Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/176

Paragraph 1- If individuals want to partner, the partnership is not formed by words. We do not say that if they said “let us go and be partners on such and such” they cannot retract. The partnership is only created with a kinyan. Because a kinyan is required, each item in the partnership requires a kinyan that is effective for that specific item. Thus, because currency cannot be acquired via swap, a partnership would not be created on currency with such a kinyan. Even if they made a kinyan from both parties that each will bring money and create the partnership, and they wrote a document stating as such, and witnesses testified, it would be of no effect. Rather, each partner must bring his money and place it into one wallet and both must then pick up the wallet. There are some who say that if each one pulled the money of the other it would also be effective. Even if they did not perform either of these methods but simply partnered and began transacting as partners to buy or sell, there are some who say this would be effective. If one lent money to another and subsequently said half of the loan should be for a business, and an unavoidable accident occurred, the borrower would be responsible for the entire amount just as he would have been originally because the required level of protection does not change by mere words.

Paragraph 2- If they became partners in other movable times, once they made a kinyan that one will bring his barrel of wine and the other will bring his jug of honey and they will become partners on it, the partnership is effective. Similarly, if they combined their fruits or rented a place together and one placed his jug and the other placed his barrel that were to be used in the partnership, they are now partners on the items. The general rule is that all the ways a purchaser can make a kinyan are the same ways partners can make a kinyan from each other on the money they are partnering on.

Paragraph 3- If craftsmen joined in a partnership, they would not be partners, even if they made a kinyan. How so? If two tailors or weavers made a condition that each one will take from the other’s work equally, there is no partnership at all because a person cannot grant ownership on something that is not yet in existence. There are those who say the partners can grant ownership on matters not yet in existence. There are those who say that even a kinyan would not be required. Rather, whatever conditions they make with each other would be effective, even if it was mere words and they would not be able to retract for the duration of the partnership. There are those who disagree and say that they can retract with respect to subsequent profits, but not for that which they already turned a profit on. They are not believed to say they already retracted. This is all with respect to two individuals who partnered with each other and are both operating in the partnership and each one shares his profits with the other and therefore they are committed to granting ownership to the other. If one gives another money to receive half the profits and he makes a condition that he will receive from any profit of any business ventures, even not from this money, however, it is a mere condition and a full kinyan would be required for it to take effect. If the tailors were purchasing the actual clothes, sewing them and selling them, or the weavers were buying the horizontal and vertical threads from their money, weaving and selling, and they were partners on the money they were buying with, it would be a bona-fide partnership. Any profits they would make from their work and transactions would be split evenly.

Paragraph 4- If partners appraised their fruits and created a partnership on them, the rules of overcharging each other would apply. If they combined their fruits without an appraisal and sold them and transacted with the money, they would evaluate how much the fruits were worth at the time of the formation of the partnership and calculate the profit or loss.

Paragraph 5- If one partner put 100 into the partnership, another put 200 and a third put 300, and they all transacted with money without specification, and the pot decreased or increased, the increase or decrease would be split evenly based on the amount of partners and not based on the money contributed. Even if they purchased an ox to slaughter in which case had they slaughtered it each one would take the amount of meat proportionate to the amount contributed, if they sold it alive and the pot decreased or increased the decrease or increase would be split evenly. When is this true? Where they transacted with the money of the partnership. If the money was still in existence and they did not spend it yet and the value decreased or increased because of changes to the currency by the king or the people of the jurisdiction, however, the profit or loss would be divided proportionate to the contributions. All the more so would they take proportionate to their contributions if they were partners on fruit. If they made a condition between them, we would follow whatever the condition is, whether on the profits or losses.

Paragraph 6- There are those who say that this is only with respect to the actual money they formed the partnership with. With respect to a requirement to contribute from one’s pocket, however, we would not apply these rules. For example, if one partner contributed 100 and the other contributed 200 and they lost it all, we do not require the one who contributed 100 to pay 50 from his pocket to the one who paid 200. There are those who say that if the partnership turned a profit after the time they set to divide the partnership, they would collect based on money contributed. The same would be true where they deviated from their original condition and each would takes proportionate to the contribution.

