Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/86

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Paragraph 1- If Reuven lent Shimon 100 and Shimon lent 100 to Levi, we would take from Levi and give to Reuven, regardless of whether Levi had owed Shimon at the time Shimon borrowed from Reuven or he only owed Shimon subsequent to the loan. There is no distinction between a documented loan and an oral loan because each party admits to his respective loan. We would take from Levi and give to Reuven in any situation where Levi owed Shimon, whether it was because of a loan that he lent him, through a business transaction or via a rental. If Reuven has collateral from a gentile and the gentile owes Shimon money, there are those that say Shimon is able to redeem the collateral from Reuven, Shimon would give the principal and interest that is on it and Reuven can collect his debt from the remainder. This seems to me to be correct considering that the gentile will not pay back in any other fashion and Shimon has any right the gentile has. Although there are those that disagree on this point, it seems appropriate to rule as I have written.

Paragraph 2- When is this true? Where the Shimon did not have property to pay back with and the court set out the borrower’s properties and made him swear and they only found this debt even though he may have properties in another country. If, however, he has properties in this country, the court would not take from Levi to give to Reuven.

Paragraph 3- Even in a situation where Shimon does not have property, Reuven cannot force Shimon to make a claim against Levi and collect from him because that burden is not Shimon’s responsibility. Rather, it is on Reuven to make the effort to take the money from Levi.

Paragraph 4- There are those that say that if the item in Levi’s possession is money that was deposited, the court can take possession of them and force Levi to pay Reuven, because any borrower that has money cannot tell the lender to take land.

Paragraph 4- Shimon cannot waive the debt to Levi nor give him more time to pay because the rights that Shimon has on Levi has been removed and Levi is now obligated to Reuven. Similarly, if Shimon says the document was given on trust or was paid back, he is not believed to cause a loss to Reuven. If after Levi was obligated to Reuven in court, he went and paid Shimon, he must pay again to Reuven. One who refuses to go to court or went to court, was found liable and does not want to perform the court’s instructions and the court claimed the refuser’s money that was in a third party’s possession and the guardian did not listen to the court’s ruling and he returned the money to the refuser and the lender does not have what to collect, the guardian is required to pay the lender the money he returned to the refuser.

Paragraph 6- Even if Reuven objected to Levi repaying Shimon, Reuven would not be considered the possessor because Levi is not obligated to Reuven via “Rav Nosson” until it has been made clear in court that Shimon owed Reuven.

Paragraph 7- If Shimon died, survived by his inheritors, and Levi claims the loan was repaid, the inheritors would take the inheritor-oath and collect from Levi. If Reuven’s loan was documented, he may collect that money from the inheritors with an oath. If the inheritors do not want to swear, Reuven would go after the inheritors if the inheritors have other properties. If the inheritors do not have other properties and claim that they are unable to take this oath, they would take a heses oath that they do not have in their possession with what to pay the deceased’s debt.

Paragraph 8- If Reuven lent Shimon orally and Shimon lent Levi with a document and Levi sold all of his properties and Reuven comes to collect from the buyers via the document that Shimon has against Levi and Shimon admits to Reuven that he has not paid back, the buyers cannot push Reuven away by saying that Shimon had paid back and we don’t believe his admission. Rather, since Shimon had confessed, Reuven may collect from them.

Paragraph 9- If Reuven had a loan document against Shimon and Shimon had a loan document against his brother, Levi, and Reuven comes to collect from Levi and Levi says my brother did me a favor and lent me in order to assist me and he made a condition with me that he will not force me to pay back until I am willing, even if the court determines that there is some truth to his claim, Reuven would be able to collect from Levi if the condition was not explicitly in the document. If one has a gentile’s or irreligious idol worshipper’s collateral in his possession and they owe others who come to take away the collateral from the possessor and the possessor says he is afraid that the gentile or irreligious individual will collect from him if he were to have their property taken from him, the possessor is in the right.