Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/117

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If one designates his field to a creditor or as payment to a woman for her kesubah, which means he wrote to them “you shall collect from here,” and a river ruined the field, the creditor can collect from other properties and seize them. So long as the field is still in the debtor’s possession, however, he cannot remove the creditor from the field other than with money. There are those that disagree. If the borrower made a condition with him that he can only be repaid from this field, he would not be able to collect from other properties. If the borrower sold the field to a third party and the creditor comes to seize it, the purchaser cannot remove him with money because they made a condition that he would only receive repayment from this field. If the borrower explicitly designated this field by saying you only can only collect from this field and it turns out the field did not belong to the borrower, there are those that say that he can collect from other fields. If, however, an earlier creditor seized it from him, he cannot go back to the borrower. If one designated his field as repayment to his creditor or to a woman’s keusbah and sold the field, the sale is valid. When the creditor comes to collect, if he does not find unencumbered properties, he may seize that field. When is this true? Where it was a temporary sale. If, however, it was a permanent sale, the sale would not be valid. This is the opinion of the Rambam. Most of the commentators, however, disagree and hold that even if there are unencumbered properties, the creditor would collect from the specifically-designated field and that any sale would be valid until the seizure. This is the primary ruling.

Paragraph 2- A collateral that was given without specification has the status of an item designated for collection. If the borrower stated “you shall only be able to collect from this” it has the status of an explicit designation.

Paragraph 3- If the borrower designated his ox for collection and sold it, the creditor would not be able to collect from it. The same would apply to any other moveable items because its designation does not create any chatter, even if the designation was created via document and even if the purchaser knew about the designation, because the Rabbis did not differentiate.

Paragraph 4- The same would apply with respect to the laws of precedence. If one designated moveable items for collection with a document to the first creditor and a later lender collects them, he would acquire them, even if it was an explicit designation, so long as he did not mortgage the moveable items via real property. If he did mortgage moveable items via real property and the later lender collected them, he would not acquire the moveable items.

Paragraph 5- If one designated his slave for collection and sold him, the creditor could collect from the salve because there is chatter, even if the designation was general.

Paragraph 6- If a slave-owner designated his slave for collection and then freed him, even if he wrote that the lender can only be repaid from the slave, the slave would gain his freedom. The creditor would collect his debt from the borrower and they would write a document for him and he would seize from the date of this document. We force the second slave-owner to free the slave for the good of the world so that the second slave-owner does not find him in the market and say you are my slave.

Paragraph 7- A prohibition on benefit can remove a lien just as intrinsic holiness can, such as the case where a robe was placed on the deceased with the intention that it be buried with him, and the creditor would not be able to collect from it. Monetary holiness, however, would not remove a lien. Rather, the lender would redeem the item with a minimal amount so that people don’t say consecrated items can lose its holiness without redemption. The amount spent on the redemption will be added to the debt and he will collect from the borrower. Even intrinsic holiness would not be able to prohibit an item on the lender alone by saying my properties should be konam on the lender, unless he prohibits the item on the entire world. There are those that disagree.