Paragraph 7- There are those who say that if the money was stolen or misplaced, they would divide proportionate to the amount contributed. If Reuven had a debt and asked Shimon to assist him with collecting it and he will get 1/3 of the debt, and that is what they did, and they later purchased merchandise, it has the status of two individuals that contributed to the pot because Shimon has a portion in the profit. This is only where they purchased the merchandise together with the intent of creating a partnership. If Reuven was the purchaser and Shimon assisted him, however, Shimon has no stake in the profit because Reuven only promised him a portion in the collected debt and not in the subsequent profits and Reuven would only be required to pay the amount given to Shimon for assisting him in the debt collection. If Reuven and Shimon became partners to lend to a gentile and Reuven gave his portion and the gentile then said that he does not need any more money and Reuven told Shimon to give him his portion of that which he lent and Shimon pushed him away and subsequently died, Shimon’s inheritors would still acquire Shimon’s portion in the profit because Reuven never waived his debt. If Shimon told him he would not pay his share, however, he has deviated from the terms of the partnership and has lost his rights to the profit. See later in this Siman in seif 41.

Paragraph 8- Partners have the status of paid watchmen, in that if something is stolen or misplaced from the partnership while in one partner’s possession, that partner is responsible. When is this true? Where each partner operates the partnership for a set time and the items were stolen during that time he was operating it. This is only where they made a condition originally. If one is not required to deal with the partnership and just contributed, however, he is not required in guarding the partnership and he would have the status of an unpaid watchman. If they began dealing with the partnership together, however, even if later each one dealt with it separately, the partner would be exempt because it is a case of a guardianship with the owner. See later at the end of Siman 291 with respect to whether he would be liable for negligence. If originally one partner operated the partnership solo and later they operated it together and items were stolen, the first partner would be liable because the second was not working with him when he began his guardianship and the second partner would be exempt because the first was working with him when he began his guardianship. If the partnership completely split and one of the partners had the responsibility to repay gentiles, and the items were misplaced or stolen, the other partner would not be required to repay the losses. If the second partner also had items he was supposed to pay the gentile with, however, it is considered a guardianship with the owner and the loss would fall on both of them.

Paragraph 9- If brothers are partners, they each have the power to object to the other purchasing something for himself from the partnership unless he deducts it from his portion. If they did not object and they purchased something for themselves, when they come to split, they appraise the cost of the clothing they are wearing at the time of the division. Anything that was completely ruined or misplaced, however, would not be appraised. If they purchased clothing for their wives, sons or daughters, we would not appraise them. When is this true? With respect to weekday clothing. We would, however, appraise Shabbos-clothing. We would not appraise the clothing of the oldest of the brothers, even if he purchased them for himself. In the first instance, however, the brothers can object to him purchasing clothing. The same is true for partners that are not brothers. It seems to me, however, that on this we would follow local custom.

Paragraph 10- One who partners with another without specification should not deviate from the local custom with respect to that merchandise. He should not go to another location, he should not use the partnership funds to partner with others, he should not use the funds to participate in another business venture and he should not sell on credit other than those things that are always sold on credit. If the partner was warned not to sell on credit even those items ordinarily sold on credit, he would be required to pay. If some people sold a specific item on credit while others did not, the partner may not sell on credit without the consent of his partner. So long as a partner does not deviate and is not negligent, he can do with his partner’s money whatever he would do with his own. He would take the expenses incurred from his partner because a partner has the status of one who goes down with permission. If people in a group eat together and one eats more than the others, the others may remove him. A partner cannot deposit in a third party’s possession unless they made a condition originally or he did it with the consent of his partner. If he went ahead and deposited without his partner’s consent, and later the partner was informed and was okay with it, he would be exempt. These matters do not require a kinyan and words alone will suffice. If the partner deviated from any of this by going to a place he shouldn’t have, going out on to the sea, selling on credit or transacting with some other business or anything similar, he would be responsible to pay for any depreciation that results from such actions. If he made any profit, the partners would split it.

Paragraph 11- Thus, if one gives money to another as a partnership in order for him purchase wheat to do business with, and the recipient purchased barley, or he was supposed to purchase barley and he purchased wheat, any depreciation would be borne by the partner that deviated and any appreciation would be divided. See later 183:5. Similarly, if the recipient went and used the money to partner with someone else, he would suffer all the losses himself and any profits would be divided. If he partnered with someone else using his own money, however, both the losses and profits would belong to him. If they made a condition, we would always follow the condition. If Reuven and Shimon were partners and had a debt owed by a government official with jurisdiction over the area Reuven lives, and Reuven had initiated the loan and Shimon claims that Reuven should claim the debt because he initiated it and Reuven says he is afraid of the official who has jurisdiction over him, Reuven is in the right. See later in seif 47 in this Siman. If Reuven went and waived Shimon’s debt and says that Shimon instructed him to do so and Shimon did in fact instruct him, Reuven would be exempt even though Shimon never told him it was on the condition that he would be exempt. If Shimon denies ever instructing him and there are witnesses that the debts were owed to Shimon and Reuven exempted them, however, Reuven would be obligated to pay. He is not believed to say he did it with Shimon’s permission. If Shimon does not have witnesses, however, Reuven would be believed with a migu that he could have said the debts were not owed to Shimon or that he did not exempt them.

