Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/78
Paragraph 1- If one affixes a time for repayment and the plaintiff makes a claim within the time of repayment and the defendant says he paid back, the defendant is not believed because there is a presumption that a person does not pay back within the time frame set for repayment. In the same vein, the defendant cannot claim the plaintiff waived the loan. Even if the borrower died within the time frame and was survived by orphans, the lender can collect without an oath, even if the orphans were minors, so long as the loan was documented or, even if the loan was undocumented, in the event the plaintiff had brought the deceased to court and the testimony was accepted in his presence because this rule also applies to oral loans. This is true so long as there are witnesses as to the loan and affixing of the time of repayment because if there were no witnesses the defendant is believed with a migu that the loan never occurred, that the lender did not affix a time or that the time had passed already and he paid at the affixed time. If the plaintiff claims within the time frame and the defendant responds that he paid back and the plaintiff then makes another claim after the time frame and the defendant now says I paid you back, the defendant is established as a liar and is not believed. There are those that say that we only say this presumption by a loan. If, however, the money was deposited in the defendant’s possession and he is using the deposit on behalf of others, the money has the status of any other deposit and the defendant can say he returned it, even within the time frame that was set. A rental has the status of a loan and is only paid back at the conclusion and thus the renter is not believed to say he paid back within the time frame. However, if the defendant hired a scribe to write a book of many sections, each section would immediately obtain its own time frame. The same applies to any similar work that can be split up.
Paragraph 2- If the defendant died within the time frame and the lender is attempting to collect the loan (from third-party buyers) with a document, according to the Rambam he would not need to swear. There are that say that he would need to swear. If the borrower is alive and says he paid back, there are those that say that the lender would be required to swear that he did not pay back and he can then collect. There are those that say that he would not be required to swear, and this is the primary view.
Paragraph 3-If the plaintiff made a claim on the date the time frame had completed and the defendant says he paid back today and the loan was an oral loan, the defendant is believed with a heses oath because people do pay back on the date the time frame is complete. If the loan was documented, the case would have the same status as a documented loan without an affixed time.
Paragraph 4- There are those that say that this that we said that when on the date the time frame has completed the defendant says he paid back today and is believed is only where the plaintiff made the claim at the end of the day. Before the end of the day, however, the defendant is not believed. Where the defendant says at the end of the day I paid back within the time frame he is believed with a migu that he paid back today. There are those that say we only say one paid back on the date of completion where the defendant himself makes the claim. We would not make this claim, however, for the defendant’s orphans.
Paragraph 5- If the plaintiff made the claim after the time frame had completed or at the end of the day of completion and the defendant says he paid back at the set time, the borrower would take a heses oath and be exempt.
Paragraph 6- If the defendant died within the time frame and his inheritors produce a writing from the defendant stating that he paid back the entire debt owed to Reuven prior to his passing, the ruling is explained in Siman 71. See later 84:2 and 85:1.
Paragraph 7-If one has a document against his counterparty with a specific date for repayment and the document was misplaced and he makes a claim within the time frame and similarly, if a third party produces the document and this lender is making a claim within the time frame and the defendant claims that he had repaid the document and dropped it, we would not use the principle that a person does not pay back within the time frame as is written in Siman 41.
Paragraph 8-This that we say there is a presumption that a person does not repay within the time frame is only where a specific time has been set. With respect to a standard loan, however, although its time frame is 30 days, the borrower is believed to say he repaid within the 30 days.