diff --git "a/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/merged.json" "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/merged.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Halakhah/Mishneh Torah/Sefer Mishpatim/Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor/English/merged.json" @@ -0,0 +1,376 @@ +{ + "title": "Mishneh Torah, Creditor and Debtor", + "language": "en", + "versionTitle": "merged", + "versionSource": "https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah,_Creditor_and_Debtor", + "text": [ + [ + "It is a positive commandment to lend money to the poor among Israel, as Exodus 23:24 states: \"If you will lend money to My nation, to the poor among you.\" Lest one think that this is a matter left to the person's choice, it is also stated Deuteronomy 15:8: \"You shall certainly loan to him.\"
This mitzvah surpasses the mitzvah of charity given to a poor person who asks for alms. For the latter person had already been compelled to ask, and this one has not yet sunk that low. Indeed, the Torah is very severe with regard to a person who does not lend money to a poor person, stating Ibid.:9: \"Beware lest there be a defiant thought in your heart... and you look badly upon your poor brother and you not give him.\"", + "Whenever a person presses a poor person for payment when he knows that he does not have the means to repay the debt, he transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\" It is, by contrast, a positive mitzvah to press a gentile for payment and to cause him exasperation, as Deuteronomy 15:3 states: \"Press a gentile for payment.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we have learned that this is a positive commandment.", + "It is forbidden for one to appear before a person who owes him money when he knows that the debtor does not have the means to repay the debt. It is even forbidden to pass before him, lest one frighten him or embarrass him, even though one does not demand payment. Needless to say, this applies if he demands payment.
Just as it is forbidden for a creditor to demand payment; so, too, it is forbidden for a borrower to withhold money that he possesses due a colleague, telling him: \"Go and return,\" as Proverbs 3:28 states: \"Do not tell your colleague: 'Go and return.'\"
Similarly, it is forbidden for a borrower to take a loan and use it when it is unnecessary and lose it, leaving his creditor without a source to collect the debt. This applies even if the owner is very wealthy. A person who acts in this way is wicked, as Psalms 37:21 states: \"A wicked man borrows and does not pay.\" Our Sages commanded: \"Treat money belonging to your colleague as dearly as your own.\"", + "When a lender demands payment of a loan - even if he is wealthy and the borrower is in a pressing situation and struggles to support his family - we are not merciful in judgment. Instead, we expropriate all the movable property\" that the person owns to pay the last penny of the debt. If the movable property he owns is not sufficient, we expropriate the landed property after issuing a ban of ostracism against any person who possesses movable property or knows of movable property he possesses and does not bring it to court.
We expropriate all the landed property the borrower possesses, even if it is on lien to the ketubah of the borrower's wife or to another creditor with a prior lien. We expropriate it for this creditor. If ultimately, the person with the prior lien will come to claim the property, he may expropriate it from the creditor to whom it was given.
If the lender claims that the movable property in his domain does not belong to him, but instead was entrusted to him, rented by him, or lent to him, we do not heed his words. He must prove his statements or the property will be expropriated by the creditor.", + "A creditor may not collect his due by expropriating the wardrobe of the debtor's wife or his sons, not from colored garments that were dyed for them even though they have not worn them yet, nor from new sandals that were purchased for them. These belong to the wife and the children themselves. When does the above apply? With regard to their weekday garments. The creditor may, by contrast, expropriate their Sabbath and festival garments. Needless to say, if they own rings or golden or silver ornaments, they must all be given to the creditor.", + "The following rules apply when a borrower owned movable property or landed property, but also had outstanding promissory notes owed to gentiles. If he says: \"All of my property is on lien to gentiles; if Jews take the property as payment for their debts, the gentiles will imprison me because of the debts I owe them, and I will be in captivity,\" my teachers have ruled that his words are not heeded, and the Jews are granted the right to expropriate his property. If the gentiles come and imprison him, all of Israel is commanded to redeem him.", + "We allow a debtor consideration in the same manner that consideration is granted to a person who makes a pledge to the Temple treasury and is unable to pay it.
What is implied? The court tells the borrower: \"Bring all the movable property that you own; don't leave anything, not even a needle.\"
After he brings his possessions, we give him from everything that he has brought:
a) food for 30 days;
b) clothing for 12 months that is appropriate for him - he should not wear silk clothes or a hat crowned with gold; instead, such garments are taken away from him and he is given appropriate garments for 12 months;
c) a couch to sit on and a bed and a mattress to sleep on; if he is a poor man, he is given a bed and a straw mattress to sleep on. These articles are not given to his wife or to his children, despite the fact that he is obligated to provide them with sustenance.
The borrower is also given his sandals and his tefillin. If he is a craftsman, he is given two of the tools of his craft of every type necessary. For example, if he is a carpenter, he is given two awls and two planes. If he has many types of one utensil and only one of another, he is granted two of the utensil of which he possesses many, and all that he owns of that he possesses one. We do not purchase other tools for him from the sale of those many tools.
Although the borrower is a farmer or a donkey driver, we do not grant him his team of oxen or his donkey. Similarly, if he is a sailor, we do not give him his ship, even though these are his only sources of livelihood. The rationale is that these articles are not considered utensils, but rather property. They should be sold with the other movable property in court and the proceeds given to the creditor.", + "The following law applies when a creditor comes to expropriate payment outside the presence of the borrower - e.g., the borrower journeyed to a distant country. If the borrower's wife seized possession of movable property belonging to her husband to sell so that she could derive her livelihood from it, it is expropriated from her and given to the creditor. The rationale is that even if her husband were present, he would not be entitled to provide for the sustenance of his wife and sons until he paid his debt in its entirety." + ], + [ + "According to Scriptural Law, when a creditor demands payment of his debt, and the debtor possesses some property, consideration is granted to the debtor and the remainder of the possessions are granted to the creditor, as explained.
If no property belonging to the debtor is found or only those items that are granted to him in consideration are found, the debtor is enabled to go free.
We do not imprison him, nor do we tell him: \"Bring proof that you are poor.\" We do not require him to take an oath that he has no possessions as the gentile legal process does. All of the above is included in the prohibition (Exodus 22:24 : \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\" Instead, we tell the creditor: \"If you know that this person who owes you money possesses property, go and seize it.\"", + "If the creditor claims that the debtor possesses property, but is hiding it, and it is present within his home, according to law it is not proper for either the creditor or an agent of the court to enter his home to seize the property. Indeed, the Torah warned concerning this saying Deuteronomy 24:11: \"Stand outside.\" We do, however, issue a ban of ostracism against anyone who owns property and does not give it to his creditor.
When, however, the Geonim of the early generations who arose after the compilation of the Talmud saw that the number of deceitful people had increased and the possibility of obtaining loans was diminishing, they ordained that a debtor who claims bankruptcy should be required to take a severe oath, comparable to a Scriptural oath, administered while he is holding a sacred article, that he does not possess any property aside from what he is given in consideration, that he has not hidden his property in the hands of others, or given the property to others as a present with the intent that it be returned.
He should include in the oath that any profit he makes and everything that comes into his possession or domain which he acquires, he will not use to provide sustenance, clothing, or care for his wife or children, that he will not give any person in the world a present. Instead, he will take from everything that he earns food for 30 days and clothing for 12 months that is appropriate for him - not the food of gluttons or drunkards, nor that enjoyed by the sons of royalty, and not the garments of the officers of the royal court, but food and clothing that is commonplace for him. Anything beyond his needs, he should give to his creditor little by little until he pays his entire debt. Before the oath is administered, a ban of ostracism is issued against anyone who knows that so and so possesses property that is either revealed or hidden and does not inform the court.
Even after this oath was ordained, neither a creditor nor an agent of the court is allowed to enter the house of the debtor. For an ordinance was not instituted to uproot the Torah's laws themselves. Instead, the debtor himself must bring out his utensils or say: \"This and this is what I possess.\" We leave him what is appropriate for him, expropriate the rest and have him take the oath ordained as described above. This is the legal process among the Jewish community in all places.
If the debtor was seen with property after having taken this oath, and he tries to excuse himself, claiming that it belongs to others or that it was given to him as an investment, we do not accept his statements unless he brings proof. My teachers ruled in this manner.", + "When a person takes this oath that he is bankrupt and all that he earns will be given to his creditors, he may not be required to take this same oath by all of his creditors. Instead, one oath applies to all the creditors. The rationale is that this is an ordinance instituted by the later sages, and we are not precise in applying it stringently. On the contrary, we are lenient.", + "An exception to the above practice is made with regard to a person who has established a reputation for being poor and virtuous, and conducts himself in a trustworthy manner, and this is known to the judges and the majority of the people. If a creditor comes and seeks to make this person take the oath mentioned above, and it can be presumed that the plaintiff has no doubt about the debtor's state of poverty, but instead wishes to cause him exasperation with this oath, to torment him and to embarrass him publicly, to take revenge upon him or to force him to borrow money from gentiles or take property belonging to his wife to pay this creditor and absolve himself from taking this oath, it appears to me that it is forbidden for a God-fearing judge to have this oath administered. If he does administer this oath, he violates the Scriptural prohibition: \"Do not act as a creditor toward him.\"
Moreover, the judge should reproach the creditor and castigate him, for he is bearing a grudge and acting according to the reckless whims of his heart. Our Sages instituted this ordinance only because of deceitful people, as implied by Deuteronomy 22:2: \"Until your brother seeks it out,\" which can be interpreted to mean: Seek out whether your brother is deceitful or not. In this instance, since it is established knowledge that this person is poor and that he is not deceitful, it is forbidden to require him to take this oath.
Similarly, when it is established knowledge that a person is deceitful and he deals corruptly in financial matters, we presume that he possesses financial resources although he claims to be bankrupt, and he is eager to take this oath. I maintain that it is not appropriate to require him to take the oath. Instead, if it is possible for the judge to compel him to make restitution to his creditor or to place him under a ban of ostracism until he makes restitution, he should do so. The rationale is that he is presumed to possess financial resources, and paying a creditor is a mitzvah.
The general principle is: Whenever a judge performs one of these activities with the sole intent of pursuing justice, as we have been commanded to, without intending to favor either of the litigants in judgment, he has that authority, and he will receive a reward for his efforts, provided that they are carried out for the sake of heaven.", + "Whenever a person is obligated to take this oath because of a promissory note that he is liable for, he admitted owing money to other people, and he was able to amass more property than the minimum amount allotted to him, this extra amount should be given only to the creditors who possess promissory notes. The rationale is that we suspect that the debtor may be conspiring to perpetrate deception by making an admission of a debt concerning this property.", + "When Reuven owes Shimon 100 zuz and Levi owes Reuven 100 zuz, we should expropriate the money from Levi and give it to Shimon.
Therefore, if Reuven does not possess any property, but has promissory notes owed to him by Levi, those promissory notes are given to Shimon to collect. Accordingly, if Levi claims that the promissory note was given on faith or that it had already been paid, even though Reuven acknowledges the truth of Levi's statement, his admission is of no consequence. The rationale is that we fear that they may be conspiring to perpetrate deception to cause Shimon to lose his right to the money owed by Levi. Instead, Shimon may take an oath and expropriate the money from Levi. This is the law that applies to anyone who expropriates property; he may do so only after taking an oath.
Similarly, the following law applies to any person against whom there is an outstanding promissory note, who admits owing money to another person on his own initiative. If he does not possess enough property to pay both debts, the person with the promissory note alone is entitled to collect his due. This is ordained, because we suspect that they may be conspiring to perpetrate deception to undermine the power of the person's promissory note.", + "It is forbidden for one to lend money - even to a Torah scholar - without having witnesses observe the transaction unless the lender receives an article as collateral. It is even more commendable to have the loan supported by a promissory note.
Whenever a person gives a loan without having witnesses observe the transaction, he transgresses the prohibition (Leviticus 19:14 : \"Do not place a stumbling block before the blind\" and brings a curse upon himself.", + "When a master borrows money from his servant and afterwards frees him, he is not liable to him at all. The same laws apply when a husband borrows from his wife. The rationales are that everything that a servant acquires becomes acquired by his master, and any money that is in a woman's possession is assumed to belong to her husband, unless she brings proof that it comes from her dowry." + ], + [ + "Collateral may not be taken from a widow, whether she is rich or poor, whether it is taken at the time the loan is given, or after the time the loan is given, as Deuteronomy 24:17 states: \"You shall not take the garment of a widow as collateral.\" This prohibition applies even when the court would supervise the matter.
If a creditor takes such collateral, it must be returned, even against his will. If the widow admits the debt, she must pay. If she denies its existence, she must take an oath. If the security the creditor took became lost or was consumed by fire before he returns it, he is punished by lashes.", + "Similarly, whenever a person lends money to a colleague - whether he offers the loan in exchange for collateral, he takes collateral after the loan was given, or the collateral was given him by the court - he should not take utensils that are used for making food - e.g., a mill, kneading troughs, large cooking pots, a knife used for ritual slaughter or the like - as Deuteronomy 24:6 says: \"Do not take as collateral... for one is taking a life as collateral.\"
If a creditor takes such collateral, it must be returned, even against his will. If the security he took became lost or was consumed by fire before the creditor returns it, he is punished by lashes.", + "When a person takes several utensils that are used to produce food - e.g., he took a kneading trough, a pot and a knife - he is liable for each utensil independently. Even if he took two utensils that are used for the same activity, he is liable for taking two utensils and is given lashes for taking each of them.
This is implied by the verse cited above, which mentions taking \"a lower millstone and an upper millstone.\" This indicates that he is liable for each of the millstones independently. Just as the upper millstone and the lower millstone are two utensils that serve a single purpose, and the person is liable for each one independently; so, too, a person is liable for any other two utensils independently even though they serve the same purpose. Similarly, if he takes as collateral a yoke for oxen that plow, he is liable for two transgressions.", + "When a person gives a loan to a colleague - whether the borrower is rich or poor - he should not take security himself. Instead, he should charge the court with this responsibility.
Moreover, even an agent of the court who comes to collect security should not enter the borrower's house to collect the security. Instead, he should stand outside. The borrower should go into his own house and bring out the security for him, as Deuteronomy 24:11 states: \"You shall stand outside.\"
If so, one might ask: What is the difference between the creditor himself and the agent of the court? The agent of the court may take the security from the borrower by force and give it to the lender. The creditor himself, by contrast, may not take the security unless it is willingly given him by the borrower.
If the creditor transgressed and entered the house of the borrower and took security, or took collateral away from him by force, he is not punished by lashes. The rationale is that the prohibition can be corrected by the performance of a positive commandment, as Ibid.: 13 states: \"You shall certainly return the security to him before the setting of the sun.\"
If he did not fulfill the positive commandment concerning it - e.g., the collateral became lost or was consumed by fire - he is punished by lashes. In such an instance, the creditor should calculate the value of the collateral, subtract it from the debt, and lodge a suit for the remainder.", + "When a person takes collateral from a colleague, whether through the medium of the court, or he personally takes it from him either by force or by consent of the lender he is not always entitled to maintain possession. If the borrower is poor and the creditor took as collateral an article that the borrower needs, he is commanded to return the collateral to the borrower at the time that the borrower needs it. For example, he should return a pillow at night for him to sleep on it and a plow during the day for him to work with. This is implied by Deuteronomy 24:13: \"You must certainly return the collateral.\"
If the creditor transgressed and did not return to him a utensil to be used by day during the day, or a utensil to be used at night during the night, he transgresses a negative commandment, as ibid.:12 states: \"Do not sleep with his collateral.\" This means: \"Do not go to sleep while his collateral is in your possession\"; this refers to a garment worn at night. With regard to articles that he wears or uses to perform work during the day, Exodus 22:25 states: \"Until the setting of the sun, return it to him\" - this teaches that he must return it to him throughout the day.
If the creditor must return the collateral to the debtor when he needs it, and may take it only when he does not need it, of what benefit is the collateral to him?
a) So that the debt will not be nullified in the Sabbatical year;
b) So that the collateral will not be considered part of the movable property inherited by the debtor's sons. Instead, the creditor may take payment from the collateral after the borrower dies.
Thus, a person who takes an object as collateral from a poor person who needs it and fails to return it at the appropriate time violates three commandments: \"You shall not enter his house,\" \"You must certainly return the collateral,\" and \"Do not sleep with his collateral.\"
When does the above apply? When he took the collateral at a time other than the time the loan was given. If, however, he took the collateral from the debtor at the time the loan was given, he does not transgress these prohibitions.", + "An agent of the court who comes to take collateral should not take articles that a person cannot give as collateral - e.g., the garment he is wearing, the utensils with which he eats, or the like. He should leave a bed and a mattress for a rich man, or a bed and a straw mattress for a poor man. Whatever possessions the debtor has besides these should be taken as collateral. The creditor will then return to him an article used by day during the day, and an article used at night during the night.
If the debtor has two of a particular article, the creditor may take one, but must return the other.
Until when is the creditor obligated to return the collateral and then take it again? Forever. If, however, the collateral was an article that the debtor did not need, nor an article that is left for a debtor, the creditor must keep it for 30 days. Afterwards, he may sell the collateral in a court of law.
If the debtor dies, the creditor is not required to return the collateral to his sons. If the debtor dies after the collateral was returned to him, the creditor may pull it away from his sons and does not have to return it to them.", + "A creditor may take collateral from a guarantor by force. He may enter the guarantor's house and take the collateral, as Proverbs 20:16 states: \"Take his garment, because he guaranteed a stranger.\"
Similarly, a person who is owed a fee by a colleague - whether it be his own wages, a fee for his animal or his utensils, or rent for his house - may take collateral without consulting the court. He may enter his home and take collateral in lieu of his fee. If, however, he considered the fee as a loan, this is forbidden, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:10: \"When you extend a loan of any type....\"", + "The following rules apply with regard to a person who has in his possession collateral belonging to a poor person. If the fee for the rental of that article is more than the depreciation of the collateral - e.g., an ax, a large saw, or the like - it is permitted for him to rent it out and continually deduct the money he receives as its fee. This is like returning a lost object to its owner. He need not ask the owner for permission." + ], + [ + "Neshech and marbit are one in the same, as Leviticus 25:37 states: \"Do not give him your money with neshech and do not put forth your food at marbit.\" And further on, Deuteronomy 23:20 speaks of: \"Neshech from money, neshech from food, neshech from any substance that will accrue.\"
Why is interest called neshech? Because it bites. It causes pain to one's colleague and consumes his flesh. Why did the Torah refer to it with two terms? So that one would commit a twofold transgression when violating this prohibition.", + "Just as it is forbidden to give a loan at interest; so, too, it is forbidden to borrow at interest, as Deuteronomy, ibid., states: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" According to the Oral Tradition, we learned that this is a warning to the borrower.
Similarly, it is forbidden to act as a broker between the borrower and the lender when interest is involved. Anyone involved, a guarantor, a scribe or a witness transgresses a negative commandment, as Exodus 22:24 states: \"Do not lay interest upon him.\" This is a warning against the witnesses, the guarantor and the scribe.
Thus, we see that a person who offers a loan at interest violates six prohibitions:
\"Do not act like a creditor toward him,\" \"Do not give him your money with neshech\" \"Do not put forth your food at marbit\" \"Do not take neshech and tarbit from him\" (Leviticus 25:36 , \"Do not lay interest upon him,\" and \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\" (Leviticus 19:14 .
A person who borrows at interest violates two prohibitions: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\"
The guarantor, the witnesses and the like violate only the prohibition: \"Do not lay interest upon him.\" Any broker who connects between the lender and the borrower or assists or instructs one of them with regard to making the loan transgresses the commandment: \"Do not place a stumbling block in front of the blind\"", + "Although the lender and the borrower violate all the negative commandments mentioned above, they are not punished with lashes, because the interest must be returned. For whenever a person gives a loan at interest, if fixed interest is involved, it is forbidden by Scriptural Law and may be expropriated through legal process. The judges expropriate it from the lender and return it to the borrower. If the lender dies, it is not expropriated from his children's possessions.", + "When a father leaves his sons money obtained by taking interest, they are not obligated to return it, even though they know that it was obtained through interest. If, however, he leaves them a cow, a garment or any other specific article obtained through interest, they are obligated to return it as an expression of honor for their father.
When does the above apply? When their father repented, but was not able to return the article before he died. If, however, he did not repent, the sons need not be concerned with his honor. They are not required to return even a specific article.", + "When robbers and people who lend money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This will make the path of teshuvah more accessible to them. Whoever accepts repayment from them is not looked upon favorably by our Sages. If, however, the stolen article itself was intact or a specific article was given as interest, and it itself is there, it may be accepted.", + "When interest - whether fixed interest or interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - is mentioned in a promissory note, the lender may collect the principal, but not the interest. If he collected the entire amount, any fixed interest can be expropriated from him. \"The shade of interest\" - i.e., interest forbidden by Rabbinic law - may not be collected from the borrower by the lender, nor is it expropriated by the court from the lender for the borrower.", + "Whenever a person writes a promissory note that includes interest, it is as if he documents and has witnesses testify that he denies God, the Lord of Israel. Similarly, whenever a person borrows or lends money at interest in privacy he denies God, the Lord of Israel, and denies the exodus from Egypt, as Leviticus 25:37-38 states: \"Do not give him your money with neshech... I am God your Lord, who took you out of the land of Egypt.\"", + "It is forbidden for a person to borrow money from his sons or the members of his household at interest. This is forbidden even when he is not tightfisted and he is merely giving them a present. The rationale is that in doing so, he might habituate them to this practice.", + "When Torah scholars lend money to one another and the borrower returns more than the amount loaned him, it is permitted. It is obvious that the extra amount was only a present that he gave him. For they know the severity of the prohibition against taking interest.", + "The following laws apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower discovers more than the sum originally agreed upon, or the borrower returned a debt and the lender discovers more than the sum that was borrowed. If the additional amount was a sum about which a person might easily err, it must be returned. If not, we can assume that the borrower gave the lender a present, he had stolen property belonging to the lender in his possession and sought to return it together in the account without the lender being aware, or another person asked him to return money in such a manner.
