everyone refers to cattle as including yoke and for just a yoke they would say just a yoke, everything is sold even without using cost as proof. There are those who say that this that we say if one sells cattle he has not sold the yoke is a default case where we say the cattle was sold for slaughter. If he sold the cattle for plowing, however, he will have sold the yoke with the cattle.
Paragraph 9- If one sells a maidservant, he has the sold accessories on her, even if there are 100 of them. He would not, however, have sold the necklaces, earrings, rings or chokers on her neck. If he said he is selling the maidservant and everything on her, all of the foregoing would be sold, even if there were accessories worth 100 maneh.
Paragraph 10- If one tells another he selling a pregnant maidservant or a pregnant cow, he will have sold the child. There are those who say that even if he simply sells a maidservant or cow and they were pregnant the child is sold as well.
Paragraph 11- If the seller says he is selling a nursing maidservant or nursing cow, he will not have sold the child. If he says he is selling a nursing donkey, he will have sold the foal because a person does not purchase a donkey for its milk.
Paragraph 12- If one tells another he is selling the head of this slave or the head of this donkey, he will have sold half. The same applies to any limb that that a life depends on. If he said he is selling the hand of this slave or the hand of this donkey, we would appraise the value of that limb. The same applies to any limb that a life does not depend on.
Paragraph 13- If the seller told the buyer he is selling a cow’s head, he will only have sold the head because people constantly purchase just the head at the slaughterhouse.
Paragraph 14- If one sells the legs of a large, domesticated animal, he will not have sold the legs. If he sold the legs, he will not have sold the head. If he sold the lungs, he will not have sold the liver. If he sold the liver, he will not have sold the lungs. With respect to a small, domesticated animal, however, if he sold the head, he will have sold the legs. If he sold the legs, he will not have sold the head. If the sold the lungs, he will have sold the liver. If he sold the liver, he will not have sold the lungs.
Paragraph 15- The foregoing was only said in a place without a known custom. If it is a place where there is a known custom, however, everything would follow the custom.
Paragraph 16- If one sells a pit, he has not sold its water. If one sells a garbage dump, he has sold its waste. There are those who say that if one sells a pit, he has sold its water. If one sells water and waste, he has not sold the pit and garbage dump.
Paragraph 17- If one sells a nest, he has sold the birds. If he sells a beehive, he has sold the bees.
Paragraph 18- There are those who say the same applies in the reverse. If one sells birds, he has sold the nest. If he sells bees, he has sold the beehive. When is this true? Where he explicitly said he is selling all the fruits of the nest or beehive without exclusion. If he simply sold the fruits of the beehive, however, not only will he not have sold the beehive, he will not even have sold the all the bees. Rather, the buyer would receive the first three groups that are born from the first batch, and from thereon he would take a group and leave a group in order that the beehive remain settled. If he simply sells the fruits of the nest, the buyer cannot take all the birds that are born from now on because the mothers will flee, resulting in the destruction of the nest. Rather, he would leave birds in order to allow the nest to remain settled. How much would he leave? If there were mothers and daughters at the time the fruit of the nest was sold, he would leave the first batch of children that the mothers birth so that the mothers will have companionship with the first batch and with their children. He would leave two groups from that which the daughter births so that the daughters would have companionship with the two groups they birthed. Anything born after the two batches of the daughter and the first batch of the mother would belong to the buyer. In all these matters there is no distinction between a case of a sale and gift. Although there is a distinction when it comes to attached items, as was discussed above in 215:6, there is no distinction with respect to movable items.