Paragraph 12- If one of the partners or individuals working for the partnership did business with non-slaughtered or non-kosher animals or something similar, the profits would be split but he would suffer any losses by himself. Similarly, if the partner stole or robbed, he must divide with his partners and any loss would be borne by himself. This is only where the loss occurred before the partner knew of the theft. If he divided the theft with his partner already and the claim was made against him or if he acquired the theft and divided with his partner and then the claim arrived, however, the loss would also be split. If they divided other profits and an illegal claim then came on the partner, however, his partner would not be required to assist him in covering the loss. See in this Siman in seif 38 and the end of Siman 177. If one hires another to transact with his money and conditioned that any found items would belong to the employee, and the employee collected repaid loans from gentiles, it is considered a found item because a repaid document is only worth the value of the paper. For the same reason if one returned the document to the gentile, he would not be required to pay the owner. It would even be permitted in the first instance.

Paragraph 13- If one of the partners says to bring the merchandise to a certain place where the price is high so they can sell there, his partner may object, even if he accepts responsibility for any accidents or depreciation, because he say he doesn’t want to give away his money and go chase him to litigate and get the money back. The same applies to anything similar.

Paragraph 14- If one of the partners wants to age the fruits until the known time for selling fruits, his partner cannot stop him. Once the time for selling arrives, however, each partner can sell and the other has no right to stop him. If one sold without the consent of the other and the price later went up, his partner will have no claim against him. If he sold before the appropriate time, however, it is considered negligence and he would be obligated to pay the other his share. If there is no known set time for selling fruits and one partner wants to age the fruits, the other partner may stop him.

Paragraph 15- If partners conditioned their partnership for a set time, each one has the power to stop the other and they would not be able to divide until the time arrives or the money from the partnership has been depleted. Neither of them can take from the principle or the profits until the end of the partnership has arrived. If a partner deviated or was negligent during the time or violated a condition, the other partner still cannot compel a division. Rather, he would pay for the loss he caused. This is not like those that disagree with this view.

Paragraph 16- If they set up the partnership without specification and did not set up a time, they can divide whenever one of them wants to and each one will take his portion of the merchandise. If the merchandise is not something that can be divided or if a loss would result if it were divided, they would sell it and split the proceeds.

Paragraph 17- If there was a known time for the sale of the specific merchandise, each partner can stop a division until the merchandise is sold at its known time of sale. Neither partner may take from the principle or the profit until the time of division unless they made a condition between them.

Paragraph 18- If they did not affix a time for the partnership or they affixed a time and it had passed, and one partner wants to divide without the knowledge of the other partner, he may divide in front of three people, even if they are laymen, so long as they are trustworthy and familiar with appraisals. If he divided with less than three he has not done anything. If he later lost money from his portion he may void the division. There are those who disagree. When is this true? Where they divided fruits. If they divided money of the same worth and currency, however, one can divide outside the presence of court and leave the other’s portion in court. If the money is not all worth the same it has the status of fruits and they can only divide in court.

Paragraph 19- If one of the partners or those involved in the business died, the partnership or business would be void, even if they conditioned a specific timeframe. This is the primary ruling, not like those who disagree. If a partner got sick or an unavoidable accident occurred and he did not participate in the partnership, the law is not that the other partner will make the profit and give him his share, even if they made a kinyan at the time the partnership was formed. If the partner was in another city on behalf of the partnership and was unavoidably delayed there, however, he would have a portion with the other partners. If there was a custom between the partners on this, we would follow the custom. If three partners accepted a business deal from one and one of them died, the arrangement is void and they may retract. If three individuals partnered with a woman who waived to the others and one of them was negligent and did not participate in the partnership as he should have and because of that he will not collect as much profit, the proportionate amount of the profit would go to the woman, because two individuals working for the partnership is not the same as three. If brothers who were partners were supported together based on their individual needs and one of them died and the other transacted on behalf of the partnership as he did when his brother was alive, the widow cannot demand at the time of division that she first take that which the partner took more than her because he simply transacted as he was accustomed to while his brother was still alive. Similarly, if the public waived a widow’s share of the tax, the second partner cannot demand she split the profit with him because there was no condition and he operated the partnership normally and she would acquire whatever they waived to her.