What can be considered a sum about which a person might easily err? One, two, five or ten more. The latter figures are included, for perhaps the person counted out the sum in groups of five or ten.
Similarly, if the person found that a group of five or a group of ten had an additional one, he must return the extra amount. Maybe an additional one with which he was counting became mixed with a group of five or ten.", + "The following laws apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, or stipulates in his wife's ketubah that a sum should be paid to her in a particular coinage, and then the ruling authorities increase the weight of that coinage. When the value of produce was reduced because of the increase, he should deduct the proportion of the increase, even if the increase was minimal. If, however, the value of produce is not reduced because of the addition, he need not deduct that proportion. Instead, he should pay him the coin used as currency at that time.
When does the above apply? When the addition was one fifth of its value -e.g., its weight was four units and it was increased to five. If, however, more than a fifth was added, he should deduct the entire proportionate amount of the increase, even though the price of produce did not increase. Similar laws apply with regard to a loan when the weight of a coin was decreased.", + "The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague according to a particular coinage, and that coinage is disqualified by the ruling authorities. If the lender could use the disqualified coin as legal tender in another country, and the lender has a way of getting to that country, the borrower may repay him in the coinage that he lent him, telling him: \"Go and use it in such and such a place.\" If the lender does not have a way of getting there, the borrower must repay him in the coinage that is legal tender at that time. Similar laws apply with regard to a ketubah.", + "Some of the Geonim have ruled that when a borrower forgoes the interest a lender charged or will charge on his behalf, his statements are of no consequence, even though he affirms his waiver with a kinyan or gives it as a present. Their rationale is that whenever interest is given, the borrower is waiving his rights. The Torah, however, does not accept this waiver and forbids it. Therefore, one cannot waive interest, even interest forbidden merely by Rabbinic Law on behalf of the lender.
It appears to me that this ruling is incorrect. Instead, since the lender is told to return the interest, and he knows that he violated a prohibition, and the borrower has the right to collect the money, if the borrower desires to waive the obligation to return the interest he may, just as a person may waive the return of a stolen article. Indeed, our Sages explicitly stated that when robbers and people who lent money at interest seek to return the money they took, we should not receive it from them. This indicates that the waiver of the obligation to return the interest is effective.", + "It is permitted to give property belonging to orphans to a faithful person who has valuable properties to offer as security, in an arrangement that is likely to lead to profit and unlikely to lead to loss.
What is implied? The court tells the person: \"Do business with their property. If there is a profit, give them a portion of the profit. If there is a loss, suffer the loss yourself.\" This is \"the shade of interest.\" Nevertheless, \"the shade of interest\" is forbidden only because of a Rabbinic decree, and our Sages did not apply their decree to property belonging to orphans." + ], + [ + "One may lend money to and borrow money from a gentile and a resident alien at interest, as implied by Deuteronomy 23:20: \"Do not offer interest to your brother.\" We may infer: Offering - and taking - interest from \"your brother\" is prohibited; from people at large, by contrast, it is permitted.
It is a positive mitzvah to lend money to a gentile at interest, as Ibid:21 states: \"You may offer interest to a gentile.\" The Oral Tradition teaches that this is a positive commandment. This is the Scriptural Law.", + "Our Sages, however, forbade a Jew from lending money to a gentile at a fixed rate of interest beyond what is necessary for him to earn his livelihood. They enacted this decree lest the lender learn from the gentile's deeds as a result of the large extent of his contact with him. Therefore even according to the Sages, it is permitted to borrow money from a gentile at interest, for the Jew will flee from him, and will not frequent his company.
Torah scholars will not learn from a gentile's conduct. Hence, it is permitted for them to lend money to a gentile at interest, even to make a profit. Any transactions in the category of \"the shade of interest\" that involve gentiles are permitted for everyone.", + "The following law applies when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest, and when he seeks to return it to him another Jew meets him and tells him: \"Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the gentile.\" This is forbidden, even if the original borrower brings the other Jew to the gentile. Instead, the gentile must take back his money and then give it as a loan to the other Jew.", + "When, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and desires to return it to him, and another Jew meets the gentile and tells him: \"Give it to me and I will pay you the rate of interest that you pay the other Jew,\" this is permitted. If, however, the gentile brought the Jewish borrower to the Jewish lender and informed him of the loan, this is considered fixed interest, for he gave the money with the knowledge of the Jewish lender. This applies even if the gentile gave the Jewish borrower the money.", + "It is forbidden for a Jew to entrust his money to a gentile so that he can lend them to a Jew at interest.
When a gentile loans money to a Jew at interest, it is forbidden for another Jew to serve as a guarantor. The rationale is that according to their laws, the lender may demand payment from the guarantor first. Thus, after paying the debt, the guarantor will demand payment for the interest that he is obligated to the gentile. Hence, if the gentile makes a commitment not to demand payment from the guarantor first, it is permitted.", + "The following laws apply when a Jew borrowed money from a gentile at interest and then the gentile converted. If a reckoning was made before he converted, the convert may collect the principal and the interest. If a reckoning was not made until after he converted, the convert may collect the principal, but not the interest.
Different rules apply when, by contrast, a gentile borrows money from a Jew at interest and then converts. After a reckoning is made, even if it was made after the conversion, the convert is required to pay the entire sum, the principal and the interest. This measure was instituted lest people say that the person converted for the sake of his money. Even after he converted, the Jew can collect the entire sum of interest for which he became liable while he was a gentile.", + "It is a mitzvah to lend money to a Jew without charge before lending money to a gentile at interest.", + "It is forbidden for a person to invest his money in a manner where his share in the profit is great and his share in the eventuality of loss is minimal. This is considered \"the shade of interest.\" A person who makes such investments is considered \"wicked.\"
If a person makes such an investment, the profits and the losses are divided according to the laws governing a hetter iska. A person who invests his money in a manner where his share in the profit is minimal and his share in the eventuality of loss is great is considered pious.", + "We may not appoint a person as a storekeeper in return for half of the profits, nor may one entrust a person with money to buy produce in return for half of the profits, nor may one buy eggs to place under another person's chickens in return for half of the profits, nor may one evaluate calves and young donkeys and then have them fattened in return for half of the profits.
These arrangements are permitted only when the investor pays the manager a wage for his efforts and reimbursement for the upkeep of the animals, or grants the manager a greater share of the profits than his share in the event of a loss, as we explained with regard to partnerships.", + "When a person enters into a partnership arrangement with a colleague, entrusting him with money or with land, or making an iska agreement, he should not include the profit together with the principal as a single sum in the promissory note, lest there be no profit and this lead to interest.
Similarly, a person should not give a colleague money as an iska or in a partnership, but have a promissory note written as if it were a loan. This is prohibited lest he die and the promissory note be given to his heir, who will use it to collect interest.", + "It is forbidden to pay interest before taking a loan or to pay it afterwards. What is implied? If a person thought about receiving a loan from a colleague and sent him presents so that he would grant him the loan, this is considered to be paying interest before giving a loan. If he took a loan from him and returned the debt, and then sent the lender a present for the fact that his money was in his possession without his receiving any benefit, this is considered as paying interest afterwards. If one transgresses and does this, this is \"the shade of interest.\"", + "When a person who borrowed money from a colleague would not ordinarily greet him first, it is forbidden for him to greet him first. Needless to say, it is forbidden for him to praise the lender in public or go to his home. These prohibitions are derived from the phrase Deuteronomy 23:20: \"All types of neshech\"; even words are forbidden.
Similarly, it is forbidden for the borrower to teach the lender Scripture or Talmud throughout the duration of the loan if the borrower was not accustomed to doing so previously, as implied by the phrase: \"All types of interest.\"", + "When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not tell the borrower: \"Take notice if so and so from this and this place comes.\" Implied is that the borrower should honor him and provide him with food and drink as is appropriate. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "There are practices that resemble interest, but which are permitted. What is implied? A person may purchase a promissory note from a colleague for less than its face value without any concern. A person may give a colleague a dinar so that he will lend a third party 100 dinarim. The rationale is that the Torah forbade only interest given by the borrower to the lender.
Similarly, a person may tell a colleague: \"Here is a dinar. Tell so and so to give me a loan.\" This is permitted, because he gave him a wage only for making the suggestion.", + "There are certain matters that are permitted, and yet are forbidden because they are ha'aramat ribit (a circumvention of the prohibition against interest).
What is implied? The borrower tells the lender: \"Lend me a maneh.\" The lender answers: \"I do not have a maneh. I have wheat worth a maneh,\" and he gave him the wheat for a maneh and then purchased it from him for 90 zuz. This is permitted, but it was forbidden by the Sages as a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For he gave him 90 and received a maneh.
If the lender transgressed and carried out these transactions, the lender may expropriate 100 zuz from the borrower through legal process, because even \"the shade of interest\" is not involved. Similarly, if a field was given as security for a loan, the lender may not rent it back to the owner of the field, because this is a circumvention of the prohibition against interest. For the borrower is receiving the field that he owned and paying the lender rent each month because he lent him money.", + "It is forbidden to hire out dinarim. This does not resemble hiring out other utensils. In the latter case, the same utensil that was hired out is returned, In this instance, however, the recipient spends the dinarim he receives and pays him back with others. Hence, \"the shade of interest\" is involved.", + "The following rules apply when a king has established a law that whoever pays the head tax imposed on every person for a particular person has the right to take control of that person and treat him as a serf. If a person pays a dinar as the tax for a particular person and then has him work for more than a dinar, this is permitted. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations." + ], + [ + "Whenever a person gives a loan to a colleague of a sela for five dinarim, two se'ah of wheat for three, a selah for a selah and a se'ah or three se'ah for three se'ah and a dinar, it is forbidden. The general principle is whenever there is a stipulation that any increase be made to a loan, interest forbidden by Scriptural Law is involved, and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person lends money to a colleague and makes a stipulation that he can live in the borrower's courtyard at no cost until he returns the loan, he rented the borrower's property for less than its fair value and established that this reduction would remain in force until he repaid the debt, or took as security property from which benefit can be derived at the time of the loan - e.g., the borrower gave the lender his courtyard as security with the intent that the lender dwell in it without charge - all the above are forms of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law and it may be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
Similarly, when a person sells a field or a courtyard through an asmachta, since the purchaser does not acquire the field itself, any produce that he consumes is interest and must be returned. Similar laws apply to any person who has not completed a transaction that is not fully binding at the outset. He must return all the produce. For if he consumes the produce, he will be taking interest according to Scriptural Law.
Any other matter forbidden as interest outside the above categories is prohibited by Rabbinic decree. These decrees were enforced lest this lead to the violation of interest forbidden by Scriptural Law. Interest forbidden by the Rabbis is called \"the shade of interest\" and may not be expropriated from the lender through legal process.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague, he should not take that colleague's servant to perform work for him even if the servant is sitting idly. He should not dwell in his courtyard without charge, even though this courtyard is not fit to be rented out and the owner does not ordinarily rent out his property. If the lender does dwell in it, he must pay rent to the owner/borrower. If he does not pay rent, it is considered as \"the shade of interest,\" because at the outset, he did not stipulate that if he makes the loan, he can dwell in his courtyard.
Therefore, the following rule applies if the borrower has not paid the debt and desires to deduct the rent for the courtyard in which the lender dwelled from the debt. If the rent is equivalent to the entire debt, he may not deduct the entire amount - only the sum that the judges specify. The rationale is that if the lender were sent away without receiving anything, it would be equivalent to expropriating the interest by the court. And \"the shade of interest\" is not expropriated by the court.", + "My teachers issued the following ruling when a person lends money to a colleague and afterwards demands payment of the debt. If the borrower tells the lender: \"Dwell in my courtyard until I repay the debt,\" it is considered as only \"the shade of interest.\" The rationale is that this condition was not specified at the time the loan was given, as can be inferred from Leviticus 25:37: \"Do not give him a loan with neshech.\"", + "The following rules apply when a person lends a colleague money and the borrower offers a field as security. Although the lender tells the borrower: \"If you do not return the debt to me within three years, the field belongs to me,\" he does not acquire it. The rationale is that the agreement is an asmachta and an asmachta is not binding. Accordingly, the lender must deduct all the produce he consumed from the sum of the loan. For consuming that produce is interest forbidden by Scriptural Law.
Different rules apply, however, if the seller/borrower tells the lender/purchaser: \"If I do not repay you within three years, acquire it retroactively from the present date.\" If the borrower brings the money to the lender within three years, the lender is not entitled to the produce. If he brings the money to the lender/purchaser after three years, all the produce belongs to the purchaser.", + "When a person sells a house or a field and tells the purchaser: \"When I obtain money, return the property to me,\" the purchaser does not acquire the field. All the produce that he consumes is considered as fixed interest and can be expropriated from him through legal process.
If, however, on his own initiative, the purchaser tells the seller: \"When you obtain money, I will return this field to you,\" it is permitted for him to do so. The purchaser may consume the produce until the seller returns his money.", + "The following laws apply when a person sells a field to a colleague and the purchaser pays a portion of the money to the seller. If the seller tells the purchaser: \"Acquire a portion of the property in proportion to the percentage of your payment,\" each of them is entitled to consume a share of the produce proportional to the percentage of the property he owns.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field retroactively to the present date,\" both of them are forbidden to benefit from the produce immediately. The seller is prohibited, lest the purchaser bring the remainder of the money and thus the field will belong to him from that date. Hence if the seller were to consume the produce, he would be receiving benefit from the money that the purchaser has yet to pay him.
Similarly, the purchaser is forbidden to benefit from the produce. The rationale is that perhaps he will not bring the remainder of the money and the transaction will be nullified. Thus, he will have benefited from the produce in consideration of the money he had given the seller. Therefore, the produce should be given to a third party until it is appropriate to give it to one of them.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"When you bring the remainder of the money, you will acquire the field,\" the seller is entitled to benefit from the produce until the purchaser brings the money. If the purchaser consumes the produce, its value should be expropriated from him.
If the seller tells the purchaser: \"Acquire the field at present and the remainder of the money is considered as a debt,\" the purchaser should benefit from the produce. If the seller consumes the produce, everything that he consumed should be expropriated from him.", + "My masters ruled that the following principle applies when a person lends money to a colleague and the borrower gives the lender his field as security with the intent that the lender benefit from the produce while he was holding it as security. Even though the lender does not deduct anything, this is considered merely \"the shade of interest,\" and cannot be expropriated from the lender through legal process.
The rationale is that giving a field as security is different from giving a house as security. Because produce is not located in the field at the time the loan is given. It is possible that the lender will profit, for produce will grow, and it is possible that he will lose when sowing and working the field. Therefore, it is \"the shade of interest.\"
Similarly, giving a field as security does not resemble selling a field under an asmachta. When a person sells under an asmachta, he does not resolve to make the sale. When he gives a field as security, by contrast, he resolves to sell the potential to benefit from the land.
Similarly, from the Talmud, it appears that a property given as security involves \"the shade of interest,\" and that can be understood only if we say that it refers to a person who gives a field as security, as my masters ruled.
Thus, there are three ways in which property can be given as security: security where taking benefit involves fixed interest, security where taking benefit involves the shade of interest and security where taking benefit is permitted.
What is implied? If a person gave a colleague a property where benefit is continually present, e.g., a courtyard, a bathhouse, or a store, as security, it is considered as fixed interest. If he gave him a field or the like as security and it produced profit from which he benefited, it is considered as \"the shade of interest.\"
If he gave him a courtyard or the like as security and made a deduction, it is considered as \"the shade of interest.\" If he gave him a field as security and made a deduction, it is permitted.
What is meant by \"making a deduction\"? A person lent a colleague 100 dinarim. The borrower gave him his courtyard or his field as security and the lender told the borrower: \"I will deduct a silver me'ah each year as rent for the property, so that I can receive all of the benefit from the courtyard,\" or the like, it is forbidden. If he gives a field or the like as security, it is permitted.", + "Some of the Geonim have ruled that whenever property is given as security and nothing is deducted, it is considered to be fixed interest. They did not penetrate to the depth of the matter to distinguish between a field and a courtyard. Therefore, the words of the Talmud appeared problematic to them.
Similarly, they ruled that it is always forbidden to give property as security without a deduction being made, whether for a courtyard or a field, except according to the following arrangement.
What is implied? The lender loaned the borrower 100 dinarim, took a house or a field as security, and stipulated that after ten years the property would return to its owners at no charge. The lender is permitted to benefit from the produce of the property for the entire ten years, even if ordinarily its rent would be 1000 dinarim a year. For in effect, what he is doing is renting it at a lower price.
Similarly, it is permitted if the owner of the field added a stipulation that whenever he brought the renter or lender money, he would deduct a rent of ten dinarim a year from the amount and leave the property. Similarly, it is permitted if the borrower added a stipulation that whenever he desired, he could calculate the time that the lender or renter dwelled in the property and pay him the remainder and then he would leave the property. The rationale is that it is a rental that is involved, and any stipulation involving a rental is binding and permitted, as explained previously." + ], + [ + "The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague, and the borrower gives the lender his field as security for a set time or until the borrower repays the lender, at which time, the lender will leave the field.
Although the lender benefits from all of the produce of the field, even if he consumes the entire value of the debt, he should not be removed from the field without any payment. The rationale is that if he were removed without payment, it would be as if one had expropriated money taken as \"the shade of interest\" through legal process. Needless to say, if the produce that the lender consumes is worth more than the money he gave, the difference should not be expropriated by him. Similarly, we do not calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note when property is given as security.
When the property given as security belongs to orphans, and the lender consumes an amount of produce equivalent to his debt, he is removed from the property without any payment. If, however, the lender's benefit exceeded the amount of the debt, we do not expropriate the additional amount from him. In the case of orphans, we may calculate from one promissory note to another promissory note.
What is meant by \"calculating from one promissory note to another promissory note\"? One field was given to a lender as security for a debt of 100 dinarim and another field was given to him as security for another debt for another 100 dinarim. If both fields belonged to the same person and the lender consumed produce worth 50 from one field and produce worth 150 from the other field, we tell him: \"You already consumed 200 dinarim worth of produce; you are not owed anything more.\" For it is as if the two debts were one debt and security given for the entire sum as one.", + "In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, it is as if this stipulation were explicitly stated. It is not necessary to make an explicit statement. Conversely, in a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until the conclusion of the term for which the property was given as security, it is as if this stipulation was explicitly stated.
Whenever a person gives property as security without specifying a term for the loan, he cannot remove the lender from the property until at least twelve months pass.", + "Even in a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower desires to pay the debt, that custom can be superseded by an explicit condition. If a lender makes a stipulation that the borrower will not remove him from the property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, the borrower cannot pay the debt earlier and have him removed from the property.
In a place where it is customary not to remove the lender from property until after the full term for which the property was given as security, although the lender accepts a stipulation that he will leave the property whenever the borrower brings him his money, the stipulation is binding only when the lender affirms his commitment with a kinyan.", + "In a place where it is customary to remove the lender from property given as security whenever the borrower pays the debt, a creditor of the lender is not entitled to expropriate this property to collect his debt, as he can other properties belonging to his debtor. Similarly, a firstborn does not receive a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year nullifies the debt. When the borrower pays the debt and causes the lender to leave the field, the lender may not take even produce that is ripe and that has fallen to the ground. If, however, he lifted the produce up before he was forced to leave the property, he acquires the produce.
In a place where it is customary that the borrower cannot remove the lender from property given as security until the end of the term of the loan, a creditor of the lender may expropriate this property, a firstborn receives a double portion of it, and the Sabbatical year cannot nullify the debt.", + "Although giving a field as security is forbidden and involves \"the shade of interest,\" as explained, it is possible that this custom was established in error, in relation to a gentile, or practiced by a person who sinned and took property as security in that city. Since \"the shade of interest is involved,\" we follow the local custom. There is someone who ruled that this is what is meant by making a deduction when taking security.", + "When a gentile gives his courtyard as security to a Jew in return for a loan, and afterwards, the gentile sells it to another Jew, the person in possession of the security does not have to pay the Jewish owner rent from the time he purchased the courtyard. Instead, he may dwell in the courtyard without paying rent until the gentile repays the loan taken out against the courtyard. The rationale is that according to secular law, the property belongs to the person to whom it was given as security until the debt is repaid. Only then, he leaves the property.", + "The following rules apply when a person designates a house or a field as security for a loan in his colleague's possession and the owner of the land derives the benefits from it. If the lender tells the borrower: \"When you desire to sell this property, do not sell it to anyone but to me at this price,\" it is forbidden. If he told him: \"Do not sell it to anyone else but to me at its fair value. It is on this condition that I am making the loan,\" it is permitted.", + "It is permitted to increase the rent offered for land in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person rents a colleague a courtyard and tells him: \"If you pay me now, it is yours at ten selaim a year. If you pay me month by month, the rent is a sela per month.\" This arrangement is permissible.", + "When a person rents a field to a colleague at ten korim a year, it is permissible for the tenant to tell the owner: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz to improve the field and I will pay you twelve korim a year.\" This is not considered interest, because if he uses this money to improve the field, it will be worth more to rent.
Similarly, if a person rents a colleague a store or a ship for ten dinarim, it is permissible for the renter to tell the owner: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz to use to remodel the store, decorate it and plaster it, or to improve the ship and its facilities, and I will pay you twelve dinarim per year.\" If, however, he tells him: \"Give me a loan of 200 zuz so that I can do business with them in the store, purchase merchandise for the ship with them, or hire sailors, and I will increase the fee,\" that is forbidden.", + "It is forbidden to increase the compensation paid a person in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person should not tell a colleague: \"Perform work for me today that is worth one silver piece and I will perform work for you in a later week that is worth two silver pieces.", + "It is permissible for a person to tell a colleague: \"Weed with me today in my field, and I will weed with you tomorrow in your field,\" or \"Hoe with me today, and I will hoe with you tomorrow.\" He should not, however, tell him: \"Weed for me and I will hoe for you later,\" or \"Hoe for me and I will weed for you later.\" One law applies for the entire summer, and one law for the entire rainy season. A person should not, by contrast, say: \"Plow for me in the summer and I will plow for you in the rainy season,\" for there is greater difficulty in plowing during the rainy season. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to hire a worker in the early winter to perform tasks in the later winter at a dinar a day and give him the money in advance, when a worker's wage in the winter is ordinarily a sela. The rationale is that it appears that he is giving him a loan immediately so that he will later reduce his wages.
