Siman 206

One who says to his fellow, "When I sell this field, it is hereby sold to you from now for a maneh," and he performed a kinyan with him regarding this, and after some time he sold it to another for a hundred, the first has acquired it. However, if he did not say "from now," this is like a kinyan devarim and like an asmakhta; and with "from now" there is no asmakhta, as I wrote in siman 207, and therefore it is not like a kinyan devarim. But if he sold it for more than a maneh, or if he exchanged it with another for some object, the latter has acquired it, for he only said to him "when I sell," implying that he would sell of his own will for a maneh, and behold, he did not want to sell for a maneh and only sold because of the addition that this one added or because of the exchange, and it is found to be as if he were coerced into the sale; and even if it increased in value afterward [Netivot HaMishpat]. And even if he also wants to give this price, we do not remove it from the second, for the sale of the second was finalized and he has not yet acquired it. But if he did not mention the sum, but only said to him, "When I sell it, I will sell it to you," even if he said "from now," the first has not acquired it, for since he did not mention the sum, his mind was not at rest at all. And the expression "I will sell" depends on what I wrote in siman 245 regarding whether "from now" is effective in a kinyan of "I will give"; see there.

And all this refers to when he spoke with the language "when I sell, I will sell to you," for this is not a language of clarity, and therefore he must mention the sum of money. However, if he said "do not sell except to me," or if the seller said "I will not sell except to you," or "it is not sold except to you," or if he explicitly stipulated that even if they give him more than what he fixed, it is sold to him—his stipulation is valid, for every stipulation in monetary matters is valid, since he said "from now" and he acquired it from him, it is sold to him from now [and even though in the Maharik, root 2, it implies that "from now" is not required, however, there it refers to a partner].

Some say that if one spoke in the language of obligation, "I obligate myself to sell to you," it is effective even without "from now," and when he wrote a deed in the language of obligation or performed a kinyan sudar on this obligation, for the obligation takes effect upon his person [Netivot HaMishpat in the name of Rabbi Eliyahu Sasson]. And there are those who disagree on this, for an obligation is nothing regarding the matter of a sale, and even "from now" would not be effective, and even if he sells to another for the sum he fixed with him, for an obligation is not a sale at all, and consequently the other person acquires it [Mishneh LaMelekh chapter 5]. And even though one could say that when he wrote a deed in the language of obligation that he shall sell it to this person, it has the law of an actual deed and he may collect from encumbered properties, and consequently when he sells it to another he seizes it from him, nevertheless, even an obligation of the person must be obligated "from now" with responsibility, such that if it is lost he shall pay him from another place; and since there is no obligation of responsibility in this to pay from another place, but rather an obligation upon the thing he wishes to give, it is not an obligation at all and it is a kinyan devarim [Ketzot HaChoshen].

And so, if he said to him, "When I sell it, it is acquired by you from now according to how three people shall appraise it," it is sold to him from now, even though he did not mention a sum of money, for in this their minds are at ease according to how the appraisers shall appraise it. And even when two of the three appraised it, it is sufficient, for since he used the language of "appraisal," we follow the majority. And so too when the third disagrees with the two, we follow the majority. But if he said, "As the three shall say," all three must agree with one another, because the language of "appraisal" is like the appraisal of a beit din where we follow the majority, which is not the case when he says, "According to what the three shall say," for certainly his intention was that all three should state their opinion and agree with one another. And all the more so when he said, "According to how a beit din of three shall agree," it is sufficient even with two of the three and we follow the majority of opinions. But if he said, "As a beit din of four shall appraise," or "As four people shall appraise," it is not effective until all four appraise it and agree to one opinion; for since he descended to more than three, who are a beit din in every place, presumably his intention was not to follow the majority. And even though from the wording of the Rambam in chapter 8 it implies that with the language of "appraisal" we do not follow the majority except when he spoke with the language of "beit din," yet in the Tur it is explicitly stated so. And all this is when they did not explicitly specify to follow the majority or not to follow the majority, but if they specified, in any case we act according to their condition, for any condition in monetary matters is valid. And if the appraisers appraised as has been explained, and the seller said, "It is my will that three others should come to appraise," we do not listen to him, for they performed a kinyan from his hand at the beginning that he sold it from now, and immediately when they appraised, the purchase was established retroactively. And even if the others are more expert in appraisal, for so it implies from the wording of all the poskim who did not distinguish in this. And even though in the Gemara [Avodah Zarah 72b] it implies that if the second ones are more expert in appraisal they must appraise it anew—for it is for this reason that the Gemara there rejected this claim: "From where [do we know] that these are more expert? Perhaps the first ones are more expert"—and from this it implies explicitly that if the second ones are more expert we follow their appraisal; it seems to me that our teachers, the poskim, interpreted the language of the Shas that this is what it means: that one should not pay attention at all to such a claim, for who told you that the second ones will appraise this appraisal more truthfully than the first ones? Perhaps the first ones are more expert in this appraisal than the second ones, and we do not follow the greater knowledge in other appraisals [see Beit Yosef and Shach]. And all this is when no one is found who gives more than their appraisal, but if someone gives more, the other has acquired it, for that additional amount forced him to sell it, as I wrote in section 1. And it has already been explained that without "from now," even though they performed a kinyan from his hand that when he sells he will sell to him, he has not acquired it, for it is a kinyan devarim and an asmakhta. And that which was explained regarding the distinction in language between "appraisal" and "saying" applies also to one who sells to his fellow immediately and said to him, "It shall be sold to you as three or four shall appraise," as has been explained. And that which we explained, that specifically with "from now" he acquires, this applies to all kinyanim, whether he transferred it to him with money, with a deed and hazakah, or kinyan sudar; for if he did not say "from now," he can retract, and when he sells it to another, he has retracted [Ketzot HaChoshen].