Paragraph 20- If the partnership had an outstanding debt owed by others, one partner cannot tell the other that they should refrain from dividing until the entire debt is collected. Rather, they would divide and when they collect the debt each one would take his portion or they can divide the documents via the court’s appraisal or using the mechanism of “set a price or I will.” If the debt subsequently loses its value, his own bad luck is responsible. See above 66:41. If the partnership owed a debt to a third party and they were explicit that neither partner is responsible for the other, they would divide the partnership and when the time comes to pay the debt each one would pay his share. If they did not make clear that the partners are not responsible for each other, any partner may object to the division until the time in the document arrives because a partner can say to the others since each of us are obligated to the pay the entire document, let us transact with this money until the time arrives.

Paragraph 21- If one partner tells another to divide and take the amount of money corresponding to the entire debt in the document, transact with the money for yourself, and pay the document when it is due, the partner may still object and say he may lose and two partners would profit more than one.

Paragraph 22- If one gives money to another to go to such and such jurisdiction to engage in commerce, to purchase fruit and do business with them or to sit in a store, the partner cannot retract and return the money to his partner until he goes to the place they agreed to and then return it, or purchase the fruits and sell them or sit in the store, because it is as if they set up an affixed time.

Paragraph 23- If one accepts a business arrangement from another for a set time, the recipient may retract just like a worker who can retract halfway through the day. The investor, however, cannot retract. This is in contrast to the rules of a partnership for a set time, as was explained above in seif 16.

Paragraph 24- If two partners each have a claim against a third party and one partner made the claim and lost and the case involves an oath that was owed to the partner, and the counterparty swore, the second party cannot make another claim against the defendant to swear because an oath to one is an oath to 100.

Paragraph 25- If the claim against the third party was a monetary claim and the partner lost and his other partner was not in the city, the other partner may make another claim. A minor has the status of one who is not in the city. There are those who say the same applies to a woman. If the partner was in the city he cannot make another claim. This is only where the partners are the plaintiffs. If the partners were defendants, however, and one of the defendants responded to the claim, it would not hurt the other partner at all since he did not instruct him to claim and litigate on his behalf. Residents of the city with respect to items involving the city’s needs have the status of partners. If one resident made a claim on a third party, all of the other residents know of the claim and cannot make another claim.

Paragraph 26- When is this true? Where the partner was not found liable on the basis of his claim. If he was found liable on the basis of his claim, however, such as where he confessed or said he has no proof, the partner would not be negatively impacted by his partner’s admission and if he has his own proof he may bring it. He is not able to change the original claim of the first partner. Thus, we view it as if he already litigated and we write a ruling and go down to his property. He cannot push them off and say to wait until he litigates. He also cannot say that had he been there he would have interrogated the witnesses until they were contradicted. If he can change, however, we would listen to him, even if he was in the city. There are those who say that if he was not in the city to be able to make a claim, the counterparty can place a cherem on him that he did not know his partner litigated with him already.

Paragraph 27- If two individuals lent to, or deposited with, a third party, and one of them comes to collect his portion or the entire amount, the law was explained at the end of Siman 77. If one person borrowed from two individuals with one document and the document was written in one of their names, the law will be explained in this Siman. Similarly, if one partner borrowed on behalf of the partnership, whether the partner would be obligated to pay is explained in 77:2.

Paragraph 28- If two individuals are partners on a debt owed by a gentile, and one of them collected a portion of the debt and wants to keep the money for himself and tells his partner to go collect his portion from the gentile, we would not listen to him. If a government official was angry with one of the partners and says to the other partner that he will assist him in collection but not the other and the partner says while collecting that he is collecting for himself, he will have collected for himself. The same would apply where two individuals have an inferior loan and must give a bribe to collect and one of the partners does not want to give the bribe, the other parry may say he is paying the bribe for his portion and rescue for himself. The same applies in any situation where there is a loss and one can divide without the other’s knowledge and rescue for himself. Similarly, if partners had an outstanding debt owed by a tough gentile and one of them convinced the gentile to pay him his portion and said he is rescuing the money for himself, he may keep the money for himself.