It is, however, permissible for an employer to tell a worker: \"Work for me from today until this and this time at a dinar a day,\" even though his wages would ordinarily be a sela a day. The rationale is that since he already began working, the worker is not considered to be receiving benefit for money that was paid to him in advance." + ], + [ + "It is forbidden to increase the price offered for merchandise in return for delayed payment. What is implied? A person sold landed property or movable property to his colleague and told him: \"If you pay me now, the price is 100 zuzim. If you delay payment until this and this time, the price is 120.\" This is considered \"the shade of interest,\" for it is as if he takes 20 zuz in return for giving him 100 to use until the time specified.
If the seller calls the purchaser to court, he is liable to pay only the 100 that it was worth at the time of the sale. Alternatively, if the article he purchased is intact, he may return it. Similarly, it is forbidden to sell movable property for 100 zuz with the stipulation that payment need not be made until a certain time, when it is worth 90 zuz in the marketplace, if payment is to be given immediately.", + "When, however, a person purchased an article for its fair market value on the condition that he may delay payment for twelve months, the seller may tell him: \"Pay me a lesser amount now.\" There is no question of interest involved.", + "It is permissible to sell a colleague a jug of wine that is worth a dinar for two dinarim on the condition that he does not pay until the summer, provided that he accepts the stipulation that if an accident occurs to it, the jug is the seller's responsibility until the purchaser sells it - i.e., if it is lost or broken, the purchaser does not have to pay anything. Moreover, if he cannot find anyone to purchase it at a profit, he may return it to the owner.
Similarly, it is permissible for a person to sell a colleague wine for two dinarim and tell him: \"Anything more than two dinarim can be your profit, since you are involving yourself in its sale. And if you do not succeed in selling it at the price you desire, you can return it to me.\" In this situation, even if it is lost, stolen or becomes vinegar, it is the purchaser's responsibility.", + "The following rules apply when a person possesses produce that has a selling price of ten dinarim in the marketplace, but if the purchaser sought to purchase it, he would have to purchase it for twelve. It is permissible to sell the produce for twelve dinarim to be paid after a twelve-month period. The rationale is that even if the purchaser brought his money immediately, he would pay twelve dinarim for it. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to purchase fruit from an orchard before its growth is completed and it becomes ripe. The rationale is that the seller will sell it for less - e.g., he will sell produce for ten now, even though it will be worth twenty when its growth is completed. Thus, the increase is being given for the delayed delivery.
It is permissible, however, if he purchases a calf for a low price on the condition that it remain in the previous owner's possession until it grows older. For if the calf dies or becomes weakened, it is in the owner's possession. And it is common and frequent that an animal will become weak or die.", + "The following rules apply when a person gives money to the owner of a vineyard for the twigs and branches that will eventually be cut off. When they are cut off, they will be expensive. At present, however, he purchases them at a low price because he must wait until they dry out and are cut off. He must till the land under the vines while they are still attached to the ground. Thus, he is buying a tree for its offshoots. If he does not till the land, the money he pays is like a loan. Since the branches are being purchased for a lower price because of the delayed delivery, it is forbidden.", + "The following rules apply when watchmen in a field are given wheat from the grain heap as their wages at a price lower than its market value. When they go to the grain heap to collect their wages, they must perform work at the grainheap, so that they will be receiving the wheat at the conclusion of the time for which they were hired. If they do not do so, their wages will be considered as a loan extended to the employers, and the fact that they were given the wheat at a low price will be considered to be interest paid to them in return for the delay in paying their wages until the harvest reached the grain heap.", + "Generally, the owners of fields would require sharecroppers to leave a field in Nissan. The sharecroppers would give the owners four se'ah for every portion of the field large enough to sow a kor as rent. It is permissible for an owner to allow his sharecroppers to remain in his field until lyyar, but to take from them six se'ah. This does not involve interest.", + "It is permissible for the seller to give a purchaser more than the measure originally stipulated when the purchaser does not collect payment until afterwards. For example, a person purchased four se'ah of wheat at a sela; this was the market price. He paid the money at that time, but did not come to collect the wheat until later. When he came, the seller increased the measure and gave him more. This is permitted, because he willingly gave him more. Had he not desired, he would not have given him more, because there was no stipulation to that effect.", + "When a person purchases a barrel of wine, it is permissible for him to pay the money to the seller and stipulate: \"If it becomes vinegar from now until such and such a date, you are responsible. If, however, it increases or decreases in value, the barrel is mine.\" Since the purchaser also accepted the possibility of a depreciation in value, the transaction is considered as having the possibility of both gain and loss. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.
Similarly, it is permissible for a person to buy 100 jugs of wine in Tishrei for a dinar each, but not to collect them until Tevet. And when he collects them, he may check each one, returning those that have become vinegar and taking those that are good wine. For he purchased only good wine from him. Those jugs whose contents became vinegar were fit to sour at the outset; it is just that the matter did not become known until later.", + "In a place where it is customary to rent out ships and receive payment for them, it is permissible to include a stipulation that if the ship is damaged, those damages will be assessed and reimbursement made over and above the fee charged. Similarly, it is permissible to hire out a pot of brass and the like and receive payment for it, and also to receive compensation if its weight decreased. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is forbidden to accept tzon barzel from another Jew, because this is considered \"the shade of interest\"?
What is meant by the term tzon barzel? A person owned 100 sheep. A shepherd accepted the responsibility of caring for them on the condition that the shearing, the offspring and the milk would be split, either evenly, or one getting a third or a fourth for a year or two, as they stipulated. Included in the agreement is the condition that if the sheep die, the shepherd must make restitution for them.
This is forbidden, because the owner of the sheep is very likely to realize a profit, and highly unlikely to suffer a loss. Therefore, such an arrangement is permissible if the owner of the sheep accepts the condition that should the value of the sheep increase or decrease or should they be seized by predators, they are considered within his domain. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "The following laws apply when a person appraises an animal he receives from a colleague and tells him: \"If it dies, I accept responsibility for 30 dinarim, and I will pay you a sela a month as a fee.\" This is permitted, because he did not establish this as the animal's value when alive, but only after its death.", + "A woman may rent out a chicken to a friend so that it can sit on eggs until they hatch for two chicks. There is no question of interest involved.", + "When a person owed a colleague four dinarim as interest and gave him an article worth five dinarim instead, when the interest is expropriated from him, five dinarim are taken. The rationale is that he received it as interest. Similarly, if the borrower gave the lender a garment or a utensil, that garment or that utensil itself should be returned to him. If, in lieu of the four dinarim he owed him, he rented him a property that was normally rented for three dinarim, four dinarim are expropriated from him, because he accepted the rental as being worth that price." + ], + [ + "An order for produce cannot be placed until a market price has been established. Once a market price has been established, an order can be placed. Even though the person receiving the order does not have the desired produce, his colleague does.
What is implied? If the market price for wheat was fixed at four se'ah per sela, a purchaser may place an order of 100 se'ah and pay 25 sela. Even if the seller gives the purchaser the 100 se'ah of wheat later, at a time when a se'ah of wheat is selling for a sela, there is no interest involved at all. This applies even when the seller did not own any wheat at the time the order was placed.
When does the above apply? When the seller did not have in his possession any of the type of produce he sold. If, however, the seller had that type of produce in his possession, even if the work necessary to bring it to the market has not been completed, he may sell a produce order even though a market price has not been established. What is implied? If a farmer was one of the first to harvest, he may sell an order of grain even though the grain is still in the grainheap.
A person can sell an order for wine once the grapes have been reaped and placed in the vat. He can sell an order for oil, when it has been placed in the vat. An order for lime can be placed when it is lowered into the oven. And an order for earthenware vessels can be placed when the balls of clay are made.
When is that necessary? When using white clay. But if dark clay is used, an order for utensils to be made from it can be placed even if the balls have not been made, for that clay is readily available. Even if one person does not possess it, another does. Similarly, a order for fertilizer may be placed throughout the year, even though the seller does not possess fertilizer himself, because it is continuously available.", + "Whenever all that is necessary to complete a product is one or two tasks, an order can be placed with a seller. When three or more tasks are necessary, an order cannot be placed unless the market price has been issued. For since more than three tasks are necessary to complete the product, it is as if the person does not possess that type of substance at all, and as if it has not come into existence as of yet.
What is implied? When a grain heap must be a) placed in the sun to dry, b) threshed, and c) winnowed, the owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. If it was dry, and all that was necessary that it be threshed and winnowed, he may accept an order.
If balls of clay lack shaping, drying, being placed in the kiln, being fired and being removed, the owner may not accept an order. If they are dry, and all that was necessary that they be placed in the kiln and fired, he may accept an order. This applies when it is the custom of the buyer to remove the utensils from the kiln. If the seller is the one who removes them, they are considered to require the performance of three tasks. The owner may not accept an order unless a market price has already been issued. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a person who is going to milk his goats, shear his sheep or remove honey from his beehive meets a colleague, it is permissible for one to tell the other: \"What I will milk from my goats is sold to you,\" \"What I will shear from my sheep is sold to you,\" or \"What I will remove from my beehive is sold to you.\" It is, however, forbidden for one to tell the other: \"This and this amount of milk which I will milk from my goats is sold to you at this and this price,\" \"This and this amount of wool that I will shear from my sheep is sold to you at this and this price,\" or \"This and this amount of honey that I will remove from my beehive is sold to you at this and this price\" unless he takes an order at the market price. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "Orders cannot be placed based on the market price of towns, because it is not firmly established, only on a market price established in a large city. If new wheat was being sold in a city at four se'ah for a sela and older wheat at three se'ah for a sela, an order may not be placed until an equal price is established for both the new and the old grain.
If wheat sold by gatherers was selling at four se'ah for a sela and wheat sold by a householder at three, one may place an order from a gatherer at the price of the gatherers. An order from a householder at the price of the gatherers may not be placed unless the price for householders is established [at the same rate].", + "Once a market price has been established, it is permissible to place an order even for a high rate of exchange.
What is implied? Wheat was being sold at four se'ah for a sela and a purchaser placed an order that a seller would later give him wheat at a low rate of exchange. If the price of wheat was later established at ten se'ah for a sela, the seller must give him ten se'ah as is the market price, for he placed an order at the high rate of exchange.
If the purchaser gave the seller money without making a stipulation and without placing an order for the high rate of exchange, and the price of the produce fell, the seller may give the purchaser the produce at the price that the produce was worth when the money was paid. If a person reneges on his commitment, he receives the adjuration mi shepara.
When does the above apply? When a person is placing an order for himself. When, however, a person is acting as an agent, either for the buyer or the seller, either the purchaser receives at the lower price or the seller must return the funds. When an agent was involved, the purchaser is not required to receive the adjuration mi shepara if he retracts because of the agent's error. For he will say: \"I charged you with improving my position, not with undermining it,\" as explained above.", + "The following laws apply when wheat was being sold at four se'ah per sela, the seller took the money and promised to give the purchaser five se'ah for a sela. If the seller possesses wheat at that time, it is permitted. If the seller does not possess wheat, or even if he is owed a debt of wheat by others and he takes the money on condition that he collects what he is owed and gives it to the purchaser, it is forbidden. The rationale is that at the time of the transaction, the wheat has not yet been collected, and it is as if it does not exist. Hence, it is as if he fixed a time for a later delivery and reduced the price because of the postponement.", + "When wheat is selling at four se'ah for a sela in the large cities and six se'ah per sela in the villages, it is permitted to give a merchant a sela so that he will bring six se'ah from a village by a particular date. The wheat must, however, be considered to be in the possession of the purchaser. Thus, if is lost or stolen on the way, the purchaser suffers the loss.
It is forbidden for a distinguished person to carry out such a transaction. And if the transaction involves several types of merchandise, it is forbidden for all people to carry out such transactions. The rationale is that such types of merchandise are not continuously found in villages, in contrast to produce that is.", + "When donkey-drivers enter a city where the market-price is four se'ah for a sela, it is permitted for them to lower the price and sell wheat to their acquaintances or their brokers at five se'ah a sela in return for money given them at the outset, as soon as they enter the city, before they open their sacks and sell to others. The rationale is that they are not selling to them at the lower price because they gave them the money immediately and will not collect the produce until later, but because they inform them concerning the market price and offer them assistance.", + "The following rules apply when a person who is transporting his produce from one place to another place meets a colleague who tells him: \"Give me your produce and I will give you produce that I possess in return at your destination.\" If the purchaser possesses such produce at that place, the transaction is permitted. If not, it is forbidden.
Slightly different laws apply when a person was transporting merchandise from place to place and a colleague told him: \"Give me the merchandise and I will pay you the price it would be worth at your destination.\" If the seller is responsible for the merchandise until it reaches that destination, the transaction is permitted. If the purchaser is responsible, it is forbidden.", + "It is permissible for a person to give the owner of a garden payment for ten specific cucumbers or for ten specific watermelons, even though they are small and he stipulated that he would give them to him when they grow to full size. The rationale is that the seller leaves them and they grow by themselves. If he cut them off now, others would not grow in their place. Similar laws apply in all analogous cases where the seller will not suffer any loss or detriment by selling in advance." + ], + [ + "Just as it is permitted for a seller to take an order based on the market price; so, too, it is permitted to give a loan of produce without any conditions, to be returned without any conditions, without establishing a time when it must be returned once the market price has been established.
What is implied? If there was a fixed market price for wheat that was known by both the borrower and the lender, when the borrower borrows ten se'ah of wheat from a colleague, he is obligated to return ten se'ah, even though the price of wheat increased. The rationale is that when he borrowed the wheat from him, the market price was known. If he had wanted to, he could have purchased wheat and returned it, since a minimum term of the loan was not established.", + "If the borrower possesses some of the type of produce that he seeks to borrow, it is permissible for him to borrow this produce without any conditions, to be returned without any conditions, without establishing a time when it is due. Even if he possesses only a se'ah, he may borrow many se'ah because of it. Even if he possesses only a drop of oil or wine, he may borrow several jugs of wine and oil because of it.
If he did not possess any of that type of produce and the market price was not established yet, or the borrower and the lender did not know the market price, it is forbidden to lend a se'ah of produce for a se'ah to be returned at a later date. Similarly, with regard to other types of produce, a person should not lend them out until he establishes a financial equivalent. The following rules apply when a person makes a loan of produce without establishing a financial equivalent, and it decreases in value. The borrower must return the measure or the weight of the fruit he borrowed. If they increased in value, the lender may take only the amount they were worth at the time of the loan.
Even if a person possesses that type of produce, or the market price had already been established, it is forbidden to make a loan of produce that must be repaid on a specific date. Instead, the loan must be made without any stipulation, and it can be repaid whenever the borrower desires to repay it.", + "A person should not tell a colleague: \"Lend me a kor of wheat and I will return a kor to you at the time when wheat is brought to the granaries.\" He may, however, tell him: \"Lend me wheat until my son comes, or until I find the key to my storehouse.\"", + "The following rules apply if a person lent out produce until a fixed date: If the produce diminished in value, the borrower should return the produce at the time set. If the produce increased in value, the borrower should pay him the money that it was worth at the time of the loan.", + "A person may lend wheat to his sharecroppers to be used as seed, in return for wheat to be paid back after the harvest. This applies both before the sharecropper enters the field and after he entered the field.
When does this apply? In a place where it is customary that the sharecropper supplies the seed for the crops. For the owner of the field has the right to remove the sharecropper from the field whenever he does not supply it.
Different laws apply in places where it is customary for the owner of the field to provide the seed. If the sharecropper did not enter the field yet, it is permitted for the owner to lend wheat for wheat to be returned in the future, for he still has the prerogative of removing the sharecropper from the field. Thus, when the sharecropper entered the field, he entered with the intent of returning the wheat the owner lent him.
If, however, the loan was made after the sharecropper entered the field, since the owner can no longer have him removed, he is like any other person. It is forbidden to lend him wheat for seed in return for wheat to be paid back at a later date. He may, however, lend him wheat according to its market value if he does not make any stipulations.", + "A loan may not be repaid with a loan of produce. To explain: A person owed a colleague money. The lender told the borrower: \"Give me my money, because I want to purchase wheat with it.\"
The borrower responded: \"Go out and establish the money I owe you as a debt of wheat according to the present market price.\"
If the borrower possesses an equivalent quantity of wheat, this is permitted. If, however, he does not have that type of produce, this is forbidden. For our Sages said that it is permitted to place an order based on a commodity's market price, even though the seller does not possess any of that commodity, only when the purchaser is paying money for the acquisition. It is, however, forbidden to transfer a debt of money into a debt of produce unless the borrower possesses the produce.
The concept can be extended when, in the above situation, the borrower did possess wheat and the debt was transferred into a debt of wheat. Similar rules apply if afterwards the lender comes and tells him: \"Give me the wheat, because I want to sell it and use the money to purchase wine,\" and in response, the borrower tells him: \"Go out and consider the debt as a debt of wine, according to the present market price of wine.\" If he possesses wine, it is permitted and it is considered as if he owes him wine. If he does not possess wine, it is forbidden.
If the borrower did not possess the commodity desired, but nevertheless, transgressed and transferred the debt into a debt of that commodity, he is not required to pay the debt in the commodity. Even though he did purchase the commodity afterwards, he should pay the lender the money he lent him." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses, or a borrower tells witnesses: \"Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh\" or \"You are my witnesses that I owe this person a maneh,\" the obligation established is referred to as a milveh b'al peh, \"a loan supported by an oral commitment.\" Such a debt need not be repaid in the presence of witnesses.' Therefore, if the debtor claims: \"I repaid the debt,\" he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is discharged.
When, by contrast, a person lends money to a colleague and has the debt supported by a promissory note, the debtor must repay him in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, if the debtor claims: \"I paid this promissory note,\" his words are not accepted. Instead, we tell him: \"Bring witnesses who testify that you paid or \"Arise and pay the debt you owe him.\"
Therefore, when a person tells witnesses: \"Serve as witnesses for me that I owe this person a maneh\" they may not write down a record of their testimony and give it to the lender, unless the borrower tells them: \"Write a promissory note, sign it and give it to the lender. The rationale is that their testimony, which is only oral, should not be given the legal power of a promissory note. Even when the borrower gives such instructions, they should consult with him after they have signed the promissory note. Only afterwards, may they give the promissory note to the lender in his hand.
If they performed a kinyan with the borrower affirming that he owes the lender a maneh, the witnesses may write a promissory note and give it to the lender, even though the borrower did not instruct them to do so. The rationale is that when a kinyan is performed without any further instructions, it is ready to be recorded in a legal document. There is no need to consult the borrower.", + "When a borrower writes a document by himself and witnesses write testimony upon it and give it to the lender, it is an acceptable promissory note.
Similarly, should the borrower compose a promissory note - even when there are no witnesses who sign it - and give it to the lender in the presence of witnesses, the loan is considered to be backed by a promissory note, provided that it is written with a script that cannot be forged and that the witnesses in whose presence it was transferred read it.
There are Geonim who ruled that the borrower should tell the witnesses in whose presence the promissory note was transferred: \"Sign the note or testify that it was transferred in your presence.\"", + "If the lender produces a note written by the borrower , which states that he owes the lender money, but there are no witnesses who have signed it, it is considered as merely a loan supported by an oral commitment with regard to all matters. This applies even if the authenticity of his writing was verified.
Hence, if the borrower claims to have paid the debt, and the lender denies receiving payment, the borrower need only take a sh'vuat hesset before being dismissed. Nor may the lender use this note to expropriate property from the heirs, nor from the purchasers.", + "Whenever a loan is supported by a promissory note, the lender may use this note to expropriate property from the heirs and from the purchasers, as will be explained. When, by contrast, a loan is merely supported by an oral commitment, the lender may expropriate payment from the heirs, but not from the purchasers. The rationale for this restriction is that such a loan does not become public knowledge. Therefore, the lender may not expropriate property because of such an obligation.
A loan supported by a promissory note, by contrast, does become public knowledge. Therefore, it may be used to expropriate property that was sold. The purchaser of such property caused himself a loss, because he did not inquire to the extent that he discovered that the property of the person he purchased it from was on lien because of the loan that person had taken. For according to Scriptural Law, all property belonging to a borrower is on lien to the loan.", + "When a person sells his field in the presence of witnesses, and a creditor of the seller expropriates the field from the purchaser, the purchaser may expropriate the money due him from property that was on lien to the sale that had been sold to others, as will be explained. The rationale is that whenever a person makes a sale, it is done in public and becomes common knowledge.", + "A loan that is supported by an oral commitment alone may be collected from heirs only in one of the following three instances:
a) the person who is liable admits his debt, and while mortally ill stated that he still owes so-and-so a debt;
b) the loan was given for a specific time, and the time for payment had not come; we operate under the presumption that a person will not pay a debt until it is due;
c) because of his failure to pay, the debtor was placed under a ban of ostracism until he would make restitution, and he died while under that ban.
In all these instances, the creditor may collect the debt from the heirs without having to take an oath. If, however, witnesses come and testify that the deceased owed a colleague a maneh, or that he borrowed money in their presence, the creditor may not collect anything from the heirs, because it is possible that the deceased repaid the loan. For a person who borrowed money from a colleague in the presence of witnesses does not have to repay him in the presence of witnesses. Similarly, if a person shows heirs a note from their father stating that he owes the claimant money, he may not collect anything because of it, as we have explained.", + "The following rules apply when a borrower does not own movable property, but does own landed property. If the court is aware that he has deposited his money in the hands of other people, we compel him to sell the landed property and pay his creditor.
