Q&A: The Seller Is Trusted
The Seller Is Trusted
Question
Hello Rabbi. It says in the Talmud that the seller is trusted to say, “I sold to this one and I did not sell to that one,” when the item is still in his possession. I didn’t understand why his credibility is needed. As long as no act of taking possession has been made, he can decide whom to sell it to. You can’t say that he is trusted so that he won’t incur “He Who Exacts Payment,” because what is the Talmud even saying with that? That’s his own issue.
Thanks
Answer
First of all, the declaration of “He Who Exacts Payment” is made at the demand of the injured party, so this has implications for the others as well. Rashi there (Kiddushin 73b) explicitly writes that the discussion is about “He Who Exacts Payment.”
Secondly, there are forms of acquisition that do not require transferring the object itself. Certainly for land, but also for movable property. According to Rabbi Yohanan, by Torah law money effects acquisition.
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand a thing.
1) There’s no practical difference whether the seller is trusted or not. Even if he is not trusted, he can still sell to whomever he wants and (it seems to me) they would not say “He Who Exacts Payment” to him out of doubt that maybe he did not keep his word and sold to the wrong person.
2) I understood that Rashi in Kiddushin mentions “He Who Exacts Payment” in order to explain how we know that the person remembers to whom he sold. Rashi explains that because the person is afraid of “He Who Exacts Payment,” he remembers to whom he sold. Rashi did not say that if the seller were not trusted, they would say “He Who Exacts Payment” to him.
3) Money effects acquisition by Torah law, but rabbinically it does not. So why do we need the seller’s credibility if the sale has not yet happened (rabbinically), and they also won’t impose “He Who Exacts Payment” on him?
1. You’re making assumptions and asking difficulties on that basis. Don’t assume, and don’t ask.
2. Rashi mentions “He Who Exacts Payment” in order to say that when the item is still in his possession, he is careful, so as not to violate “He Who Exacts Payment.” Exactly what I wrote. If he did not remember, and therefore were not trusted, then “He Who Exacts Payment” would apply to him. Otherwise, what is he afraid of?
3. This could be a discussion on the Torah-law level even if it is not relevant on the rabbinic level.
Of course, it could also be a commercial custom to acquire by money, and also in the case of land, where money is effective, and so on.
And if the Talmud had said that he is not trusted, then what would happen? The Jewish law should be that they split it (or some other solution; I don’t know when each rule is applied). If at that stage the seller decided to ignore the Jewish law and choose one of them and sell to him again, would they say “He Who Exacts Payment” to him out of doubt, maybe he chose the wrong buyer? If not, then there’s no practical difference whether he is trusted or not, but it’s hard to say they would impose it on the basis of doubt.
If I understood Rashi in Kiddushin correctly, he mentions “He Who Exacts Payment” regarding the fact that we assume the seller remembers to whom he sold, because he is afraid of “He Who Exacts Payment,” but he doesn’t say that he is trusted and therefore “He Who Exacts Payment” will not be said to him.
And also, even if by Torah law money effects acquisition, rabbinically it does not, so how does that help?