Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/105

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If a borrower owed money to two or more lenders and does not have enough to pay all of them back, and an individual went ahead and took possession of the borrower’s moveable times in order to have one of the creditors acquire its rights, the creditor would not acquire its rights because anyone who takes possession on behalf of a creditor in a situation where it negatively impacts others, does not acquire such item, even if the creditor appointed him a messenger or wrote a power of attorney. A legal guardian, however, would be able to acquire the item because he is considered the owner’s hands.

Paragraph 2- If the borrower also owed money to the individual who took possession, he would acquire the item by grabbing it because since he could have acquired it for himself, he can acquire it for someone else.

Paragraph 3- If the borrower tells someone to acquire an item for so and so or give a maneh to so and so, the individual would acquire the item or maneh for the recipient, even if the individual is not familiar with the recipient. None of the borrower’s creditors are able to collect from this item because another person has already acquired it.

Paragraph 4- If the borrower does not have other debts against him, the grabber would acquire the item for the creditor. This is only in a situation where there is a potential loss to the creditor, such as where the borrower is a person who causes loss to property or where he became poor and is downsizing, in which case grabbing would work even within the timeframe of the loan if the borrower has no other properties and the lender will suffer a loss if not for this grabbing. This is also only where the creditor has a document on hand that he can verify now. If, however, he has no proof of the loan and the borrower contradicts him, we would return the money to its owner and the lender cannot demand they set up a time for him to bring proof of the loan.

Paragraph 5- If one takes possession of an item on behalf a creditor in a situation where it does not negatively impact others, he is responsible for item. There are those that say he is not responsible. If the borrower tells the grabber to either explicitly accept responsibility or return the item you grabbed because I don’t trust you, we would listen to him.

Paragraph 6- If a guardian took possession of the deposit on behalf of a creditor in a situation where it does not negatively impact others, it would take effect in the sense that if the depositor died the item would not be considered the children’s moveable items and shmitta would not void the debt. If the depositor had given the item to someone else via real property, with a kinyan sudar or as a dying-man gift, the gift would be invalid. If the creditor is not here, however, the guardian cannot hold on to the deposit on his behalf, even if the borrower confessed, because the general rule is that every deposit must be returned to the person that deposited it and if others have the right to the deposit, they can litigate that on their own. If the guardian gave the deposit to the lender, he would be exempt from repayment, even if he was a paid guardian because even had he returned the item to the owner, the owner would have to pay the lender.