If this is not known to them, they issue a ban of ostracism against anyone who knows that the debtor possesses movable property and does not bring it to court. Afterwards, they take possession of property he owns that is of intermediate worth and expropriate it for the creditor, as will be explained.
When does the above apply? When payment is collected from the debtor himself. When, however, a person comes to collect payment from heirs -whether they are above or below majority - he does not have the right to collect from the movable property belonging to the estate even if it was entrusted or loaned to another person. For movable property inherited by heirs is not under lien according to Scriptural Law. '", + "It is a mitzvah for the heirs to pay a debt left by their father from the movable property that he left. If an heir does not desire to make restitution, however, he is not compelled to do so. If the creditor seized property belonging to the debtor in the debtor's lifetime, he may collect his due from it.
If a creditor claims that he seized property during the debtor's lifetime, and the debtor's heir claims that the creditor seized the property after the debtor's death, the heir has the responsibility of proving his claim. Alternatively, the lender must take an oath that he was owed so-and-so much - he can claim up to the value of the property in his possession - and include in his oath that he seized the property in the debtor's lifetime.
If the property that he seized included promissory notes, and the lender claims that he is holding them as security for a debt and that he seized them during the debtor's lifetime, the lender must prove that he seized them during the debtor's lifetime. If he cannot bring proof, he should return them to the heirs. The difference is that with regard to promissory notes, he is not claiming the acquisition of the obligation itself, but rather proof that such an obligation exists.", + "When heirs expropriated landed property because of a debt that others owed their father, a creditor of their father's can expropriate it from them. The rationale is that this land was in effect their father's.", + "The above principles can be extended and applied in the following situation. Reuven sold a field to Shimon, accepting financial responsibility for the sale. Shimon did not pay immediately, but instead had Reuven consider the price of the field as a loan. Reuven died afterwards. Reuven's creditor then came to expropriate the field from Shimon. Instead of giving the creditor the field, Shimon appeased him with money, and he departed.
According to the law, Reuven's heirs may come and demand that Shimon pay the debt that he owed Reuven, for that loan is not on lien to Reuven's creditor.
Therefore, if Shimon is clever, he should give Reuven's heirs the land he purchased from them as payment for the debt that he accepted upon himself. He can then expropriate the property from them, because of the money that he gave to Reuven's creditor so that he would not expropriate it from him. This option is available because Reuven took financial responsibility for the field Shimon purchased.", + "All of the Geonim have ordained, however, that a creditor may expropriate movable property from the heirs in payment for a debt. This judgment is enforced universally in all courts of law.
In the West, however, they would have a provision written in the promissory notes giving the creditor the right to collect the debt from either landed property or movable property in the creditor's lifetime or after his death. Thus, this provision gives the creditor more power to collect the debt than the ordinance of the Geonim.
This is a great safeguard, because it is possible that the borrower will not have known about ordinance, and thus the property of the heirs will be expropriated unjustly, because an ordinance of the later Sages does not have the legal power to be binding upon heirs." + ], + [ + "We do not expropriate payment from heirs unless they are past majority. When the heirs are below majority, by contrast, we do not collect a debt supported by a promissory note from them.", + "Even if the promissory note contains all the stipulations in the world, the creditor may not use it to collect the debt until the heirs attain majority, lest they have proof that would disavow the promissory note.", + "If the loan was a debt at interest owed to a gentile, we appoint a guardian, attach the property that the minor inherited, sell it, and pay the debt. The rationale is that the interest consumes the estate.
Similarly, if a woman demands payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah - whether she is the deceased's widow or divorcee - we appoint a guardian for the heirs and attach the deceased's property, so that the woman will gain favor in the eyes of others; i.e., so that she will have a minimum of property so that she will remarry. Hence, if the woman hurried and remarried and then came to demand payment of the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from the estate acquired by the heirs, we do not pay heed to her until the heirs come of age.\" The rationale is that she is no longer entitled to receive her sustenance from the estate of the deceased, and she has remarried.", + "Several of the Geonim have ruled that if the estate left to the heirs does not have more than the money due the woman because of her ketubah, or it contains less than that amount, we do not pay heed to her. For the heirs will have no benefit from paying the money due the woman because of her ketubah.
According to this opinion, our Sages said: \"We attach the estate left to heirs to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from it,\" only so that the estate would not become devalued because of the need to pay for the widow's sustenance.\" And in this instance, since the woman takes everything, of what value is it to the heirs who are below majority that the property is attached? These views were not concerned with increasing the favor of the woman in the eyes of others.", + "If the testator gave a command, saying: \"Give a maneh to so-and-so,\" we pay heed to the claim, after appointing a guardian for the heirs to advance arguments on behalf of the interests of the heirs. If the testator says: \"Give this maneh to so-and-so\" or \"... this field to so-and-so,\" we make the endowment; there is no need to appoint a guardian for the heirs.", + "If it is discovered that land in the estate does not rightfully belong to the heirs, but instead, the plaintiff claims that the property was stolen by the person whose property they inherited, we pay heed to the claim and appoint a guardian to argue and enter into litigation on their behalf. If it is discovered that the property was in fact stolen, we return it to its owners.
Similarly, if a minor had his servants mount an attack and enter property belonging to a colleague and take control of it, we do not say that we will wait until he attains majority before the matter is adjudicated. Instead, we expropriate the property from him immediately. When he attains majority, if he has witnesses who support his claim, he should bring his witnesses.", + "When land is presumed to be the property of minors, the land is not expropriated from them until they attain majority even in the following situation. Another person comes and claims that he had purchased that land from the person from whom they inherited it, and the purchaser has witnesses who will testify that he established his possession of this land and benefited from it for three years in the lifetime of the deceased. The rationale is that we accept the testimony of witnesses only when delivered in the presence of the litigant against whom they are testifying. And the minor is considered as if he is not present.
If, however, the plaintiff produced a deed of sale that states that the field is property that he purchased, he must validate the authenticity of the deed of sale. Afterwards, he may expropriate the property from the heirs after a guardian is appointed for them.", + "When the court attaches property belonging to heirs for the purpose of selling it, they evaluate the property and then announce the sale for 30 consecutive days or on Mondays and Thursdays over the span of 60 consecutive days. Announcements are made in the morning and the evening, when workers enter the city, and when workers are sent out to their tasks. Whoever desires to purchase the property can bring his workers there to investigate it.
When an announcement is made, the borders of the field are clarified. They make known its yield, the evaluation given by the court and the reason it is being sold - to repay a creditor or to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. For there are some people who desire to repay a creditor and others who desire to pay a woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah.", + "When an adrachta is written with regard to property belonging to heirs -whether they are above majority or below majority - the court must write: \"And we identified the property as belonging to so-and-so, the deceased.\" If they did not write this, the adrachta is invalid, and a purchaser may not benefit from the proceeds of the property even though the announcements of the property's sale were completed.", + "When a court sells property without announcing its sale beforehand, it is considered as if they erred in a matter explicitly stated in the Mishnah. The sale is nullified, and the property is sold again after announcements are made.
When a court sells property, the financial responsibility for it is incumbent on the heirs.", + "When a court made announcements in the proper manner, investigated the matter thoroughly and carefully evaluated the property, their sale is binding even though they erred and sold property worth a maneh for 200, or property worth 200 for a maneh.
The following rules apply when, by contrast, the court was not careful in evaluating the property or did not compose a notice of evaluation, which details its assessment and the announcement of the sale of the property, and it erred in its appraisal. If they evaluated it at a sixth more than its value or at a sixth less than its value, the sale is nullified. If the error was less than a sixth, the sale is binding.
Similar concepts apply if a court sold landed property at a time when it was not necessary to announce its sale beforehand. If it erred and devalued the property by a sixth or overvalued it by a sixth, their sale is nullified. This applies even if it announced the sale beforehand. If their error was less than a sixth, its sale is binding even though it did not announce the sale. For an announcement was not necessary in these situations.
In which situations is it not necessary to make announcements before the sale of property? When land is sold to bury the deceased, for the sustenance of his wife and his daughters, or to pay the head-tax to the king, it is not necessary to announce the sale, because the matter is pressing.
Similar concepts apply if a court sold types of property whose sale need not be announced beforehand. If it erred and devalued the property by a sixth or overvalued it by a sixth, the sale is nullified. If the error was less than a sixth, the sale is binding.
These are the types of property whose sale need not be announced beforehand: servants, promissory notes and movable property; servants, because they may flee; promissory notes and movable property, because they may be stolen. Instead, these articles should be evaluated by the court and sold immediately. If the market place is close to the city, they should be taken to the market place and sold there." + ], + [ + "The following laws apply when a lender comes to expropriate property on the basis of a promissory note in his possession and the borrower is not present: If it is possible to send a messenger to the borrower and notify him so that he can confront the lender in judgment, we send a messenger and notify him.
If it is impossible to notify the borrower speedily, we instruct the lender to take an oath, and then to expropriate property belonging to the borrower, either landed property or movable property. We do not consider the possibility that the borrower repaid the debt and the lender gave him a receipt.
This law is an ordinance of the Sages, enacted so that people at large would not take money belonging to a colleague and go to dwell in another city. For this would hinder the possibilities of loans being granted in the future", + "The lender must bring proof of three matters to the court before he can expropriate property from the borrower outside his presence:
a) he must verify the authenticity of the promissory note in his possession; b) he must prove that the debtor is in another city and is not present to defend himself in court;
c) he must prove that the property that he wishes to expropriate belongs to so-and-so, the borrower.", + "The following rules apply when a lender comes to the court, bringing security that is in his possession\" and says: \"This security belongs to so-and-so, and I desire to sell it to receive payment of the debt he owes me.\" The court does not take action and does not tell him: \"Wait until the borrower comes and lodges his claim.\" The rationale is that had the lender desired to say that the security had been purchased his word would be accepted. The court advises him to sell the security in the presence of witnesses, so that the borrower will know for how much the security was sold.
Similarly, when a person gives a loan to a colleague and receives security in return, and then both the borrower and the lender die - regardless of whether the borrower or the lender dies first the lender's heirs may take an oath and collect the debt.
The lender's heir must take an oath holding a sacred object, before he takes payment from the security, as is done by all those who take an oath and collect their due. His word is accepted, because he is taking payment from property that is in his physical possession. Had he desired, he could have said that he had purchased the property.
Why is the creditor not required only to take a sh'vuat hesset? Because he is not taking an oath that the security is his, but rather that the money is owed him. If he lodged a claim concerning the article itself, saying \"You sold it to us,\" or \"You gave it to us,\" he would be able to take a sh 'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility. If, by contrast, there were witnesses who would testify that this article was given to the lender as security, but they did not know for what amount, he would be able to collect the money only after taking an oath. Since there are no witnesses, the lender would be able to claim: \"It is mine.\" Therefore, we accept his word when he says: \"So-and-so much money is owed to me and this is security for that debt,\" provided that he takes the same oath he would take if there were witnesses who would testify that the article was given as security.
We do not free him of the responsibility of the oath, because we do not employ the principle of miggo to free a person of the responsibility to take an oath, but only to free him of financial responsibility - i.e., he is not required to return the security before he takes what he claim.", + "The following rules apply when a person lends money to a colleague and receives security for the loan. Should the security be lost or stolen in a manner that is not beyond the lender's control, the lender is liable for the value of the security, as explained. If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela\" the lender must first take the oath taken by watchmen that the article is not in his possession. The borrower then must take a sh'vuat hesset that the security was worth the amount of the debt, and he is freed of responsibility.
If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth three dinarim\" the lender must first take an oath that the article is not in his possession. Afterwards, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath how much the article was worth; this is required because he acknowledged a portion of the plaintiff's claim.33 He then pays the dinar that he admits to owing.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im\" and the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth a sela\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possessions and include in that oath that the security was worth only the amount of the debt.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im,\" and lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and it was worth only five dinarim, the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was not worth more than five dinarim. He must then pay the dinar.
If the lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, but it was worth only two dinarim\" and the borrower says: \"I do not know how much it was worth,\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that the security was worth only two dinarim. The borrower must then pay the remainder of the debt. The rationale is that he definitely knows that he is liable for the two dinarim and does not know whether or not he repaid the debt.
If the borrower says: \"You lent me a sela for that security, and it was worth two sela'im\" and lender says: \"I lent you a sela for that security, and I do not know how much it was worth,\" the lender must take an oath that the article is not in his possession and include in that oath that he does not know that the security was worth even a p'rutah more than the debt. He is then freed of responsibility, because he did not obligate himself at all. If, however, the lender said; \"I know that the security was worth more than the loan, but I do not know how much more,\" he must pay everything that the borrower demands; the borrower is not even required to take an oath. This resembles an instance when a plaintiff lodges a claim for a 100 zuz, and the defendant responds: \"I owe you 50, but I do not know whether or not I owe you the other 50.\" Such a person is obligated to take an oath, but cannot take the oath. Therefore, he must pay, as will be explained. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who makes a false claim.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague and establishes a date when the loan must be repaid, even though he does not affirm the matter with a kinyan, he may not demand payment until the conclusion of that period of time. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note, or by security, or whether the borrower or the lender dies.
When no other term is mentioned, the term of a loan is 30 days. This applies regardless of whether the loan is supported merely by an oral commitment, by a promissory note or by security. If the lender stipulated that he could demand payment whenever he desires, he has the right to demand payment even on the day the loan was given. The rationale is that this is a stipulation involving monetary issues.", + "If the lender claims: \"Today is the conclusion of the term I established for the loan,\" and the borrower responds: \"You granted me another ten days,\" the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset to support his claim. If there is one witness who testifies that the loan was due that day, the borrower must take a Scriptural oath, as is the law with regard to other claims.
If the lender claims: \"There are only five days left before the loan is due,\" and the borrower responds: \"There are ten days left,\" we tell the lender: \"Wait until the end of the five days and then have the borrower take an oath that five days remain.\"", + "If the loan was supported by a promissory note and the borrower claims: \"You established a time for me to pay the debt,\" it appears to me that the creditor should take a sh'vuat hesset that he did not place any time limit on the loan. He may then collect the loan immediately.", + "Payment for a loan may be demanded in any place.
What is implied? When a person lends money to a colleague in a settled place and demands payment from him in a desert, the borrower may not postpone payment. Instead, he is obligated to pay him wherever he demands payment.
If the borrower seeks to repay the loan in the desert, the lender is given the option. If he desires, he may accept payment. If he desires, he may tell him: \"Pay me back only in a settled area, just as I gave you the money in a settled area.\" The money then remains the borrower's responsibility until he pays the lender in a settled area." + ], + [ + "In the following situations, despite the fact that he possesses a promissory note, a lender may collect payment only after taking an oath that resembles one required by Scriptural Law:
a) a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note;
b) a person who produces a promissory note that one witness testifies has been paid.
c) a person who seeks to collect payment outside the borrower's presence;
d) a person who expropriates property from purchasers;
e) a person who seeks to collect a debt from heirs, whether below majority or above majority.
When such a person comes to take the oath, we tell him: \"Take the oath and collect your due.\" If the loan was not due until a specific time, and he demands payment on the day the loan was due, he may collect payment without taking an oath. Once the day the loan is due has passed, he may collect payment only after taking an oath.", + "The following rules apply when a person demands payment from a colleague for a debt recorded in a promissory note, the borrower claims that he paid this promissory note, and the possessor of the note claims that he did not pay anything. The court tells the borrower: \"Pay him.\"
If the borrower demands: \"Have him take an oath for me that I did not pay him and then collect the debt,\" the court requires the lender to take an oath while holding a sacred object, that he did not pay him at all or that he paid him only such-and-such. Afterwards, he may collect his claim. If the lender is a Torah scholar, the court does not require him to take an oath.", + "There is a difference of opinion among the Geonim in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. The borrower claims: \"This promissory note is false, I never wrote it,\" \"This promissory note involves interest,\" \"... or a shade of interest,\" \"It was given on faith,\" \"I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan\" - i.e., he issues a claim that if acknowledged by the lender would nullify the promissory note. The lender maintains that the promissory note is genuine and that the borrower is issuing a false claim. The borrower demands that the lender take an oath before collecting.
There is one opinion that rules that the holder of the promissory note is obligated to take an oath that resembles a Scriptural oath, just as when the borrower claimed that he paid the debt. My teachers by contrast ruled that the lender should not be compelled to take an oath unless the borrower claims that he paid him. The rationale is that he acknowledged the validity of the promissory note, and that debt is fit to be repaid. We do not, by contrast, accept the borrower's word with regard to all these other claims to nullify the legal power of a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified. Instead, the borrower should pay, and afterwards lodge any claim against the lender that he desires. If the lender acknowledges the claim, he will return the money to him. If he denies it, he will take a sh'vuat hesset. My opinion also leans towards this view.", + "Our Sages issued these rulings in the following situation: A lender produced a promissory note, demanding payment from a colleague. He claims that he was not paid at all. The borrower claims that he repaid half the debt, and witnesses testify that the entire debt was repaid. The borrower must take an oath and then pay the other half. The rationale is that he admits to owing a portion of the debt. He is not considered to be comparable to a person who returns a lost object, because the promissory note causes him to be afraid. The lender may expropriate this half of the debt only from landed property that is within the borrower's possession. He may not attach property that has been sold. The rationale is that the purchasers will say: \"We rely on the testimony of the witnesses and they have nullified the legal power of this promissory note.\"", + "The following rules apply when a lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity he is not able to verify, and the borrower says: \"It is true that I wrote this promissory note, but I repaid it,\" \"It was given on faith,\" \"I wrote it with the intention of borrowing, but I never took the loan,\" or another claim of this nature. Since the borrower could have claimed, \"This never happened,\" and our acceptance of the promissory note is dependent on his statements, his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility.
If the lender is able to verify the authenticity of the promissory note afterwards in court, it is considered as any other promissory note.", + "The lender's claim is not accepted in the following situation. The lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified, and the borrower claims: \"It is a forgery, and I never wrote it,\" or \"It was given on faith.\" The lender states: \"That is true, but I had an acceptable promissory note and it was lost.\" Although it was the lender who invalidated his promissory note, and had he desired, he could have said: \"It is not a forgery,\" for its authenticity was verified by the court, he cannot use it to expropriate property at all. Instead, the borrower may take a sh'vuat hesset and be freed of responsibility, for the promissory note is likened to a shard.", + "When a promissory note was used for a loan and then repaid, it may not be used again. For the lien it created was already waived, and it is likened to a shard.", + "The following laws apply when the lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified demanding payment from a colleague, the borrower replies: \"Did I not pay you,\" and the lender answers: \"You did, but I returned the money to you and then lent it to you a second time.\" The promissory note that he repaid is nullified, and it is likened to a shard.
If, however, the lender says: \"I returned the money to you, because the coins were not good so that you could exchange them,\" he did not nullify the promissory note, and the lien it created still exists.", + "A promissory note is disqualified in the following situation. A lender produces a promissory note whose authenticity has been verified that indicates that the borrower owes him a maneh. The borrower states: \"Did I not pay in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so.\" Those witnesses come and testify that the borrower indeed repaid the lender, but did not mention the promissory note. The lender replies: \"It is true that you paid me, but you repaid me for another debt that you owed me.\" The lender's word is not accepted, and the promissory note is nullified.
When does the above apply? When the witnesses testify that the borrower gave the lender the money as repayment of a debt. If, however, they saw him give him money, but did not know whether it was given as repayment of a debt, for safekeeping or as a present different rules apply.
If the possessor of the promissory note says: \"He never repaid me,\" he is established as a liar, and the promissory note is nullified. If he says: \"It was payment for another debt,\" his word is accepted. He must take an oath and then he may collect the money mentioned in the promissory note. The rationale is that the borrower did not repay him in the presence of witnesses. Hence, since the borrower can claim: \"You gave them to me as a present,\" his word is accepted if he says that the money was given him as repayment for another debt.
A promissory note is, by contrast, nullified in the following situation. The borrower told the lender: \"This promissory note was composed for the price of a steer that I purchased from you, and you collected the money for its meat already.\" The lender replied: \"Yes. The promissory note was composed for that purpose, but I collected the money for that debt with the understanding that the promissory note would apply to another debt that you owe me.\" The rationale is that the lender himself admitted that the debt mentioned in the promissory note was for the meat of the steer, and that he received payment for that debt. This applies even if there are no witnesses that the money was given for the payment of that debt. Hence, all that is necessary is that the borrower take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid the debt. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note that is signed by one witness and the borrower claims that he paid the debt, the borrower is obligated to take an oath. And since he cannot take that oath, he must make financial restitution.
If the borrower demands of the lender: \"Take an oath that I did not pay the debt,\" he must take the oath. The rationale is that even if two witnesses were signed on the promissory note and the borrower demanded: \"Take an oath that I did not pay the debt,\" the lender would be obligated to take that oath, as we have explained.", + "Similarly, my teachers ruled that when a person denies a loan supported by an oral commitment in a court, and one witness testifies that he borrowed the money, the defendant is required to take a Scriptural oath. If the defendant reversed his position and said: \"Yes, I took the loan, but I repaid it,\" \"... the lender waived payment in my favor,\" or \"... owes me money because of another matter,\" we consider him to be a person who is required to take an oath, but who cannot take the oath, and must therefore make financial restitution.", + "The following rules apply when a defendant claims that he paid a promissory note, but says: \"Let the lender take an oath. If he does, he can collect the debt.\" We tell the defendant: \"Bring your money to the court. Then he will take the oath and collect the debt.\" If the defendant does not have the funds to pay, we require him to take an oath, as ordained by the Geonim, that he has no financial resources. When he acquires resources, he must pay the creditor, but first he may require him to take an oath that the debtor did not repay him previously. Afterwards, the debtor must pay him.", + "The following laws apply when a person is owed a debt by a colleague that is supported by a promissory note, the promissory note becomes lost, but the witnesses are still present. Even though the debt was affirmed in the presence of the witnesses by a kinyan, if the borrower claims that he paid the debt, he is required only to take a sh'vuat hesset.
