Siman 184

Three who gave money to Reuven to purchase merchandise for them—if it is one type of merchandise for all of them and they gave him the money mixed together from everyone, or even if each gave individually and he mixed them together and purchased with a portion of the money, the purchase belongs to all of them, and they divide according to their money. And even though the intention of the agent was that what he purchased should be only for one of them, this is nothing, for these are "matters of the heart" and they are not matters. It is not within the power of the agent to grant merit through his thought to one of them as long as he has not retracted from his agency. However, if he explicitly stated before the purchase that he would purchase only for one of them and that it is not his will to purchase now for the other two, he has retracted from the agency of the two, and the one for whom he purchased has acquired it, for it is within his power to retract from his agency, as has been explained in siman 182. And this is specifically when the money of this individual is sufficient for the purchase, but if it is not sufficient, it is not within his power to rob the others for the sake of this one, and perforce the entire purchase belongs to the partnership [it appears to me]. And when they gave him the money mixed together, even if he divided it and bound each one's separately, it is nothing, and as long as he did not retract from his agency, the purchase belongs to all of them when he took it without specification [Sma and Taz]. And if each one gave him his money bound separately—and not specifically bound, but rather only that they did not give it to him mixed together, and also the agent did not mix them—and he purchased with the money of one of them, that one whose money it is has acquired it and not the others. And even if it was in the heart of the agent that the purchase should be for all of them, it is not effective; and even if he explicitly stated so with his mouth before the purchase, it is nothing, for it is not within his power to purchase with the money of this one for others. It is only when he mixed them and it is not recognizable whose money it is that it perforce belongs to all of them, but when they are each separate, it belongs to the one whose money it is.

Reuven who purchased a field from Shimon and said to him, "I am purchasing it for Levi," and Shimon wrote him a deed of sale in the name of Levi, but in truth he purchased it for himself, and the reason he wrote the deed in the name of Levi was for some specific motive—Reuven has acquired the field even though the intention of the seller was to sell it to Levi. However, we have already written in siman 183, section 4, that the seller conveys ownership to the one to whom the money belongs. And if Reuven came afterward and said to Shimon, "Know that I purchased it for myself; go back and write me another deed in my name," they do not compel him to write him another deed in the name of Reuven, for a person is not pleased with a multiplicity of deeds against him because of the rumor that will spread about him, as they will say that he is selling his fields. And even if he purchased it in the name of a great man of whom it is known that he does not purchase, and the seller understood that he purchased it for himself, nevertheless he cannot compel him to write him another deed in his name since he did not stipulate this with him. And the seller can say, "I thought that same man promised you that he would write you a deed of sale afterward" [Bava Kamma 103a]. And that which has been explained, that Reuven acquired it, is specifically when it is clarified that he purchased it for himself; but if it was not clarified, Levi can say that he purchased it on his behalf and acquired the field for him [Urim VeTumim siman 60]. However, this depends on the understanding of the judge regarding the matter.

And if he stipulated with him from the beginning and said to him, "Know that I am purchasing for myself, and that which I will write the deed in the name of Levi, I have an intention in this," he may compel him to write another deed in his name, for this is as if he explicitly stated to him that he should write him another deed in his name; for why did he inform him that he is the purchaser if not for this intention? [This is implied from the wording of the Rambam in chapter 2 of Sheluchin, where he changed from the wording of the Rif there; and examine this carefully.] Furthermore, even if he did not say so to the seller, but rather said to the witnesses beforehand in the presence of the seller, "You must write another deed in my name because I purchased it for myself," and the seller heard and remained silent, they compel him to write another deed in his name. The seller cannot say, "I thought the witnesses would write him a deed of sale from Levi," for certainly his intention was that they should write to him from Shimon, and therefore he spoke in his presence, and he should not have remained silent if it were not his will. And there is one who says that even in this case we require that he said to the seller, "I purchased for myself" [Taz]. However, in the Rosh and the Tur it is explicit that this is not so. And certainly in such a case where he said to the seller, "I purchased it for myself," and in his presence said to the witnesses to write him another deed, this is no novelty at all. [And therefore the Tur omitted when he spoke to the seller according to the explanation of the Rif, for this is no novelty at all; and the Rif, the Rosh, and the Tur explain the stipulation of the Baraita according to its plain meaning as a complete stipulation, and only from the redundancy do we know the statement to the witnesses.] And the Rambam, of blessed memory, omitted this matter of the statement to the witnesses explained in the Gemara, and all the commentators wondered about him. And it seems to me that he holds there is a greater novelty when he said to the seller, "I purchased it for myself," and did not mention writing him another deed, and nevertheless we compel him to write another deed; and all the more so when he said to the witnesses in his presence to write him another deed, even though he did not mention "I purchased it for myself," for this is indeed included in his words, for if not so, why does he need another deed? And since he wrote the first law, he did not need to write the second law. [And he was forced to this because he had a difficulty: what is the matter of the stipulation in the Baraita? And he was not satisfied with the redundancy, for this is not a verse to expound redundancies; therefore he explains that it is like a stipulation, either that he said to him, "I purchased it for myself," or that he said to the witnesses in his presence, "Write me another deed," and the stipulation that he said to him "I purchased it for myself" is understood automatically and the Gemara did not need to explain; and examine this carefully.] And it is a simple matter that when he must write him another deed, he returns the first one to him.

It has already been explained in section 2 that when Reuven buys in the name of Shimon, the acquisition is nevertheless for Reuven, and the seller cannot void the sale and say, "Since I sold it to Shimon and Shimon did not acquire it, I do not wish to sell to Reuven," for what does he care about this? He sold it to whoever the money belongs to. And if Shimon comes later and claims the field from Reuven, saying that he truly made him an agent to buy it, let the law pierce the mountain between them, and Reuven or Shimon shall swear [Ktzot HaChoshen]. And if Reuven had Shimon's money in his hand and went without his agency and bought a field from Shimon for him, if Shimon later consented to this acquisition, Shimon cannot retract. Many disagree with this, for a sale is not a benefit such that we would say "one may acquire a benefit for a person in his absence," and since Shimon can retract, Reuven's action is nothing and Shimon can also retract. Certainly, if Reuven gave his own money as a gift to Shimon and with this bought him the field, the purchase stands, for it is a benefit for Shimon. But with Shimon's money, it is not a benefit. And it appears to me that certainly before Shimon became aware of this and agreed to Reuven's action, Shimon can retract; but after he became aware and agreed to this, it is revealed that it is a benefit for him and the purchase stands, and Shimon cannot retract [and perhaps this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema, and the Levush]. And in siman 195 it will be explained that even in this there are those who disagree; see there.