Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/177

Paragraph 1- If the king appointed one of the partners as aide or treasurer who transacts with the king’s money, or any similar government position, and the appointment was because of their father, such as where their father was known in this area and the king said to appoint his son as a form of kindness to the orphans, the reward he receives and any wages he earns from this work belongs to all the bothers, even if this brother was wiser than the others and it was appropriate to appoint him. If the brother was appointed on his own merit, he would keep the money. The same rules apply to any loss, and if the king took money from him because of the wealth of the brothers, they would all suffer the loss. If it was only because of this brother because he was already wealthy, he would suffer the loss himself. This is all in a case where the brothers are still partners in the father’s property. It would not apply where they already divided, however. There are those who say that the same would apply in any other partnership where someone took money because of all of them and the profits and losses would be divided equally. There are those who say this is only applies to work for the king, but for any other work the brother would keep all the earnings. There are those who say that even with respect to work for the king, the brother would first collect for the burden of his work as a daily worker would.

Paragraph 2- If one of the partners got sick and it was due to negligence, such as where he traveled in the snow in the winter or the heat in the summer or anything similar and there is a set amount to heal him, he would need to pay his medical expenses on his own. If there is no set amount, he would be treated from the pot. If he was not at fault for getting sick, however, even if there was a set amount he would be treated from the pot. Before he is treated they are able to demand the division of the partnership. There are those who say the reverse and that in the case of negligence he would not be treated from the pot and if he was not at fault he would only be treated from the pot if there was no set amount for his treatment.

Paragraph 3- When is it true that a partner would be treated from the pot? Where he himself deals with the work and the others do not and just receive a portion of the profits. If two partners are both dealing with the work or the merchandise and one of them got sick, however, he would pay for his own treatment, even if his sickness was unavoidable. This is only where they are not fed from the partnership. If the partners are fed from the partnership and one got sick unavoidably, however, any treatment that has no set amount has the status of food. Whether a partner is required to pay ransom for the other is discussed above in 176:48.

Paragraph 4- If one of the brother-partners wanted to travel to study Torah or a trade, they should evaluate how much he would receive for expenses when he is together with his brothers and they will give him that amount, even if he needs more when he is solo.

Paragraph 5- If one partner tells another to steal and he will pay for all damages that result, he would be exempt, even if he benefited from the theft. See above 176:12.