My teachers ruled that even if the debt was given for a specific time, and the due date had not yet arrived, when a promissory note was written, it is no longer in his possession and the borrower claims that he repaid the debt, the borrower's word is accepted provided that he takes an oath that he paid the lender. The rationale is that we suspect that he paid him and for that reason he tore the promissory note or destroyed it by fire.
Similarly, my teachers ruled that even if the promissory note is in the possession of another person and the borrower claims: \"It fell from my possession after I paid it,\" he must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations. This applies even if the due date of the promissory note has not arrived. Since the promissory note is not in the possession of the lender, we do not operate under the presumption that the debt is outstanding.", + "The following laws apply when both the borrower and the lender are holding on to the promissory note, and the lender says: \"It is mine and I took it out to demand payment from you,\" and the borrower says: \"I repaid you and it fell from my possession.\" If the authenticity of the promissory note can be verified, both claimants are each required to take an oath that no less than half the value of the promissory note belongs to them. The borrower then pays half. If the authenticity of the promissory note cannot be verified, the borrower must take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is released from all obligations.", + "Our Sages ordained that precautions be adopted to protect the borrower's interest in the following situation. A person claims of his colleague: \"You owe me a maneh.\" The colleague responds: \"I do not owe you anything\" or \"I paid you.\" The plaintiff demands: \"Take a sh'vuat hesset for me,\" and the borrower responds: \"You have a promissory note concerning this debt. You want to compel me to take an oath first and then produce the promissory note and use it to collect payment.\"
We tell the lender: \"Produce the promissory note.\" If the lender says: \"I never had a promissory note against this person,\" or \"I had a promissory note and I lost it,\" my teachers ruled that we tell the lender: \"Nullify the legal power of any promissory note you possess until the present time. Afterwards, you can require him to take a sh'vuat hesset. Alternatively, have a conditional ban of ostracism issued and go and seek until you find the promissory note." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague in the presence of witnesses and tells the borrower: \"Do not repay me outside the presence of witnesses,\" the borrower must repay him in the presence of witnesses because of this stipulation. This applies whether he made this stipulation at the time the loan was given or after the loan was given.
If the borrower claims: \"I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
Similarly, if the lender states: \"Repay me only in the presence of Torah scholars,\" or \"... in the presence of doctors,\" and the borrower claims: \"I repaid you in their presence, but those witnesses in whose presence I repaid you died or journeyed overseas,\" his word is accepted. He may take a sh'vuat hesset, and then he is freed of responsibility.
If, however, the lender stipulates: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so and so,\" and the borrower claims: \"I repaid you in the presence of other witnesses, and they died or journeyed overseas,\" his word is not accepted. Indeed, the lender stipulated: \"Do not pay me except in the presence of Reuven and Shimon,\" who are standing with him, so that the borrower will not rebuff him, saying: \"I repaid you in the presence of other people, and they journeyed away.\"", + "There are versions of the Talmud that state that when a person tells a colleague: \"Do not repay outside the presence of witnesses,\" and the borrower claims: \"I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,\" his word is not accepted. This is a scribal error. For this reason, the halachic authorities erred because of those texts. I have researched ancient versions of the text and I found that they state that the borrower's word is accepted. In Egypt, a portion of an ancient text of the Talmud written on parchment, as was the custom in the era approximately 500 years before the present era, came to my possession. I found two versions of this law among those parchments. Both state: \"If he claims: 'I fulfilled the stipulation and repaid you in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so, and they journeyed overseas or died,' his word is accepted.\"
Because of the error that occurred with regard to some texts, there are several Geonim who ruled that if the lender stipulates: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" and the borrower repaid him in the presence of others, the borrower's word is not accepted even if he brought witnesses, and they testify that he paid him in their presence. This is also a great mistake. The true law is that if witnesses come and testify that he paid the lender in their presence, the borrower is freed from responsibility; there is no place for suspicion.
This ruling also stems from those texts that state with regard to a lender who tells his colleague: \" 'Repay me in the presence of witnesses who study Torah law,' and the borrower repaid him in the presence of ordinary witnesses....\" This is also a scribal error. In the above-mentioned parchments, I found it written: \"And he went and paid him in private.\"
Although these texts have been carefully edited, this appears to be the ruling based on the judgment of the Talmud. Moreover, these concepts make sense: \"What should the borrower do? The lender told him: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of witnesses,\" and he repaid him in the presence of witnesses. Should he have locked the witnesses in prison for their entire lives so that they do not depart? Besides, what could he do if they died? Thus, the borrower will be forced to pay the lender time after time until he brings witnesses to court. This makes this testimony equivalent to testimony recorded in a legal document. Thus, by saying: \"Do not repay except in the presence of witnesses,\" the lender endows the loan with the strength of a loan recorded in a promissory note. There is no one who would think that this is correct.
Instead, certainly, if the lender stipulated: \"Do not repay me except in the presence of so-and-so and so-and-so,\" the borrower caused himself a loss if he repaid the loan in the presence of other witnesses who departed. If, however, these witnesses come and testify that he repaid the debt, there is no question that the borrower should not be held responsible. This is the manner in which judgment should be rendered and instruction should be given.", + "If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that the borrower did not pay him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even though the borrower claims that he paid him. If, however, the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, the lender is not entitled to expropriate any funds.", + "If the lender had the borrower agree to the stipulation that the lender's word would be accepted as the testimony of two witnesses, even if the borrower brings witnesses who testify that he paid him, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. For he accepted his word as that of two witnesses. ) This law applies even if the borrower brought 100 witnesses that he paid the lender, for the legal power of two witnesses is the same as that of 100 witnesses.
If, however, the borrower told the lender: \"I accept your word as that of three witnesses,\" since he mentioned a number, if the borrower pays the lender in the presence of four witnesses, we consider the debt to be paid. When a person accepted the lender's word as equivalent to that of two witnesses, how can he correct the matter? When he pays, he should have the promissory note ripped up, the lender testify that he nullifies every promissory note he has against so-and-so, the borrower, or the lender give testimony against himself outside the presence of the borrower that he received payment for all debts owed to him by so-and-so the borrower.", + "If the borrower pays the lender, the lender claims that he was not paid, and the borrower paid him a second time because of the stipulation, the borrower can lodge a suit against the lender claiming: \"You owe me such and such, because I paid you twice.\" If the lender acknowledges the borrower's claim, he must repay him. If he denies the claim, he is required to take a sh'vuat hesset, stating that the borrower paid him only once. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.", + "When the borrower had the lender agree to the stipulation that the borrower's word would be accepted whenever he claimed that he paid the debt, the lender may not collect this debt on the basis of this promissory note - neither from the borrower's heir, nor from a person who purchased property from him. Moreover, even if the borrower said: \"I did not pay this debt,\" the lender may not use this promissory note to expropriate property from a person who purchased property from the borrower. The rationale is that we suspect that the lender and the borrower perpetrated an act of deception to take the purchaser's property.
If the borrower claims to have paid a portion of the debt recorded in this promissory note, and the lender claims that he did not pay anything, the borrower is required to pay the portion that he admitted to owing. With regard to the remainder, he is required to take a sh 'vuat hesset. The rationale is that the lender accepted his word. If he originally stipulates that his word would be accepted without having to take a sh'vuat hesset, he is not required to take that oath.", + "If the lender stipulates that his word will be accepted without his having to take an oath, he may collect the debt without taking an oath. If, however, he must collect the debt from the borrower's heirs, he must take an oath; only afterwards may he collect the debt. If, however, he stipulated that he would also be able to collect from the heirs without taking an oath, he may collect the debt from them without an oath.
Similarly, if the lender stipulates that he will be able to expropriate the most valuable property owned by the borrower, he may expropriate that property, even from the heirs. The rationale is that any stipulation made with regard to financial matters is binding.
If the lender comes to collect from a person who purchased property from the borrower, he may expropriate the property only after taking an oath. The rationale is that the borrower may not accept a stipulation that will cause a colleague a loss." + ], + [ + "The debt is the responsibility of the borrower until he pays the lender or the lender's agent. If the lender said: \"Throw the money owed to me and become freed of responsibility,\" the borrower threw it to him, and it became lost or destroyed by fire before it reaches the lender, the borrower is not responsible.
The following rules apply if the lender told him: \"Throw the money owed to me in a manner governed by the laws of a bill of divorce.\" If the money was closer to the borrower, it is still his responsibility. If it was closer to the lender, the borrower is no longer responsible. If it is half and half, and it is lost or stolen from there, the borrower is required to pay half of the debt.", + "When Reuven owes Shimon a maneh, gives the maneh to Levi and tells him: \"Give this maneh that I owe Shimon to him,\" Reuven may not retract. Nevertheless, he is held responsible for the maneh until it reaches Shimon.
If Levi returned the maneh to Reuven, they are both responsible for it until Shimon receives full payment for the debt owed him.", + "A transfer of a debt is rescinded in the following situation. Reuven owed Shimon a maneh. Shimon told Reuven: \"Take the maneh that you owe me and give it to Levi.\" Since the three were standing together and Levi agreed, the transfer would ordinarily be binding. Nevertheless, if it is discovered that Reuven is poor and does not have the resources to pay, Levi can ask Shimon for payment of the debt, for he deceived him.
If Levi knew ' that Reuven was poor at that time or Reuven was rich at that time and became impoverished afterwards, Levi cannot demand payment from Shimon, for he accepted the transfer.
If Levi argues that Reuven was poor at the time and Shimon deceived him, and Shimon maintains that he was wealthy and later became impoverished, it appears to me that Shimon must bring proof of his claim. Only then is he freed of responsibility from the debt he owes Levi. This is no different from an instance where he has a receipt in his hand, and we tell him: \"Prove the authenticity of your receipt, and then you will be freed of responsibility.\"", + "We already explained the following concept in the laws of business transactions. These laws apply when Reuven was not owed anything by Shimon, but did owe a maneh to Levi. If he told Levi to collect the debt from Shimon - even if he made that statement in the presence of the three of them -it is not binding. If Shimon does not desire to pay Levi, he need not. If, however, he does pay him, he may collect the money from Reuven, since he paid him because of his instructions.
Similarly, if Levi desires to retract and say: \"I do not desire to collect the debt from Shimon,\" he may collect the debt from Reuven. This applies even if he collected a portion of the debt from Shimon; he may collect the remainder from Reuven.", + "The following laws apply with regard to a store-keeper who would give a house-owner anything he desires on credit, postponing payment until the entire amount reaches a substantial sum, at which time he would pay him.
The employer says: \"Give my workers a sela...\" or \"... my creditor the maneh that I owe him and I will repay you.\" Afterwards, the storekeeper said: \"I gave the money you instructed me to give,\" and the worker or the creditor says: \"I did not receive it.\" The worker or the creditor must take an oath; he may then collect the debt owed him from the employer. Similarly, the store-keeper may take an oath and collect what he claims from the employer, for he told him to pay that money.
The worker must take the oath in the presence of the storekeeper, and the storekeeper must do so in the presence of the worker or the creditor, so that they will be embarrassed by each other. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This oath is a Rabbinical ordinance, administered while the person holds a sacred article, because both claimants are coming to collect money. Therefore, if the storekeeper dies, the creditor may collect the debt without taking an oath. Similarly, if the worker or the creditor dies, the storekeeper may collect the claim he makes without taking an oath. The rationale is that in such a situation the employer is not losing anything and is making payment only once.", + "When the store-keeper says: \"You told me to give this person a maneh,\" or \"You commanded me and told me, 'If so-and-so comes, give him,'\" and the employer claims: \"I did not tell you,\" the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset to support his claim. He is then freed of responsibility. The store-keeper should then lodge a suit against the person he claims to have paid.
Similarly, if a storekeeper tells an employer with whom he has a credit arrangement: \"It is written in my account book that you owe me a maneh\" and the employer says: \"I don't know,\" the employer must take a sh'vuat hesset that he does not know. He is then freed of responsibility, as is the law with regard to any situation where one person lodges a claim against another. There is no Rabbinical ordinance governing such a situation.", + "When Reuven produces a promissory note that states that Shimon owes a debt to Levi, and claims that Shimon gave it to him by signing a deed acknowledging the transfer and giving it to him, but that the deed of transfer was lost, or he claims that Levi transferred the promissory note to him via the acquisition of land, he may collect the debt from Shimon. The rationale is that Reuven is in possession of the promissory note.
If Shimon claims that he paid Levi and demands that an oath be taken, Levi must take an oath to Shimon. Afterwards, Reuven may collect the debt. If Levi admits that Shimon paid him, Levi must pay Reuven. If Levi claims that he neither sold nor gave the promissory note to Reuven, Levi is required to take a sh'vuat hesset and is then freed of responsibility.", + "When a promissory note is in the hands of a third party, and he produces it in a court of law and says: \"It has been paid,\" his word is accepted. This applies even if the authenticity of the note has been verified. The rationale is that if he had desired, he could have burned it or torn it.
Similarly, if the third party died, and a note is found in his possession stating that the promissory note entrusted to him has been paid, we consider it paid. This applies even though the note stating the debt was paid is not signed by witnesses.
When, by contrast, a note is found in the creditor's possession that a particular promissory note has been paid, even if the note stating that the debt was paid is in the creditor's handwriting, it is considered to be merely facetious.", + "If witnesses signed the note discovered in the creditor's possession, when their signatures have been verified, the note is considered paid. If their signatures have not been verified, the witnesses who signed the receipt should be interrogated. If they do not know of the matter or if they are not present to be asked, the receipt is ignored, because it was found in the possession of the lender or his heirs.", + "If the promissory note mentioned in the note that was discovered was found among the promissory notes belonging to the lender that have been paid, we assume that it was paid, even if the note that was found was not signed by witnesses.
Similarly, if it is written on the promissory note itself - whether on its front or back, or even on only a portion of it - that this promissory note or a portion of it was paid, we follow those statements. This applies even though witnesses did not sign the statement, and the promissory note is in the possession of the lender. For if the promissory note had not been paid, he would not have written on the note itself.", + "When a person finds a promissory note among his other legal documents and he does not know its status, it should remain in his possession until Eliyahu comes.", + "When a person tells his sons: \"One of the promissory notes among my promissory notes has been paid and I don't know which one it is,\" all of the promissory notes are considered paid. If there are two promissory notes from one person, the greater one is considered paid and the lesser one is considered unpaid.
If a person tells a colleague: \"One of your promissory notes in my possession has been paid,\" the greater one is considered to be paid and the lesser one is considered to be unpaid. If he tells him: \"The debt you owe me has been paid,\" all of the promissory notes he has against him are considered paid." + ], + [ + "The following laws apply when a lender dies and his heir comes and demands payment from a borrower, because of the promissory note for which he is liable. If the borrower claims: \"I paid your father,\" and the heir says: \"I don't know whether you did or not,\" we tell the borrower: \"Arise and pay him.\"
If the borrower demands: \"Take an oath for me,\" the heir should take an oath, while holding a sacred object, that his father did not instruct him via another person that the debt was paid, that he did not tell him this verbally, and that he did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among his father's legal documents. After taking this oath, he may collect the debt.", + "If the borrower died after the lender died, and the lender's heir comes and demands payment from the borrower's heir, he may not collect payment unless he takes an oath. We tell him: \"Take an oath that 'My father did not instruct me...,' 'My father did not tell me...,' 'I did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid among my father's legal documents.'\"
Even if the heir was a baby lying in a cradle when his father died, he must take this oath and collect. If the lender made a statement immediately before his death that this promissory note has not been paid, the lender's heir need not take an oath before exacting payment. This applies even if he is collecting payment] from the heir.", + "If, however, the borrower died first and then the lender died, the lender's heirs may not collect anything from the borrower's heirs. The rationale is that when the borrower died, the lender became obligated to take an oath before collecting, as we have explained in the previous halachah. He has already died, and a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons. For they are unable to take an oath that their father was not paid anything.
Nevertheless, if a judge transgressed and required the lender's heirs to take an oath and enabled them to collect their debt, the money that they collected should not be expropriated from their possession. Therefore, a promissory note that is used as the basis for a claim by the heirs of a lender who seek to collect from the heirs of a borrower when the borrower died first, should not be torn, nor should it be used to expropriate money.
It should not be used to expropriate money, because a person does not bequeath an oath to his sons, as explained. It should not, however, be torn, lest there be a judge who will expropriate money because of it.", + "In the situation described above, even if the debt was secured by a guarantor, the lender's heirs should not expropriate the debt from the guarantor. The rationale is that if they are told to collect the debt from the guarantor, the guarantor will go and seek payment from the borrower's heirs.", + "Extrapolation is not made from this law to a similar instance. Instead, when a person who impairs the legal power of a promissory note then dies -although he is not entitled to collect the debt unless he takes an oath - his children may take an oath that their father did not instruct them..., their father did not tell them..., they did not find a note saying that this promissory note was paid in its entirety among his father's legal documents. They may then collect the remainder of the sum stated in the promissory note from the lender or from his heirs.", + "When a lender's heir comes to collect payment of a promissory note from the borrower's heirs and the latter say: \"Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'\" the lender's heirs may collect the debt without taking an oath. The rationale is that whenever a person says \"I did not borrow,\" it is as if he says: \"I did not pay.\"
Similarly, when the lender himself comes to collect payment from the heirs of a borrower, and they say: \"Our father told us: 'I did not borrow the money mentioned in this debt,'\" the lender may collect the debt without taking an oath. This applies even if in the promissory note the lender stated that he would accept the borrower's word whenever he claims to have paid the debt. For in this instance as well, we follow the rationale that whenever a person says \"I did not borrow,\" it is as if he says: \"I did not pay.\"", + "The following laws apply when the lender's heir comes and demands payment from a borrower on the basis of a promissory note that contains a stipulation that the borrower's word will be accepted, whenever the borrower says: \"I paid the debt.\" He is required to take a sh'vuat hesset that he paid this debt and is freed of liability. This applies even if the stipulation does not state: \"Your word will be accepted against a claim issued by my heirs.\" The rationale is that the very basis of the promissory note depends on this stipulation.
If the stipulation states that the borrower's word would be accepted without an oath, he is not required to take an oath, even to the lender's heirs.", + "The following laws apply when the lender's heir is below majority, he possesses a promissory noted owed to his father, but a receipt for this note was produced after the father's death. We do not rip up the promissory note, nor do we allow payment to be expropriated on its basis until the heir reaches majority. The rationale is that it is possible that the receipt is a forgery. That possibility is reinforced by the fact that the borrower did not produce it during the lender's lifetime.", + "When a person produces a promissory note against a colleague, stating that it was composed in Babylonia, he collects the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If the promissory note was written in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. This is not the case with regard to a ketubah
The following rules apply when the promissory note did not state the place where it was composed. If the lender produced it in Babylonia, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Babylonia. If he produced it in Eretz Yisrael, he should collect the debt in the coinage of Eretz Yisrael. If the lender sought to collect the debt in the coinage of the place where he produced the promissory note, and the borrower protested, claiming that he is obligated to pay in a coinage that is worth less than the local coinage, the lender should support his claim with an oath. He may then collect the debt. If the promissory note states that money is owed without any more specifics, the lender may collect only what the borrower agrees to pay.
From these laws, we can derive the following principles: A legal document that does not mention the place where it was composed is acceptable for all matters. Similarly, a legal document that is not dated is acceptable, even though it is testimony that cannot be nullified through hazamah. The rationale is that in financial laws, we are not stringent and do not subject the witnesses to precise cross-examination and interrogation, as will be explained. This leniency was adopted so as not to prevent loans from being granted. For this reason, post-dated promissory notes are acceptable, although the testimony of the witnesses who signed cannot be nullified through hazamah as will be explained in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "When a person lends money to a colleague without any stipulations, all of the borrower's property is on lien and bound to the debt. Therefore, when the lender comes to collect his debt, he should demand payment from the debtor first. If the debtor does not have money, but is in possession of either landed or movable property, he may collect the debt from them with the borrower's consent. If the borrower did not give the property willingly, the lender should have the property expropriated by the court.
If the property in the borrower's possession was not equal in value to the amount stated in the promissory note, the lender may expropriate the debt from all the property that was in the borrower's possession, even though it is now sold or given as presents to others. The rationale is that since the borrower sold or gave away the property after it was subjugated to the lien of this debt, he may expropriate the property from the possession of purchasers or the recipients of the presents. This is called being toreif.
To what does the above apply? To landed property in the borrower's possession at the time of the loan. Property that the borrower acquired after the loan was given, by contrast, is not automatically on lien to the creditor, and he may not expropriate it from purchasers. If, however, the lender established the stipulation that all the property that the borrower will acquire afterwards will be on lien for him to collect the debt from it, property that the borrower acquired after taking the loan and subsequently sold or gave away may be expropriated by a creditor.", + "The above statements apply only to landed property. Movable property that has been sold, by contrast, is not on lien to a debt. Even property in the borrower's possession at the time of the loan may not be expropriated by his creditor.
If the debtor transferred a lien to all his movable property by virtue of the lien on landed property so that the creditor can expropriate everything, he may expropriate that movable property. This applies only when he writes in the promissory note: \"I have transferred to you a lien on my movable property by virtue of the lien on my landed property. This is not an asmachta, nor is this a standard form of a legal document.\"
Similarly, he may write: \"All of the property that I will purchase in the future, whether landed property or movable property, is on lien to you so that you can expropriate payment from it, and the lien on my movable property is transferred to you by virtue of the lien on my landed property, so that you can expropriate payment from them. This is not an asmachta, nor is this a standard form of a legal document.\" In such an instance, the creditor may expropriate even the movable property that the borrower purchased after he borrowed the money. The rationale is that any stipulation made concerning a financial transaction is binding.", + "The following laws apply when a person designates a field of his as an ipotiki for a creditor for a debt, or for a woman for her ketubah - i.e., he composed a legal document stating that they should collect payment from that source - and a river flooded the field. The creditor may expropriate other property as payment for the debt. If, however, it was stipulated that he should not derive payment from any place other than this, he should not expropriate other property.
