Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/120
Paragraph 1- The money remains the responsibility of the borrower until he pays back the lender or his messenger. If he threw the payment in front of him and it was misplaced, the borrower would be liable. Even if the lender said to throw the repayment and he threw it and it was misplaced, he would be liable. If, however, the lender said throw the repayment and you will be exempt, and the borrower threw it and it was misplaced before it reached the lender, he would be exempt because he exempted him with what he said, even if it was a far distance to the lender. If the lender said throw me my debt with the rules of gittin and the money was still close to the borrower, it would still be the borrower’s responsibility. If the money was close to the lender, the borrower would be exempt. If it was exactly equal and it was misplaced or stolen, the borrower would pay half. How so? If the borrower threw it within four amos of the lender, he would be exempt. If it was outside the lender’s four amos and only the lender, but not the borrower, was able to protect the money, the borrower would be exempt. If the borrower was able to protect the money, but not the lender, the borrower would be liable. If they were both able to protect it, it is considered a case of half and half and both would be liable. If, however, both of them were not able to protect it, it is as if the borrower threw it to a place of destruction and he would be liable.
Paragraph 2- When is this true? In a default case where the lender did not disclose any intention of not wanting the money. Therefore, if the borrower threw the money and it was misplaced he would be liable because the lender can tell him that had you given it to me I would have protected it. If, however, the borrower says here is your money, and the lender does not want to accept it, and the borrower throws it in front of him and it is in a place where a lender would be paid back, the borrower would be exempt. The borrower is not required to bring the lender to court because a non-consensual repayment is still a repayment. Similarly, if the borrower says the money is piled up in my house, come and take it, and the lender refuses to take it and the money was stolen or misplaced, the borrower is exempt unless he was negligent and the money was then stolen or misplaced. There are those that disagree on this. If the borrower paid back the lender’s wife and she is of sound mind, the borrower would be exempt as if he gave it to the lender himself. If Reuven owed money to Shimon and when the time for repayment arrived Shimon says to use the money for an arrangement of 50% of the profits, and an unavoidable accident subsequently occurred in the borrower’s possession, the borrower would be liable for all accidents just as he was originally because his original responsibility cannot be changed by mere words.