Paragraph 29- If a partner makes a claim on another partner for barrels of wine belonging to the partnership and says that any of the barrels that have a sign on them belong to me, the other party can say that yesterday those barrels did indeed belong to you but now they belong to me.

Paragraph 30- If Reuven and Shimon became partners and one of them took from the partnership money to become partners with Levi, the other partner has the power to make Levi swear and Levi cannot say he has no privity with him. All the more so in a case where Reuven gave Shimon money as an investment and Shimon gave some of the money to Levi as an investment would Reuven be able to have Levi swear a partner-oath. If Shimon had Levi swear, an oath to one is the same an oath to 100. Even if Reuven exempted Shimon from an oath or Shimon exempted Levi from an oath, Reuven could still have Levi swear unless Reuven also exempted anyone that comes via Shimon.

Paragraph 31- If two individuals borrow together from one lender, they are both cosigners to each other. Therefore, if one of them dies, becomes poor or denies the loan, and the other party admits to the loan, he would be required to pay everything. We would not accept his testimony against the other party. Similarly, if one confessed to one of the partners or paid back one of them, it is as if he confessed to, or paid back, the other partner.

Paragraph 32- If one of the partners makes a claim on a matter that is an obligation for him and his partner, he has the status of a solo witness with respect to obligating his partner take a biblical oath.

Paragraph 33- If there were two partners and one of them died and did not swear or if one of the partners was suspect, the other partner would swear.

Paragraph 34- If one individual borrowed from two in one document and one of the lenders comes and claims the entire debt, he is obligated to pay in the manner that was describe at the end of Siman 77. If the document was written in one of their names and the named party claims the entire debt, he is obligated to pay it back. If the unnamed party makes a claim, however, even if it was only on part of the debt, we would not listen to him.

Paragraph 35- If two or three brothers had litigation with another, the counterparty cannot say that one of them should come and make a claim on behalf of all of them.

Paragraph 36- If two individuals had a partnership in an outstanding debt against a gentile and the gentile paid back some but was withholding the rest because he claims one of the partners owes him money corresponding to that amount, both partners would suffer the loss. It seems to me that the same would be true where the party that owed money was a Jew, but he would be required to swear. This is in contract to the case of a gentile where just a cherem would be required.

Paragraph 37- If Reuven and Shimon were partners and Shimon purchased clothing from a gentile and sold them to a Jew and the Jewish buyer was required to pay the gentile at a certain date, and Shimon obligated himself in a document that if the Jew did not pay at that date then he would, and Reuven and Shimon subsequently divided the partnership, Reuven is required to create a document for Shimon that if Shimon can prove with witnesses that the Jew did not pay the gentile and Shimon is thus required to pay the gentile then Reuven would pay his share of whatever expenses and bribes Shimon can prove with witnesses he incurred as a result of this matter.

Paragraph 38- If Shimon purchased merchandise from a gentile and mislead him with respect to the calculation and put the money from the mistake in the partnership and is afraid the gentile will notice the mistake, or if he received third-party collateral and was concerned a loss would occur as a result, Reuven should admit to the value of the mistake or collateral that has entered the partnership in front of witnesses, and they should write and sign and give it to Shimon. See above in seif 12 of this Siman.

Paragraph 39- If Shimon took money from someone to bring into the partnership and collect the proportionate profits, the third party may collect the agreed-upon profits, even if Shimon did not inform his partner, Reuven.

Paragraph 40- If residents of a city purchased a Torah scroll for 60 dinar with the condition that if one of the members of the city were to move to another area then the remaining residents would give him his portion, and now one wants to leave and asks for his portion based on the increase of value of scrolls, and the remaining residents say that they only want to give based on the amount they paid, the remaining residents are in the right. If Reuven and Shimon had a partnership together and they owned documents and also owed a tax to the public and the public took the document for Reuven’s taxes, Reuven is required to pay Shimon his share and cannot say that Shimon should also have his share deducted by the tax because once Reuven had benefit for the documents and paid his debt, he must pay Shimon and cannot pay on behalf of Shimon without Shimon’s consent. If Reuven purchased merchandise and Shimon, Levi and Yehuda were each going to receive ¼ of any gain or loss, and they then lost 400 of value from the merchandise, and Reuven and Shimon backed out and gave Reuven 300, if Yehuda wants to back out he must pay 100 to Reuven because he is only a partner on the profits from the merchandise but not from what was acquired from another partner. If there are many partners, one of them cannot back out of the partnership without the knowledge of all of them. If someone accepted merchandise from another to bring to another location and divide the profits and while he was bringing it the value in the place of origin went down, we would appraise the value of the merchandise at the time he was bringing it and not at the time he accepted it.