Similarly, if a person borrowed money and explicitly stipulated that his property is not on lien to the debt, the creditor may never collect this debt from property that has been sold to others.", + "When a person designates a field of his as an ipotiki for a creditor for a debt, or for a woman for her ketubah and then sells it, the sale is binding. If when the creditor comes to collect his debt, he does not find any property that has not been sold, he may expropriate the field that had been designated from the person who purchased it.
When does the above apply? When the debtor sold the field for a limited amount of time. If, however, he desired to sell it forever, the sale is not binding.", + "When a person designates a servant as an ipotiki, a creditor can expropriate the servant in payment of the debt even if he was sold to another person. ' The rationale is that the matter will be publicized. If he designates his cow as an ipotiki, a creditor may not expropriate the cow. The same ruling applies with regard to other movable property, for the matter will not be publicized.", + "When a master designates his servant as an ipotiki and then frees him, he obtains his freedom. This applies even if he wrote in the promissory note: \"You will not receive payment from any source but this.\"
Similar rules apply if he consecrates the servant. The rationale is that [the prohibition against leaven, freeing a servant and consecration remove the lien from an article.
The creditor may collect his debt from the debtor. If he does not have the means to pay him, he must compose a promissory note acknowledging his debt, and with that promissory note he can expropriate property that was sold by the debtor after the date of this second promissory note.
Why is he obligated to pay the debt? Because he caused his colleague's money to be lost. And whenever a person causes a colleague a loss, he must make financial restitution, as explained in the appropriate place.
We also compel the servant's second master to free him as well. This is a measure enacted for the correction of society, lest the creditor encounter the servant in the marketplace at a later time and say: \"You are my slave.\"", + "When a person consecrates his property, the creditor cannot expropriate the property from the Temple treasury, for the consecration of property lifts the lien from it.
When the property is redeemed from the Temple treasury, we estimate how much a person would desire to give for this field, so that the creditor will be paid his due, or the woman the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. Therefore, when the field is redeemed and becomes unconsecrated property in the possession of the purchaser, the creditor can come and expropriate his debt from it, or the woman can take it as payment for the money due her by virtue of her ketubah, as we have explained in Hilchot Arachin.", + "When a creditor comes to expropriate a field from the purchaser, if the purchaser has money in his possession, he may eliminate the creditor's claim by paying him the money for which he is expropriating the field. The purchaser then demands repayment from the seller. If, however, the debtor had designated the field as an ipotiki, the purchaser may not eliminate the creditor's claim by paying him.", + "The purchaser is also given the upper hand in the following situation: Reuven owed Shimon 200 zuz. Reuven owned two fields. He sold one to Levi for a maneh, and then sold him the other one for a second maneh. Shimon expropriated one for a maneh and then sought to expropriate the other for the second maneh that was owed him. Levi brought 200 zuz in coin and told Shimon: \"If you desire to consider the field that you already expropriated as payment for the entire 200 zuz that you are owed, that is acceptable. If not, here are the 200 zuz of the debt; rescind your claim.\" Levi is given the upper hand.
If Shimon accepted Levi's proposition and kept the one field, Levi cannot demand payment from Reuven for more than one maneti, despite the fact that Shimon accepted it as compensation for 200 zuz.", + "The creditor, by contrast, is given the upper hand in the following situation. Reuven owed Shimon 200 zuz. Reuven died and left one field that was worth 100 zuz. Shimon came and expropriated it. The orphans gave Shimon 100 zuz worth from the movable property that their father left, and thus removed Shimon from it. Shimon may, however, return and expropriate it for the remainder of his debt. The rationale is that by giving him the 100 zuz, they performed a mitzvah, for it is a mitzvah for heirs to pay their father's debt.
If the heirs told Shimon: \"This 100 is for the field you expropriated,\" he cannot come back and expropriate it again for the remainder of the money owed him." + ], + [ + "When the court attaches the property of a borrower to expropriate it, they should expropriate only land of intermediate quality for a lender.
According to Scriptural Law, a creditor should receive only the property of inferior quality, as implied by Deuteronomy 24:11: \"You shall stand outside and the person who owes you the money shall bring the security out to you.\" What is the tendency of a person to bring out? The least valuable of his utensils. Our Sages, however, ordained that a creditor could expropriate property of intermediate quality, so that people would not refuse to give loans.
When does the above apply? When the lender comes to collect from the borrower himself. If, however, the borrower dies, and the lender comes to collect from his heirs - whether they are below or above the age of majority -he may collect only property of inferior value.", + "We do not collect payment from property that has been sold, when the debtor owns property that is still in his possession. [This applies even if the property in his possession is of inferior quality, and the property that has been sold is of intermediate or superior quality, and whether the property was sold or given away as presents.
If the property that has not been sold is flooded, the creditor may collect the property that has been sold. The rationale is that since it has been devastated, it is as if it no longer exists.", + "The creditor is given the upper hand in the following situation. Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon sold one of his fields to Levi. If one of Reuven's creditors comes to expropriate property in payment for his debt, he may expropriate property from either Shimon or Levi.
When does the above apply? When Levi purchased property of intermediate value. If, however, he purchased property that was of superior or inferior value, the creditor cannot expropriate property from Levi. For Levi will tell him: \"I purposely took the trouble of purchasing a field that you have no right to expropriate, so that you would not have a claim against me.\" Similarly, if Levi purchased a field of intermediate worth and left Shimon a field of intermediate worth similar to the one of intermediate worth that he expropriated, the creditor cannot expropriate the field from Levi, for he will tell the creditor: \"I left you property to expropriate as payment for your debt.\"", + "We have already explained that payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value, and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
When a person owns only property of superior value and property of inferior value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.
If he owns only property of superior value and property of intermediate value, damages should be expropriated from the property of superior value, and a lender and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of intermediate value.
If he owns only property of inferior value and property of intermediate value, damages and payment for a loan should be expropriated from the property of intermediate value, and a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah should expropriate the property of inferior value.", + "When a person owns three fields and he sells them to three people at the same time, they all take the place of the previous owner. Thus, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value, a lender should expropriate property of intermediate value and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from property of inferior value.
If he sold them one after the other, they should all expropriate their due from the last purchaser. If the worth of that property was not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased before it. If the worth of that property was also not sufficient, they should expropriate from the property purchased first.
This applies even if the last purchaser acquired the property of inferior quality. For the purchaser who preceded him can tell the person who seeks to expropriate property: \"I left you property from which you could collect your debt.\"", + "When a debtor sells all of his properties to one person, one after the other, that person takes the place of the original owner.
When does the above apply? When he purchased the property of superior quality last. When, however, he purchased the property of inferior quality last, all the creditors must collect their due from that property. For when a person comes to expropriate property, the purchaser will tell him: \"I left you property from which you can collect your debt.\"
Why does the creditor not tell this to a person who seeks to expropriate the property when he purchased the property of superior value first, and thus a woman collecting the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and a lender would also expropriate their due from the property of superior value? Because this possibility is an ordinance instituted for the sake of the purchaser. And he will tell them: \"I cannot accept this ordinance.\" Instead, each type of creditor will collect from the property fit for him.", + "Similarly, the following laws apply when the debtor sold all his properties to one person, one after the other, selling him the property of superior value last, and that purchaser sold the property of inferior and intermediate value to a third party and retained the property of superior value for himself. All the debtors collect their due from the property of superior value, for the purchaser does not have any property from the original debtor to divert them to.
When the purchaser sold the property of superior value and retained the properties of inferior and intermediate value, payment for damages should be expropriated from property of superior value in the possession of the second purchaser. The debt owed a lender and the money due a woman by virtue of her ketubah should be expropriated from the property of intermediate and inferior value that the first purchaser retained.", + "As reflected in the following situation, when a person limits his power to expropriate property, his waiver may extend beyond his original intent: One person borrowed money from a colleague. Afterwards, the borrower sold his property to two people each person purchasing a portion for himself, one after the other. The creditor wrote to the second purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirmed his commitment with a kinyan. Our Sages ruled that he is also not able to expropriate the property sold to the first purchaser. For that purchaser will say to the creditor: \"I left you the opportunity of collecting the money owed you from the debtor by expropriating the property that the second purchaser bought after I did. You caused yourself a loss by removing your lien on it.\"
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah. If she writes such a waiver to the second purchaser, she loses the right to the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and cannot expropriate property. If, however, such persons write such a waiver to the first purchaser, they may expropriate the property from the second purchaser.
The following situation can occur when a borrower sells a field to a purchaser and then the purchaser sells it to a second purchaser. The lender writes to the first purchaser, pledging that he would not expropriate the property as payment for the debt and affirms his commitment with a kinyan. The creditor may expropriate the property from the second purchaser. The first purchaser may expropriate the property from the creditor, because he pledged that he would not expropriate the property, and he did. The second purchaser can then expropriate the property from the first purchaser, because he sold it to him. The creditor may then expropriate the property again from the second purchaser, and the cycle continues until they arrange a compromise.
Similar laws apply with regard to a woman who seeks to collect the money due her by virtue of her ketubah and makes a pledge to the person who purchased her husband's property." + ], + [ + "When a person owes many debts, the person whose debt was made first has the right to expropriate property first - from the borrower himself and from his creditors. If a later creditor expropriated property before the first creditor, the first creditor may expropriate it from him. For the person whose debt was established first acquires the property.
To what does the above apply? To landed property that the borrower possessed at the time that he took the loan. When, however, he purchased landed property after borrowing from many creditors, no one is granted precedence over the others, even if the borrower wrote to each one in the promissory note: \"The property that I will purchase in the future is on lien to you.\" Instead, all are equal, and whoever comes first and expropriates the property acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.", + "When a borrower writes in the promissory note: \"What I will acquire in the future is on lien to you,\" afterwards purchases a field and then borrows from another person, the field is on lien to the first lender. He has the right to expropriate it first. Similar principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.
There is no concept of precedence with regard to the expropriation of movable property. Instead, whoever comes first and expropriates it acquires it, even if he was the last to make the loan.
If another person came and seized possession of movable property belonging to this debtor in order to acquire the property on behalf of one of the creditors, that person does not acquire the property. The rationale is that a person who seizes property on behalf of a creditor in a situation where a loss is caused to another person does not acquire it. If, however, seizing it would not cause a loss to other people, he does acquire it for him. Similarly, if the borrower tells him: \"Acquire this article on behalf of so-and-so,\" he acquires it for him. None of the other creditors can expropriate this movable property, because another person has already acquired it.", + "When promissory notes are all dated on the same date - or at the same hour, in a place where the hours are mentioned - whichever creditor comes first and expropriates property, whether landed property or movable property, acquires it.", + "The ensuing laws apply when creditors whose promissory notes are dated on the same date all come to expropriate property together, or when creditors whose promissory notes were dated before one another come to expropriate movable property, for there is no concept of precedence with regard to movable property, or creditors come to expropriate property that the borrower purchased after taking the loan dated last, and the property the borrower possesses is not sufficient to enable each one to collect the debt that is owed to them.
How is the property divided? If when the property is divided in equal portions according to the number of creditors, the person owed the least will receive the amount owed him or less, the property is divided into that number of equal portions.
If dividing the property into equal portions would give the person owed the least more than he is owed, this is what should be done: We divide the sum equally among the creditors so that the person owed the least will receive the money that he is owed. He then withdraws. The remaining creditors then divide the balance of the debtor's resources in the following manner.
What is implied? A person owed three debts: one of a maneh, one for 200 and one for 300. If all the resources of the debtor total 300 zuz, they are divided 100 for each. Similarly, if his resources are less than 300, they should be divided equally among the three.
If his resources total more than 300 zuz, the 300 should be divided equally and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The remaining money should be divided equally in this same manner.
What is implied? If the debtor's resources total 500 or less, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. The balance of 200 or less should then be divided equally among the remaining creditors, and then the second one withdraws.
If the debtor's resources total 600, the 300 should be divided equally, and then the person owed 100 should withdraw. They then divide 200 between the two equally, and then the second one withdraws. The 100 that remain should then be given to the person owed 300; he thus receives only 300. The debtor's resources should be divided according to this pattern even if there are 100 creditors, if they come to divide the resources at the same time. There are, however, Geonim who rule that the resources should be divided in proportion to the amount owed each creditor.", + "The fact that a promissory note is not dated correctly creates difficulties for its bearer. For example, Reuven and Shimon each possess a promissory note, stating that Levi owes them money. The promissory note possessed by Reuven is dated Nissan 5, and that possessed by Shimon is dated Nissan, without specifying a day. Levi possesses only one field that is not equal in value to the debts owed them both. Reuven is allowed to take possession of the field, for perhaps the promissory note owed Shimon was signed at the end of Nissan.
Similarly, Shimon cannot expropriate a field that was sold by Levi from lyyar or afterwards. For the purchaser will tell him: \"Perhaps the date of your promissory note is the first of Nissan. There is a field that was not sold at that time in the possession of Reuven. Expropriate it and then let Reuven, whose promissory note is dated after yours, come and expropriate the field from me.\" Therefore, if Reuven and Shimon write each other a document granting power of attorney, they may expropriate a field that was sold after lyyar using both vantage points.
Similar laws apply if Levi sold one field twice, composing separate deeds of sale for Reuven and for Shimon, with one dated on the first of Nissan and one Nissan, without specifying a day." + ], + [ + "When a creditor expropriates a field, he may also expropriate the increase in value that the purchaser brings about within the field. This applies whether the field increases in value because of an investment, or it increases in value as a matter of course.
There is, however, a difference between the two instances. If it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire increase in value. If it increased in value because of an investment, the creditor may expropriate only half the increase.
What is implied? Reuven was owed a debt of 200 zuz by Shimon. Shimon sold a field to Levi for a maneh. Levi made an investment in the field and caused its value to increase and it is now worth 200. When Reuven expropriates it from Levi, he expropriates it from him for 100 and also the 50 that constitutes half the increase of value. If it increased in value on its own accord - e.g., the price rose or trees grew - he can expropriate the entire amount.
Great sages issued a ruling stating that a purchaser should not have lesser legal power than a person who occupies a field belonging to a colleague without permission, in which instance the increase in the field's value is appraised, and the squatter is given the weaker position. Therefore, if the field increased 100 zuz in value and Levi spent 50, Levi should receive all of his expenses and half of the increase in value beyond the expenses. The other half of the increase in value, and the principal, should be expropriated by the creditor. These are words of logic, and it is appropriate to rule accordingly. The purchaser then returns and expropriates the principal from Shimon's property, including even property that he sold or gave away after the time he sold this field to Levi. The increase in value that the creditor expropriated from Levi, the purchaser - whether half the increase in value or the entire increase - Levi may then expropriate only from property in the possession of Shimon. For it is an enactment instituted for the sake of society not to expropriate a property's increase in value, nor produce eaten by a thief, nor the sustenance given a widow and the deceased's daughters from property that has been sold. The rationale is that these are matters that have no limit. And it is one of the leniencies associated with a ketubah that a woman is not granted the opportunity of expropriating the money due her by virtue of her ketubah from a property's increase in value.
Why is a creditor able to expropriate only half the increase of value that comes after the investment was made? Because the increase in value comes after Shimon, the original owner borrowed money from Reuven and sold the property to Levi. Thus, Reuven and Levi can be considered to be two creditors of Shimon's and the increase in the value of the field as an increase in the value of his property that came after he borrowed from both of them. In such an instance, they divide the increase equally, as we have explained. Accordingly, the following rules apply in the ensuing circumstance. Reuven borrowed a maneh from Shimon, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: \"the property that I will acquire in the future.\" He then borrowed 200 zuz from Levi, and in the promissory note wrote that he is extending the lien to: \"the property that I will acquire in the future.\" He then purchased a field and sold it to Yehudah for 150 zuz. Yehudah made an investment and caused its value to increase, and ultimately it was worth 300 zuz. Shimon and Levi expropriate the principal and divide it equally. Thus, each receives 75 zuz.
The three - Shimon, Levi and Yehudah - then divide the 150 zuz of the field's increase in value according to the principles that we explained. Thus, Shimon expropriates the complete payment of the maneh owed him from this field. Levi expropriates 137 1/2, and Yehudah receives 62 1/2 from the field's increase in value. They should divide the increase in value in this manner. These principles apply even if there are 100 creditors.", + "All of the produce that the purchaser consumed, however, is not expropriated from him. The produce that is attached to the land, by contrast, including even the produce that no longer needs the nurture of the land - e.g., grapes that are ready to be harvested - may be expropriated by a creditor in the same way as he expropriates the property's increase in value.", + "When the recipient of a present invests in it and causes its value to increase, the creditor may not expropriate any of its increase in value. Instead, we evaluate its worth at the time the present was given and allow him to expropriate that amount. If, however, it increases in value as a matter of course, the creditor may expropriate the entire field. If the person giving the present accepts responsibility for it, the creditor may expropriate the increase in value from this field just as he would if it were in the possession of a purchaser.
Why is a creditor given the right to expropriate half of a property's increase in value from a purchaser, but not from a person who receives a present? Because the seller of the property wrote to the purchaser in the deed of sale: \"I am obligated to you for the principal, the labor you invest in it, and the increase in value that you will bring to it. I take responsibility for everything.\" The purchaser accepted this stipulation. For the purchaser took possession of the field on the condition that if the increase in the value of the field was expropriated from him, he would seek recompense from the seller. Even if this stipulation was not written in the deed of sale, it is a matter of public knowledge that this is the law governing the seller's responsibility to the purchaser. With regard to a present, by contrast, this stipulation does not apply. Hence, a creditor may not expropriate any increase in value that the recipient of a present brought about through investment.", + "Similarly, if orphans who inherit an estate increase its value, a creditor of their father may not expropriate any of its increase in value. If, however, the property increases in value as a matter of course, he may expropriate the entire increase.", + "The following laws apply when a creditor expropriates property for a debt owed him from a purchaser from the principal and half of the increase in the property's value. We then consider what remains of the landed property. If the land that remains would be of value to the purchaser - e.g., in a field, an area where nine kabbin of grain could be sown, in a garden, an area where half a kab of vegetables could be sown - the creditor and the purchaser should become partners with regard to the land. If the property is not large enough to be divided in a manner that the smaller portion of sufficient size would be referred to as a field or as a garden, the creditor should reimburse the purchaser financially for the increase in the value of the field, as is due him.", + "The following rules apply when a field was designated as an ipotiki. The creditor may expropriate the entire field. We consider the half of the field's increase in value which must be repaid to the purchaser. If half of the increase in value exceeds the purchaser's investment, he should collect the amount he invested from the creditor. He is given only this amount, because the creditor can tell him: \"It is my field that increased in value.\" He should collect the remainder of the money due him from the field's increase in value from the seller.
If half of the field's increase in value is less than the purchaser's investment, the purchaser should be reimbursed by the person who expropriated the field for only half of the field's increase in value. He then collects from the seller the other half of the field's increase in value.", + "When a creditor comes to expropriate property from heirs, and the heirs claim: \"We caused the value of the property to increase,\" but the creditor claims: \"Perhaps it was your father who caused the property to increase in value,\" the burden of proof is on the heirs.
If the heirs bring proof that they increased the value of the property, we evaluate the increase and their expenses. They receive the lesser of the two, and they are given this amount in money.
When does the above apply? When the field was designated an ipotiki. If, however, it was not designated an ipotiki, if the heirs desire, they have the right to pay the creditor the debt he is owed and absolve his claim. Or if they desire, they may take a share of the land that is equivalent to the value of the increase they brought to the value of the property." + ], + [ + "This is the order in which debts are collected: When the creditor brings his promissory note to the court and the authenticity of the witnesses' signatures are verified, we tell the borrower: \"Pay.\" We do not attach his property until the creditor demands this. If a judge errs and gives the creditor access to the borrower's property before he demands it, we remove the creditor from it.
If the borrower responds: \"I will pay. Establish a date for me, so that I will have time to borrow money from another person, offer my land as collateral, sell property and bring the money,\" we grant him 30 days. We do not require that he bring security to the court. For if he possessed movable property, the court would expropriate it immediately.
If the creditor desires, he may have a conditional ban of ostracism issued against anyone who possesses money or movable property and uses arguments to avoid payment. We do not require the borrower to bring a guarantor until he pays.
If the borrower has not brought payment when these 30 days are concluded, the court composes an adrachta. Similarly, if at the outset, when the lender demanded payment of him, he said: \"I will not pay,\" we compose an adrachta against his property immediately and do not grant him any time. Similarly, if what is involved is a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone and the borrower admits his obligation, we compose an adrachta against the property that is presently in his possession.", + "The following rules apply when the borrower claims: \"The promissory note concerning which the signatures of the witnesses was validated is a forgery. I will bring proof and nullify the matter The witnesses are located in this and this place and their names are so-and-so and so-and-so.\" If it appears to the judges that there is substance to his words, a time is established in which he must bring his witnesses to court. If it appears to them that he is merely raising deceptive arguments and fallacious claims, they should tell him: \"Pay.\" Afterwards, if he brings proof of his claim, the money should be returned to him.
If the creditor is a man of force and it is possible that the money will not be able to be recovered from him, it should be entrusted to a third party.", + "When a time was established for the borrower to bring proof and nullify the promissory note, that time came and he did not come to court, we wait for three court sessions Monday, Thursday and Monday. If he does not come, we compose a peticha against him and place him under a ban of ostracism.
We give him a further respite of 90 days while he is under the ban of ostracism. The first 30, for perhaps he is seeking a loan, the middle 30, for perhaps he is seeking to sell property, and the final 30, for perhaps the person who purchased his property is seeking to bring him the money.
When these 90 days are completed and the borrower still does not appear in court, the court composes an adrachta against his property and releases him from the ban of ostracism.", + "If the borrower lives within a two-day journey or less from the court, we do not compose an adrachta until we send messengers and inform him of this impending step. If he lives further away, it is not necessary to inform him.
When does the above apply? When throughout the entire 90 days he would procrastinate and say: \"Just now, I will bring proof that nullifies the promissory note.\" If, however, he says: \"I refuse to appear in court,\" we compose an adrachta against both his movable and his landed property immediately. Similarly, if a person is being sued on the basis of a legal document recording an object entrusted to him for safekeeping, we do not wait 90 days and instead, we compose an adrachta against his property immediately.", + "The statements made above - that if the borrower does not come at the conclusion of the 90-day period we compose an adrachta - applies only with regard to landed property. With regard to movable property, by contrast, different rules apply. Even after 90 days, as long as the borrower says: \"I will bring a proof and nullify the promissory note,\" we do not allow the lender to expropriate movable property.
The rationale is that the alleged lender might consume it and afterwards, the borrower will bring the proof that nullifies the promissory note, and then he will not find property belonging to the alleged lender that he can collect for repayment. This applies even if the lender possesses landed property, for perhaps that property will decrease in value or become dried out.", + "How is the adrachta composed? If we are expropriating property that is in the borrower's possession, we write in that document:
\"So-and-so was obligated by a judgment to pay so-and-so this amount. He has not made this payment on his own volition. Hence, we have composed this adrachta against this and this field that he possesses.\"
Afterwards, three experts evaluate a portion of that field equivalent in value to the debt that he owes, and its prospective sale is announced according to the appraisal until those who add to the estimation make their bids. If there are no buyers, we transfer ownership of that portion of the field to the creditor because of his debt and rip up the promissory note, if such a document existed. If there was no landed property in the borrower's possession, we compose the adrachta which states:
So-and-so undertook an obligation to so-and-so as recorded in the promissory note possessed by the creditor. The debtor has not paid this debt. We have not found property that is presently in the debtor's possession. We have already torn up the promissory note that the creditor possessed and have given him license to seek out and research whether there are any properties that the debtor sold from this and this date and onward, with the intent that his hand be raised over them. He has license to derive payment and expropriate his debt from all such properties.", + "After this adrachta is composed, the lender goes and seeks property belonging or that once belonged to the borrower. If he finds property that is in his possession, they are evaluated for him. If he finds only property that has been sold after the date of his promissory note, he may expropriate it. We tear up the adrachta and write a tirpa.", + "How is the tirpa composed? We write:
Because of the debt of this and this amount that so-and-so owes him, so-and-so won in court the right to expropriate this and this field that so-and-so purchased for this and this amount at this and this time. We have already torn up the adrachta that was in his possession, and we have given him license to expropriate this and this amount from this property.
", + "After the tirpa is written so that the lender may expropriate the property, we bring three experts to that field who evaluate that field and appraise how much of the field should be given to him for the principal and half of the field's increase in value, as explained. We then announce the property's sale for thirty days in the same manner as we announce the sale of property inherited by orphans.", + "Afterwards, if the borrower is with us on the land, we require the borrower to take an oath that he is bankrupt, as ordained by our Sages. We also require the person expropriating the property to take an oath while holding a sacred object that he did not collect payment for this debt, that he did not waive payment of it, and that he did not sell it to another person. Afterwards, we give the lender possession of the purchaser's according to the assessment of the debt owed him, and we compose a horadah.", + "How is this document composed? The judges write:
After we had an evaluation of the property made for so-and-so, because of the debt he was owed, we announced the sale of the property as is fitting, and we required both the person expropriating the property and the debtor to take the appropriate oaths, we have given so-and-so possession of this and this field. He may use it as a person uses property that he has acquired.", + "From which time may the person who seeks to expropriate this property derive benefit from its produce? From the time the days of the announcement are completed.", + "Whenever an adrachta does not state: \"We have torn up the promissory note,\" it is not an acceptable adrachta. Whenever a tirpa does not state: \"We have torn up the adrachta\" it is not an acceptable tirpa. Whenever a shuma does not state: \"We have torn up the tirpa,\" it is not an acceptable shuma.", + "When three experts descend to evaluate a property, one evaluates it as worth a maneh and two evaluate it at 200 zuz, or one evaluates it at 200 zuz and the other two evaluate it as worth a maneh, the assessor who offers the lone opinion is considered insignificant.
If one assessor evaluates it as worth a maneh, another at 80 zuz, and the third at 120, it is considered to be worth 100. If one says 100, the second 90, and the third 130, it is considered worth 110. This is our pattern of evaluation.", + "When the court evaluated property belonging to a purchaser on behalf of a person who sought to expropriate it and erred - even if the error was concerning the smallest amount - the sale if nullified. The rationale is that since the court is considered to be an agent of the person expropriating the property and the purchaser, they have permission to expedite the matter, but not to impair anyone's position as is the law applying to an agent. All of the Halachic authorities ruled in that manner.", + "When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor -whether from property in the creditor's possession or property that was in the possession of a purchaser - and afterwards, the borrower, the person from whom the property was expropriated, or their heirs, acquires financial resources and pays the creditor his money, the creditor is removed from that landed property. For property that was evaluated and expropriated should always be returned to its owners, as mandated by Deuteronomy 6:18: \"And you shall do what is just and good.\"", + "When the court evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor and then evaluates and expropriates a property for a creditor of that creditor, the original owner can redeem it. The legal power of the second creditor is no greater than that of the first.
When a creditor sold the property expropriated for him, gave it away as a present, gave it to his creditor voluntarily, or he died and the property was inherited, the original owner does not have the right to redeem it. If landed property was evaluated and expropriated for a woman and then she married, or property she owned was evaluated and expropriated from her and she married, her husband is considered to be a purchaser with regard to her property. He is not required to return it, nor must it be returned to him." + ], + [ + "Promissory notes that are predated are invalid, because they will be used to expropriate property from purchasers in an unlawful manner. Accordingly, our Sages penalized the lender, ruling that he may expropriate only property in the debtor's possession with a predated promissory note. This is a decree, enacted lest he expropriate property from the first, earlier, date.", + "Postdated promissory notes are acceptable. For the legal power of the possessor of the promissory note has been diminished, for the lender can expropriate only property from the date of the promissory note. Even if the document does not state that it was postdated, it is acceptable.", + "When a promissory note is written during the day and signed in the night that follows it, it is unacceptable, because it is predated. If, however, the borrower and the lender were involved in negotiating the matter until night fell and then they signed, it is acceptable, even when the kinyan was made at night.", + "When a promissory note is dated on the Sabbath or on the tenth of Tishrei, we assume that it was postdated and that it is acceptable. We do not suspect that perhaps it is predated and that it was written on Sunday or on the eleventh of Tishrei. Instead, we accept the presumption that the promissory note is acceptable. The rationale is that it is known that legal documents are not composed on the Sabbath. Therefore, it was postdated.", + "We may compose a promissory note for the borrower even though he is not accompanied by the lender. We do not, however, compose a promissory note for the lender unless he is accompanied by the borrower.
When does the above apply? With regard to a promissory note that was affirmed by a kinyan For from the time the kinyan was carried out, the borrower's property was on lien. When, however, a promissory note was not affirmed by a kinyan, we do not compose the note even for the borrower, unless he is accompanied by the lender and he gives the note to the lender in our presence. The rationale is that we suspect that the borrower may have the document composed at this time so that he can take a loan in Nissan, but in fact the loan will not be given until Tishrei. Thus, the lender will be able to use this promissory note to expropriate property that was in the borrower's possession unlawfully from Nissan, although the promissory note did not enter his possession until Tishrei.", + "The following rules apply when witnesses performed a kinyan with the borrower, the seller, or another person involved in a business agreement, but the composition of the legal document was delayed extensively. If they remembered the date on which the kinyan was established, they should write the date of the kinyan in the legal document, even though it was not the date that they signed the legal document. It is not necessary for them to state in the document: \"Our signatures were delayed until this-and-this date.\" If the witnesses do not know the date on which the kinyan was performed, they should date the legal document from the day on which it was composed.
Similarly, witnesses who observed a business transaction in one country and composed a legal document in another country should not record the place where they observed the testimony in the legal document. Instead, they should record the place where they signed the legal document.", + "When deeds of sale are not dated with the date of the transaction, even those that are postdated are not acceptable. The rationale is that the purchaser may use them to expropriate property in an unlawful manner.
What is implied? For example, the seller could have repurchased the field from the purchaser before the date of the postdated deed of sale. The purchaser could then produce the postdated deed of sale and say: \"I returned and purchased it from you a second time.\" He could thus expropriate property from a purchaser unlawfully.
Why don't we harbor the same suspicions with regard to a postdated promissory note? It is possible that the borrower paid the lender before the date stated in the promissory note, the lender will write him a receipt, and then produce the promissory note and expropriate property unlawfully. We do not harbor such suspicions, because whenever a person composes a postdated promissory note, he can protect himself by having the receipt composed without a date. Thus, whenever the lender will produce the promissory note, the borrower can nullify it by producing this receipt. If the borrower did not do this and allowed the receipt to be composed dated the day when the debt was repaid, he caused himself a loss.", + "When a person was compelled to sell his field against his will and issued a protest, or hurried and sold the field or gave it away to another person before he sold it to the person who compelled him to sell it, the money that the person who compelled him to sell it gave him is considered to be a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. He may not use that deed of sale to expropriate any property that had been sold by the seller to others. This law was stated, because this deed of sale should not have been written, and it was written only under compulsion. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.", + "It is possible for a person to expropriate property without a legal document, merely on the basis of verbal testimony.
What is implied? If a person has witnesses who will testify that property was stolen from his father. He can expropriate the property on the basis of this testimony, although there is no legal document. Similarly, if witnesses testify that a judgment was concluded for his father to expropriate property from so-and-so, for this-and-this amount, at this-and-this time, and his father died without expropriating the property, the son may expropriate property on the basis of this testimony.", + "Therefore, we should never compose two deeds of sale for the same property, lest the purchaser perpetrate deception together with the creditor and expropriate property unlawfully.
What is implied? This person will expropriate this field from the purchaser based on testimony that his father had the right to expropriate it. The purchaser will then use one deed of sale that he possesses to expropriate property from people who purchased property after he did from the borrower who sold him the property. The court will tear up the deed of sale that the initial purchaser possesses.
For the sake of deception, the person who expropriated the field will allow the purchaser to take possession of it again. He will then expropriate it again on the basis of the testimony of his witnesses. The purchaser will then produce the second deed of sale and expropriate property from other purchasers unlawfully.
If so, what should a person who has lost his deed of sale to a property do if the witnesses to the sale are still alive? A second deed of sale should be composed, saying: \"This deed of sale may not be used to expropriate property that has been sold, or property that is in the possession of the seller. We have composed it only to establish so-and-so, the purchaser, as the owner of the field, so that the seller or his heirs cannot expropriate it from him.\"", + "This principle does not apply with regard to promissory notes. Even though the witnesses to the loan are alive and entered into a kinyan with the borrower, if the lender returns immediately and tells the witnesses: \"The promissory note that you composed for me is now lost or was burnt,\" they should not compose a second promissory note for him. We suspect that the debt was paid or that he waived payment.
The above applies even if the loan was given for a period of time. The lender cannot collect any money on the basis of the testimony of these witnesses, unless the borrower states: \"The loan was never given.\" In that instance, he is established as a liar through their testimony, as will be explained.", + "When a promissory note in a person's possession is worn and it is beginning to become effaced, the lender should have witnesses look at it. He should then come to the court, and the court will validate it. The witnesses who signed the promissory note itself, however, may not compose another promissory note on their own initiative, even when the promissory note was blotted out in their presence. Instead, they should go to the court, and the court will validate the promissory note.", + "How should this promissory note be validated? The court composes a new document that states: \"We the court composed of so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so, saw how so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, produced a promissory note that was effaced in our presence. It was dated on this-and-this date. So-and-so, and so-and-so are his witnesses.\"
If they composed such a document and required the testimony of the witnesses, and their testimony was corroborated, the lender may collect the debt with this document that was composed for him. No further validation is required.
If the court did not compose such a document , if the debtor protests that the document is a forgery, the lender must also bring proof regarding the signatures of the original witnesses, so that their testimony will be validated.", + "When a promissory note is torn, it is acceptable. If its wording is in the process of being rubbed out or muddled, as long as the form of the original letters are recognizable, it is acceptable.
If it is torn as the court tears a legal document, it is unacceptable. In which manner does the court tear a legal document? Both horizontally and vertically.", + "The following laws apply when a person repays a portion of a debt recorded in a promissory note. If the lender desires, he may exchange the original promissory note, and the court composes a new document for him for the remainder of the debt, with the lien beginning on the original date. The witnesses to the original promissory note may not take this initiative. If he desires, he may write the borrower a receipt.", + "When a person comes to pay his debt, and the lender tells him: \"I lost my promissory note,\" the lender should compose a receipt for him and then the borrower should pay the entire debt. The borrower may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued against anyone who hides his promissory note and claims that it is lost.
If the borrower lodges a definite claim, saying: \"The promissory note is in his possession. He just placed it in his pocket,\" my masters have ruled that the lender should take a sh'vuat hesset that the promissory note was lost. Afterwards, the borrower should pay the debt and a receipt should be composed.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note for a maneh and asks that two promissory notes for 50 zuz be composed, we do not comply. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have the entire debt recorded in a single promissory note. For if he pays him a portion of the debt, the legal power of the promissory note will be impaired.
Conversely, if the lender produced two promissory notes, each one for 50 zuz, and asks that one promissory note for 100 be composed, we do not comply. Instead, we validate both of them individually. The rationale is that it is of benefit for the borrower to have two promissory notes, so that the lender cannot compel him to pay the entire sum at one time.", + "When a lender produces a promissory note for 100 zuz and says: \"Tear it up and compose another promissory note for 50,\" we do not heed his request. We fear that perhaps the borrower repaid the entire amount, and the lender wrote a receipt for him. If the lender authenticated the new promissory note for 50 zuz and the borrower produced the receipt, he would tell the borrower: \"This is another promissory note.\"" + ], + [ + "We have already explained that a promissory note concerning a loan that was affirmed by a kinyan may be composed for a borrower even when the lender is not together with him. Similarly, we compose a deed of sale for a seller even though the purchaser is not together with him. And we compose a receipt for a lender even though the borrower is not together with him. We compose a receipt for a woman even though her husband is not together with her, and a bill of divorce for a man even though his wife is not with him.
We do not compose legal documents for consecration and marriage, sharecropping agreements, business contracts, the choice of judges, the claims of the litigants, and any act of court without the consent of both principals. It is necessary to be careful about all the particulars of the composition of these documents, as is the case with regard to other legal documents.", + "Who must pay the scribe's fee for the composition of these documents? With regard to promissory notes, the borrower must pay. With regard to deeds of sale, the purchaser must pay. The woman must pay the fee for the bill of divorce. The groom must pay the fee for documents for consecration and marriage. The recipient of the field, the sharecropper, or the worker must pay the fee for the composition of a contract. With regard to the document recording the choice of judges and the claims of litigants, both parties must share the fee.", + "The following law applies both to legal documents composed for one of the parties when the other is not present, and legal documents that can be composed only when both consent and both are present - e.g., a promissory note written at the request of the lender, or a deed of sale written at the request of the purchaser. In all instances, the witnesses must recognize the identity of the individuals mentioned in the legal document, that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, and that this is so-and-so, the son of so-and-so. This is necessary, lest two individuals come and try to perpetrate deceit, changing their names to the names of other people, and then acknowledge obligations to each other.", + "Whenever a person has established a name for 30 days in a city, we do not suspect that he has another name and has changed his name to perpetrate deceit. For if we would raise such suspicions, there would be no end to the matter.
Therefore, if a person who has not established has name in a city for 30 days comes and asks: \"Write a promissory note for me that I am obligated to so-and-so\" - or \"... to this person for these and these many dinarim\" we do not compose such a document for him unless he brings proof that this is his name, or he waits until his identity is established.", + "The following laws apply when there is a dispute with regard to any promissory note produced before us. For example, the borrower claims: \"I do not owe anything. Maybe a charlatan pretended that his name was my name and acknowledged owing money to this person.\" Or he might claim: \"I do not owe anything to this person, but rather to another person. This plaintiff is a charlatan in claiming that his name is the same as the name of the person to whom I owe.\" Since it has not been established that there are two people in that city with the same name, we pay no attention to his claim. For it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know the identity of the people mentioned within it.
Similarly, it is an accepted presumption that witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know with certainty that the persons making the statements concerning themselves are adults and mentally competent. And witnesses will not sign a legal document unless they know how to read and sign their names.", + "When witnesses do not know how to sign their names, and the names of the witnesses were cut out from a blank paper and placed over the legal document, and then the witnesses \"signed\" with this script, they are given stripes for rebellious conduct, and the promissory note is unacceptable.", + "When the head of a court of law knows about the general circumstances described in a legal document, he may sign it even though he does not read it himself, but instead, it was read to him by one of his scribes. The rationale is that the head of the court trusts the scribe, and the scribe is afraid. No other person can do this. A witness may not sign a legal document until he reads it word for word.", + "The following laws apply when there are two people in a city, each named Yosef, the son of Shimon. Neither of them can demand payment from the other on the basis of a promissory note that he produces, nor can a third party demand payment from either of them on the basis of a promissory note that he produces unless the witnesses who signed the promissory note come themselves and testify: \"This is the promissory note concerning which we testified, and this is the person concerning whom we testified regarding the loan.\"
Similarly, such individuals cannot divorce their wives unless they do so in the presence of the other individual with the same name. Similarly, if a person finds a receipt among his legal documents saying, \"The promissory note concerning the debt owed to Yosef, the son of Shimon, has been paid,\" the debts recording in the promissory notes this person owes to both of these individuals with the same name are considered to be paid.
What should people whose names and the names of their parents are alike do to enable them to compose valid legal documents? They should write the third generation as identification in the legal document. If the names of their grandparents are the same, they should write a sign. If the signs also looked alike, they should write their family lineage. If they were both priests or both Levites, they should write further generations.", + "The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague that states: \"I, so-and-so, the son of so-and-so, borrowed a maneh from you.\" Although the name of the lender is not mentioned in the promissory note, any person who produces this promissory note from his possession can expropriate payment with it. The borrower cannot rebuff the plaintiff by saying that the promissory note belonged to another person from whom it fell.
Similarly, when there are two people named Yosef, the son of Shimon, dwelling in the same city and one of them produces a promissory note against one of the inhabitants of the city, the defendant cannot rebuff him by saying: \"I am obligated to so-and-so whose name is the same as yours and this promissory note fell from him.\" Instead, the person who produced the promissory note may use it to collect the debt. We do not suspect that the promissory note fell.", + "The following laws apply when two persons produce promissory notes against each other. The latter cannot tell the first: \"If I owed you money, why would you borrow from me?\" Instead, each one is entitled to collect the debt mentioned in his promissory note.
If both of the promissory notes were for 100 zuz, both of the principals possessed property of equivalent value, be it property of superior quality, property of intermediate quality, or property of inferior quality, we do not attend to them. Instead, each person remains with what he possesses. If one possesses property of superior quality and property of intermediate quality, and the other only property of inferior quality, the one should expropriate the property of intermediate quality, and the other should expropriate the property of inferior quality.", + "The following laws apply when a person produces a promissory note against a colleague and that person produces a deed of sale, stating that the alleged lender sold him a field. If they are in a place where the purchaser pays the money, and afterwards the seller writes the deed of sale, the promissory note is invalidated. The rationale is that the borrower will tell the alleged lender: \"If I was indebted to you, you should have used the money to pay the debt.\"
In a place where the deed of sale is composed and then the money is paid, however, the promissory note is viable. For the alleged lender can claim: \"I sold you the field so that you would have known property from which I could collect my debt if you claimed bankruptcy.\"" + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person gives a loan to a colleague and afterwards, a third party says: \"I will act as a guarantor,\" the lender sues the borrower and a third party says: \"Let him go. I will act as a guarantor, or the lender was strangling the borrower in the market place and a third party says: \"Let him go. I will act as a guarantor.\" The guarantor is not obligated at all. Even if the prospective guarantor says in the presence of a court: \"I will guarantee the money,\" he is not liable.
If, however, he formalizes his commitment to guarantee the money with a kinyan, he becomes obligated in all the above situations. This applies whether the kinyan was made in the presence of the court, or together with the lender alone.", + "If, however, the guarantor told the lender when the money was being given: \"Lend him, and I will be the guarantor,\" he becomes responsible. In such a situation, a kinyan is not necessary.
Similarly, if a court appointed him a guarantor, he becomes liable even though he did not affirm his commitment with a kinyan. For example, the court desired to expropriate property from the borrower, and this person told them: \"Let him be. I will guarantee the debt for you.\" Since he receives satisfaction from being trusted by the court, he accepts a binding commitment upon himself.", + "When a person lends money to a colleague because of the commitment of a guarantor, although though the guarantor becomes responsible to the lender, the lender should not demand payment from the guarantor first. Instead, he should demand payment from the borrower first. If he does not pay him, he should return to the guarantor and collect payment from him. When does the above apply? When the borrower does not own property. If, however, the borrower does own property. He should not collect the debt from the guarantor at all. Instead, he should collect from the borrower.\"
If, however, the borrower is a man of force, and the court cannot expropriate money from him, or he refuses to come to the court, the lender may collect payment from the guarantor first. Afterwards, the guarantor will make a reckoning with the borrower. If the guarantor can extract payment from him, he should. If that is not possible, the court should place the borrower under a ban of ostracism until he repays the guarantor.", + "Although the lender makes a stipulation with the guarantor and tells him: \"I am giving the loan on the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire,\" if the borrower possesses property, he should not collect the debt from the guarantor.