Paragraph 41- If a gentile requested Reuven and Shimon lend him a set amount of money and Levi wanted to partner with them on the debt and they agreed, and Reuven went ahead and gave his portion of 4.5 coins and the gentile said he does not need any more, and Reuven went and told Shimon and Levi that if they want to divide the debt they each had to pay their share, and Shimon paid his share but Levi did not pay before he died, and Levi had told Reuven when Reuven made his claim that he does not want to contribute, the partnership is void. If Levi constantly said he plans on paying, however, since he did not cause Reuven to go to court over it, he would acquire the profit and Reuven would be required to pay Levi’s inheritors, even if Levi pushed Reuven off a little.

Paragraph 42- If Reuven and Shimon were partners in a debt and Reuven took responsibility and the government official seized Reuven and forced him to the exempt the debt, because it was unavoidable duress, Reuven would be exempt from paying Shimon.

Paragraph 43- If partners are lenders on an outstanding debt and one wants to travel from his current location and bring the document with him, his partner may prevent him from bringing the document as was explained in seif 13 in this Siman.

Paragraph 44- If one of the partners makes a claim from the partnership for the use of his animal or his store, he would first take the rental wage of his animal or store and would then divide the profit or loss.

Paragraph 45- If one of the partners took merchandise from the partnership on the advice of his partner to bring it to another location to sell, and when he comes to make a calculation he wants to take his food expenses from the partnership, we would not listen to him unless there was a custom there.

Paragraph 46- If one of the brother-partners has money in his possession and says it belongs to others, the burden of proof is on him because they have not separated the pot yet. If he dies, the other parties must bring proof it belongs to them. See above in Siman 62 where these laws are discussed.

Paragraph 47- If Reuven and Shimon had a government official owe them money and Shimon accepted the pledge of responsibility from the official without Reuven and Shimon then lived under that official and can no longer claim the debt, and Reuven warns him to collect the debt, Shimon is not required to start up with the official to collect Reuven’s debt. If Shimon is exempt from the tax because of that debt, however, we evaluate how much tax he would have had to give for the year and he will give Reuven based on the portion that he has on that debt.

Paragraph 48- If two partners purchased wool and when they come to sell it it weighs less than it did originally, this is also considered a loss and they would split it and Shimon would swear he did not lay a hand on it nor was he negligent in guarding it. If one of the partners brought merchandise from the partnership to another location to sell, and the partner was captured and the other party redeemed him from the partnership and the partnership continued and the partners were not exact with each other and the partner died, the deceased’s inheritors would take from the pot the amount that was used to redeem him because a partner is not required to redeem his partner, even if he was taken captive because of the partnership. If there is a custom on this we would follow the custom. If the recipient of the investment was captured by the official with other Jews and had to pay from the investment to redeem himself, however, and it is the practice of the city to pay from investments, it is considered like any other tax on the investment. This all applies in the case of partners. If one sends another to transact for him and he is captured, however, there are those who say that if he went for free he is required to redeem him because he is a like a borrower to him that is obligated in unavoidable accidents. There are those who disagree. Similarly, if one sent after another and accepted to redeem him from any loss that would result, and he was captured on the road, he would still be exempt from redeeming him because that is an uncommon occurrence.

Paragraph 49- If a horse was given as collateral to Reuven and Shimon and they deposited it with a gentile to guard it and Shimon told the gentile that he should lend it to Levi, and the gentile brought it to Levi and it was stolen from him, Reuven can choose to collect from Shimon or Levi.

Paragraph 50- If Reuven told Shimon to do with his items whatever he does with his own, and Shimon went and exempted both of their loans, he would be required to pay Reuven his share. See above Siman 93 for many more laws regarding partnerships.

Paragraph 51- One is prohibited from partnering with an idol worshiper. If he does partner and the idol worshiper owes him an oath he may accept it. See Orach Chaim Siman 156 and Yoreh Dea Siman 147.