If he stipulated, \"I am giving the loan on the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire first,\" or the guarantor was a kablan, the lender may demand payment from this guarantor or this kablan first. He may collect payment from them although the borrower possesses property.", + "Who is considered to be an ordinary guarantor and who is considered to be a kablan? If a person says: \"Give him the loan and I will give you,\" he is considered to be a kablan. The lender has the option of seeking repayment from him, even though he did not explicitly stipulate: \"On the condition that I can collect the debt from whomever I desire first.\"
If, however, he tells him: \"Lend him and I will act as a guarantor,\" \"Lend him and I will pay,\" \"Lend him and I am obligated,\" \"Lend him and I will give,\" \"Lend him and I will act as a kablan\" \"Give him and I will act as a kablan\" \"Give him and I will pay,\" \"Give him and I am obligated,\" or \"Give him and I will serve as a guarantor\" - all of these are statements that cause him to be considered a guarantor. The lender may not demand payment from him first. Nor may he collect payment from him in a situation where the lender possesses property unless he stipulates: \"On the condition that I can collect... from whomever I desire first\"", + "When a person guarantees a woman's ketubah he is not obligated to pay, even if he affirmed his commitment with a kinyan. The rationale is that he performed a mitzvah and did not cause her a financial loss. If a father guarantees his son's ketubah and affirms his commitment with a kinyan, the obligation is established. A person who becomes a kablan for a ketubah is liable.", + "The following rules apply when Reuven sells Shimon a field and Levi accepts financial responsibility for it. Levi is not considered responsible, for this is an asmachta. If he affirmed with a kinyan his commitment to pay the money involved in this sale whenever demanded to do so by Shimon, he is obligated to do so. My masters ruled in this manner.", + "Similarly, if a guarantor or a kablan make a conditional commitment, they do not become obligated even if the commitment is affirmed by a kinyan. The rationale is that this is an asmachta.
What is implied? For example, the guarantor told him: \"Give him the loan and I will give you if this-and-this will take place,\" or \"... if it will not take place.\" The rationale is that whenever a person undertakes an obligation for which he is personally not liable and makes it dependent on a condition: \"if this takes place,\" or \"if this does not take place,\" he never makes a wholehearted commitment or kinyan. Therefore, he does not become liable.", + "When two people take out loans from the same person and record their debts in the same promissory note or together purchase a single article, they are considered as having guaranteed the other person's commitment even though they do not explicitly agree to do so. The same law applies when one of a group of partners undertakes a loan or makes a purchase for the partnership.", + "When two people both commit themselves to guarantee a debt taken on by one person, when the lender comes to collect payment from the guarantor, he may collect from either one of them, as he desires. If, however, one of them does not possess the entire amount of the debt, the lender may demand payment of the remainder from the other guarantor.", + "If one person guarantees the debts of two different individuals, when a lender comes to collect payment he should tell the guarantor which of the two debts he is paying so that the guarantor will be able to seek reimbursement from the debtor.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"Guarantee a debt for so-and-so for this-and-this amount and I will guarantee the sum to you,\" it is as if he tells him: \"Lend him the money and I will guarantee the debt.\" Just as the guarantor becomes obligated to the lender, the second guarantor becomes obligated to the first guarantor. The same laws that govern the relationship between the guarantor and the lender govern the relationship between the first guarantor and the second guarantor.", + "The following opinions were stated with regard to a person who did not limit the extent of the commitment he made to serve as a guarantor. For example, he told the lender: \"Give him whatever you give him, I will guarantee it,\" \"Sell to him, and I will guarantee it,\" or \"Lend him, and I will guarantee it.\"
There are Geonim who rule that even if the other person sells 10,000 zuz worth of merchandise or lends 100,000 zuz to the person named, the guarantor becomes responsible for the entire amount. It appears to me, by contrast, that the guarantor is not liable at all. Since he does not know for what he undertook the liability, he did not make a serious commitment and did not obligate himself. These are words of reason that a person of understanding will appreciate.", + "When a person tells a colleague: \"Lend him. I will guarantee the borrower's physical person,\" he did not make a commitment with regard to the money itself. What he meant was: Whenever you want, I will bring him to you.
Similar principles apply when, after the lender makes the loan and demands payment, a person says: \"Let him go. Whenever you lodge a claim against him, I will bring him to you.\" If he affirms his commitment with a kinyan, there are Geonim who rule that if the guarantor does not bring the borrower to the court, the guarantor is obligated to pay. There are, however, others who rule that even if he made a stipulation saying: \"If I do not bring him, or if he dies or he flees, I will be obligated to pay,\" the guarantor does not become liable, for this is an asmachta. I favor this understanding." + ], + [ + "The following law applies when a person gives a loan to a colleague that is supported by a promissory note. After the witnesses signed the promissory note, the guarantor came and made a guarantee for the borrower's debt. Although his commitment was affirmed with a kinyan and thus he become obligated to pay, as explained, when the lender comes to expropriate payment from the property of this guarantor, he may not expropriate property that has already been sold.
Different rules apply if the guarantor was mentioned in the promissory note itself before the signature of the witnesses. If they wrote: \"So-and-so is the guarantor,\" the lender may not expropriate property that has already been sold, because the guarantor's name is not associated together with that of the borrower with regard to the loan. If, however, the promissory note states: \"So-and-so borrowed such-and-such an amount from so-and-so and so-and-so guaranteed the loan, the guarantor affirmed his commitment with a kinyan, and then the witnesses signed the promissory note,\" the lender may expropriate property that has already been sold. The rationale is that the guarantor's name is associated together with that of the borrower in the promissory note.", + "When a lender demands payment from the borrower and discovers that he does not have property, he may not expropriate payment from the guarantor until 30 days after the guarantor became obligated to pay. The legal power of the guarantor should not be less than that of the borrower himself. The halachic authorities ruled in this manner. If, however, the lender made a stipulation with the guarantor about this matter, that stipulation is followed.\"", + "When a lender comes to demand payment from a borrower, the borrower cannot turn away the lender, telling him: \"Go to the kablan, because you have the right to demand payment from him first.\" Instead, the lender may demand payment from anyone he desires first. If, however, the kablan took the money from the lender and gave it to the borrower, the lender has nothing to do with the borrower. If the borrower was in another country and the lender cannot notify him -or the borrower died and left heirs below the age of majority, whose property the court cannot attach - the lender may demand payment from the guarantor first, because the borrower is not at hand.", + "When a lender demands payment from the borrower and discovers that he has become impoverished, he may not demand payment from the guarantor until the borrower takes an oath that he is bankrupt, as ordained by the later sages. The rationale is that we fear that the borrower and the lender might be trying to obtain the guarantor's property through deception.", + "The following law applies when a person has guaranteed a colleague with regard to a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone, the lender comes to demand payment from the guarantor, and the borrower is overseas. The guarantor may tell the lender: \"Bring proof that the borrower did not repay you and I will pay you.\"", + "When a guarantor takes the initiative and pays the debt to the creditor, he may come back and collect from the borrower everything that he paid on his account, even though the loan was supported by a verbal commitment alone or was not observed by witnesses.
When does the above apply? When, at the time the guarantor made his commitment, the borrower told him: \"Become my guarantor and pay.\" When, however, he acted independently and became a guarantor or a kablan, or the borrower told him: \"Guarantee the debt for me,\" but did not give him the authority to pay the debt, if he pays the debt, the borrower is not obligated to pay him anything. Similarly, if a person pays a promissory note of a colleague without that colleague's knowledge, even if it is a debt for which security was taken, the borrower is not obligated to pay him anything. Instead, he may take his security without paying anything; the other person forfeits his money. The rationale is that perhaps the borrower would have been able to appease the lender and have him waive the debt.
The following rules apply when the borrower dies, and the guarantor takes the initiative and pays the debt before he notifies the heirs. If it is known to us that the borrower did not pay the promissory note before he died - e.g., he admitted the debt on his deathbed, he was placed under a band of ostracism for failing to pay, and he died under that ban, or the due date of the loan did not arrive - he may collect from the heirs everything that he paid.
When the lender was a gentile, the heirs are not obligated to pay the guarantor. The rationale is that their parent might have given the guarantor the entire debt for which he was responsible. For a gentile demands payment from the guarantor first; for this reason the guarantor paid the gentile voluntarily before he notified the orphans. If, however, he notifies them that the gentile is demanding payment from him and that he is paying, the heirs are obligated to pay.", + "Whenever a guarantor comes to collect what he paid - whether he comes to collect from the borrower's heirs or from the borrower himself - he must bring proof that he paid the debt. The guarantor's possession of the promissory note is not considered proof. For perhaps the promissory note fell from the lender's hand, and the guarantor did not pay him at all.", + "In all the claims to be mentioned, and in all similar situations, we follow the principle: When a person who seeks to expropriate property from a colleague, the burden of proof is upon him:
a) a person tells a colleague, \"You agreed to serve as a guarantor for me,\" and the alleged guarantor denies accepting the obligation ;
b) the guarantor tells the borrower: \"You gave me the license to act as a guarantor for you and to pay,\" and the borrower tells him: \"You acted as a guarantor on your own initiative,\" or \"You were not a guarantor at all\";
c) the guarantor said: \"I paid the debt in your presence,\" and the borrower said: \"You did not\"; or he told him: \"I have already given you what you paid\"; or
d) the lender told the guarantor: \"You guaranteed 200,\" and the guarantor said: \"I guaranteed only a maneh.\"
Alternatively, the defendant should take a sh'vuat hessefi or a Scriptural oath if he agreed to a portion of the claim, as is the law with regard to all financial claims.", + "The following principles apply when a servant or a married woman borrows money or guarantees the debts of others and is obligated to pay: When the servant is freed and the woman is divorced or widowed, they must pay.", + "If a minor borrows, he is obligated to pay when he attains majority. We do not, however, write a promissory note against him. Instead, even though it was affirmed with a kinyan, the loan has the status of a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone. The rationale is that a kinyan undertaken by a minor is of no substance.", + "In a situation where a minor guaranteed others, the Geonim ruled that he is not liable to pay even after he attains majority. The person who lent his money because of a minor's word forfeits it. The rationale is that a minor does not have the intellectual responsibility to obligate himself in a matter in which he is not liable - not through becoming a guarantor, nor through other similar means. This is a ruling of truth and it is fitting to rule in this manner.", + "When a woman takes a loan that is supported by a promissory note or undertakes a commitment as a guarantor of a promissory note and then marries, she is obligated to pay even after she marries. If, however, it is a loan supported by a verbal commitment alone, it should not be repaid until she becomes divorced or widowed. The rationale is that her husband's authority is that of a purchaser, as we have explained in several sources. If, however, the money that was given as a loan is in her possession, it should be returned to the borrower." + ], + [ + "No matter which language and which characters a legal document is written in, if it is written according to the regulations for legal documents that prevail among the Jewish people, i.e., it cannot be forged, nor is it possible to add to or detract from the content of the document, and its witnesses are Jews and they know how to read it, it is acceptable and may be used to expropriate property that has been sold.
All documents that are signed by gentiles, by contrast, are not acceptable except for deeds of sale and promissory notes. For the latter to be acceptable, the principal must count the money in their presence and they must write on the legal document: \"In our presence, so-and-so counted out for so-and-so the money for the sale,\" or \"... the money for the debt.\" This applies provided that they were prepared by their legal authorities. If, however, the documents were prepared in their courts without being authorized by their judges, they are of no value. Similarly, Jewish witnesses must testify that the gentile witnesses who signed the document and the judge who authorized their signatures are not known to accept bribes. If legal documents composed by gentiles lack any of these qualifications, they are considered shards. Similarly, legal documents acknowledging an obligation, deeds recording presents, compromises, and waivers of obligations are considered shards even if they are composed with all the above qualifications.
My masters ruled that even promissory notes composed by them that state that the money was given in their presence are unacceptable. They accepted only deeds of sale when the money was given in their presence. I do not accept this ruling.
If the Jewish judges do not know how to read a legal document prepared by gentile authorities, they should give it to two gentiles, each one outside the presence of the other, and have them read. Thus, each one of them is reading as is his ordinary practice. The document may be used to expropriate property that has not been sold. It may not, however, be used to expropriate property that has been sold, because it does not become public knowledge. For the purchasers will not know of legal processes carried out by gentiles.", + "When a promissory note that was signed by gentile witnesses was given by the borrower to the lender or by the seller to the purchaser in the presence of two Jewish witnesses, it is acceptable and may be used to expropriate property that was not sold, even though it was not authenticated by the gentile legal authorities and was not prepared according to all the stipulations mentioned above. The above applies provided that the witnesses in whose presence the legal document was transferred were able to read it, they read it when it was transferred, and it was prepared according to the regulations for legal documents that prevail among the Jewish people, i.e., that it be composed in a manner that it cannot be forged, nor is it possible to add to or detract from the content of the document.
Why is it not acceptable to be used to expropriate property that has already been sold? Because it is not a matter of public knowledge.", + "The following regulations prevail for legal documents among the Jewish people: All legal documents must repeat the content of the legal document in the last line, because we do not take into consideration what was written in that line. The rationale is that we suspect the witnesses signed a line away from the body of the document and this falsifier came and wrote in the empty space of this line.", + "When the witnesses signed two lines or more from the conclusion of the writing, the document is not acceptable. If they leave less open space than this, it is acceptable.
The two lines mentioned refer to lines according to the handwriting of the witnesses and not according to the handwriting of the scribe. The rationale is that any person who forges will try to imitate the handwriting of the witnesses and not that of the scribe. The space of the two lines includes the lines and the space in between them, i.e., the space necessary to write a lamed above a final chaf.
If there was a space of more than two lines between the signature of the witnesses and the text of the documents, and they filled the space between the text and the signatures with the signatures of unacceptable witnesses and relatives, it is acceptable. For in this manner, it cannot be forged.
If the space was filled with lines of ink, it is unacceptable. For perhaps the witnesses signed for the lines of ink and not for the body of the document. If the document and the signatures of the witnesses were on one line, it is acceptable.", + "If the legal document was written on one line, and the witnesses signed on another line, it is unacceptable. We fear that possibly the witnesses had signed one line away from an acceptable legal document, and afterwards the person cut away that entire legal document and wrote the present document on that line. Thus, these witnesses were signed upon it.
A similar suspicion can arise when the document and the signatures of two witnesses were written on one line, two other witnesses were signed on a second line, and the maker of the legal document says: \"I intended to increase the number of witnesses.\"
We do not verify the authenticity of the document based on the signature of the witnesses below, in the second line, but rather on the signatures of those above. We fear that possibly there had been another document written originally, it was cut off, and the present document and the signatures of the two witnesses were written on the line between it and the witnesses who signed below.", + "The validation of the authenticity of the signatures of the witnesses by the court should be positioned next to their signatures, next to one of the sides of the legal document, or on its back, opposite the text. If there was a space of more than one line between the statement of validation and the legal document, it is invalid. We fear that someone might cut off the document that was validated and forge a new document and the signature of two witnesses on that one line. Thus, the validation would be on a forged document.", + "If the court wrote the validation more than two lines from the legal document and filled the entire empty space with lines of ink, the validation is acceptable, for there is no possibility of a forgery. ' And we do not suspect that the court would sign a validation of mere lines, but rather of the legal document itself.", + "Whenever words are written on a surface where there have been erasures, the scribe must write a validation of each of the these portions at the end of the legal document, stating: \"This-and-this letter...\", \"This-and-this word...\", or \"This-and-this line were written on a surface where there had been erasures,\" or \"... are attached between the lines. Everything is valid.\"
If the erasure is in the place where the document states sharir v'kayam, and is the size that it takes to write these words, it is not acceptable even if the scribe validates that these words were written on an erased surface. We fear that a person might have erased the words sharir v'kayam, then written a false statement and then validated the document in the space between the document and the signature of the witnesses.", + "When both a legal document and the signatures of the witnesses are written on a surface where there have been erasures, it is acceptable. If one might protest, saying: \"The person in possession of the document might erase it again and write a text that benefits him,\" that argument can be answered, for it is possible to differentiate between a surface that has been erased once and one that has been erased twice.
If one might protest, saying: \"Maybe the person erased only the surface where the witnesses would sign twice, and then after writing the legal document above the twice-erased surface and having the witnesses sign it, he erased the document and wrote whatever he desired.\" In such a situation, the document and the signatures of the witnesses appear the same, because everything was erased twice. This protest is untenable, because our Sages already ordained that witnesses should not sign a document written on a surface where there have been erasures, unless it was erased in their presence.", + "When a legal document and the signatures of the witnesses are both written on a surface where there have been erasures, and the validation of the authenticity of the signatures was written on paper that had never been erased, we do not validate the document because of the signatures of the witnesses who validated it previously, but because of the signatures of the witnesses who signed it originally.
The rationale is that it is possible that the validation of the document was written very far from the document itself, and the space between them was filled with lines of ink. We suspect that the person in possession of the document cut off the document itself, erased the lines of ink, and forged the document and the signatures of the witnesses on the portion that had been erased.", + "When a document is written on paper that had never been erased, and the witnesses signed on a surface where there were erasures, it is unacceptable. We suspect that the person might erase the document that the witnesses signed and replace it with a forgery. Thus, the document and the signatures of the witnesses will be on paper with erasures.
If the witnesses wrote: \"We, the witnesses, signed on the portion of the paper where there were erasures, while the document was written on the portion of the paper that has never been erased,\" the document is acceptable. This statement should be written between the signature of one witness and the other, so that deception is not possible.", + "When a legal document is written on a portion of a paper where there have been erasures and the witnesses sign on a portion of the paper that has never been erased, the document is not acceptable. This applies even if the witnesses write: \"We, the witnesses, signed on the portion of the paper that has never been erased, while the document was written on the portion where there were erasures.\"
The rationale is that we fear the person in possession of the document will erase it a second time and write on it anything that he desires. Since the document as a whole has been erased twice, the forgery will not be obvious.
If, by contrast, one portion of the document was erased once and the other twice, a distinction could be made.
Among the prevailing regulations for legal documents is to carefully scrutinize the document, seeing if the vavin and the zayinin are not squeezed between the letters, lest the person have forged this letter, adding it to the document. Similarly, these letters must not be too far from the other letters of the word, lest the person have erased a portion of one letter - e.g., a hei or a chet - and left one of its legs in the place of a vav. Similarly, in all analogous situations, we scrutinize the text in any language and with any characters.", + "The numbers from shalosh (three) to esser (ten) should not be written at the end of a line, for it is possible for the person in possession of the document to forge the text and make the shalosh, sheloshim (30), and the esser, essrim (20).
If it would happen that a scribe would have to write these numbers at the end of a line, he should repeat the text of the document several times until the numbers come out in the middle of the line.", + "When the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a maneh and the lower portion speaks of 200 zuz, or the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of 200 zuz and the lower portion speaks of a maneh, everything follows what is written in the lower portion.
Why do we not follow the lesser of the two numbers? Because in this instance, one is not dependent on the other. If the promissory note had said: \"owes amaneh, which is 200 zuz\" or \"200 zuz, which is amaneh,\" the lender would be granted only a maneh. When, however, there are two matters stated in the document and the latter portion is not dependent on the former portion, we follow the latter portion.
When the upper portion of a legal document mentions one name and the lower portion mentions a name that resembles it, we follow the lower portion. If so, why do we write the upper portion? So that if one letter of the lower portion is rubbed out, one could learn from the upper portion. For example, if the upper portion stated Chanani or Anani and the lower portion stated Chanan or Anan, we can assume that it is referring to the person named in the upper portion. This applies regarding only one letter. We do not, however, resolve a doubt regarding two letters in the lower portion from the upper portion.", + "If the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a sefel and the lower portion speaks of a kefel, we follow the wording of the latter portion, for a kefel is less than a sefel.
If the upper portion of a promissory note speaks of a kefel and the lower portion speaks of a sefel, we suspect that perhaps a fly caused the left leg of the kuf to be rubbed out and made it appear like a samech. Hence, the bearer may expropriate only a kefel, the lesser measure. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations, for the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position.
An incident occurred concerning a promissory note that stated: \"600 and one zuz\" This raised a doubt. Was the intent 601 zuz or was the intent 600 isteira and one zuz? The Sages said: \"The bearer of the promissory note may collect only 600 isteira and a zuz, for the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position.\"
If so, why did they not say that he should collect 600 p'rutot and a zuz? Because a scribe would count the p'rutot as zuzin before composing the promissory note. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations. In all times and in all places, we follow the accepted norms.", + "When a promissory note states: \"Isteira 100 m'ie,\" or \"100 m'ie isteira\" one should follow the lesser of the phrases. The person should receive only one isteira. The rationale is that the bearer of the promissory note has the weaker position, because he is trying to expropriate property from a colleague, and a person can expropriate property only when there is no doubt regarding his claim.
Similarly, whenever a promissory note could be interpreted in either of two ways, either this way or that way, the bearer receives the lesser of the amounts. If, however, he seizes possession of the greater amount, the borrower may not expropriate the money from him unless he can clearly prove the legitimacy of his own claim.", + "When a promissory note states: \"a gold coin,\" we assume that the intent is no less than a golden dinar. If it states \"gold of dinarim,\" or \"dinarim of gold,\" we assume that the intent is no less than the value of two dinarim of gold. If it states \"gold in dinarim\" we assume that the intent is no less than the value in gold of two silver dinarim. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
This concludes the Laws of Lenders and Borrowers, with God's help." + ] + ], + "versions": [ + [ + "Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007", + "https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI" + ] + ], + "heTitle": "משנה תורה, הלכות מלווה ולווה", + "categories": [ + "Halakhah", + "Mishneh Torah", + "Sefer Mishpatim" + ], + "sectionNames": [ + "Chapter", + "Halakhah" + ] +} \ No newline at end of file