Sheluchin veShuttafin - Chapter 4

As stated in Hilchot Mechirah 5, a verbal agreement to perform a particular act is considered insubstantial and is not binding. To make the partnership a binding agreement, each partner must perform a kinyan to acquire a share formally in the assets contributed by his colleague. Note, however, the Bayit Chadash (Choshen Mishpat 176), which quotes the opinion of the Mordechai, who maintains that a verbal agreement is sufficient to establish a partnership.

The Kessef Mishneh and Sefer Me’irat Einayim 176:5 quote the opinion of the Tur, which states that it is sufficient for each one to lift up the money belonging to his colleague.

I.e., the document was merely a description of their agreement. If, however, they intended to establish their partnership with a legal document, the partnership is binding (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 176:4).

See Hilchot Mechirah 6:1.

The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s statements, stating that mixing produce together is not a kinyan. He therefore explains that after the produce was mixed together, each of the partners lifted it up. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 176:8, however, differs and maintains that mixing the produce itself is considered a kinyan. For generally a person keeps his own property separate; by mixing it together with a colleague’s, he indicates that he is granting the colleague a share. (The commentaries have questioned the argument of Sefer Me’irat Einayim, noting that if so, the same concept should apply with regard to the money mentioned in the first clause.)

For in this instance, the produce is acquired by virtue of its presence in the person’s property. (See Hilchot Mechirah 3:7.)
Ketzot HaChoshen 176:1 notes that when Bava Batra 84b states that a person cannot acquire property belonging to a neighbor by virtue of its presence in a courtyard whose ownership he shares with him, this is speaking about a situation where a person desires to acquire property for his own self. This ruling, however, does not represent a contradiction, for the situations are different. In Bava Batra, the intent is that the article in question should leave the domain of the previous owner and enter the domain of the new owner. For this to be accomplished, it must leave the domain of the previous owner entirely. In the present instance, by contrast, the partner is not seeking to acquire the property entirely for himself. On the contrary, he is seeking to enter into a partnership. Therefore, placing the produce in a property purchased for the partnership is sufficient (Netivot HaMishpat, Be’urim 176:2).

I.e., using the type of kinyan appropriate for that type of property.

The Ra’avad and the Tur differ with the Rambam with regard to this view and maintain that a person may obligate his person with a kinyan as a servant does. In a similar manner, we find that a person may say: “May [the work of] my hands be consecrated to their Maker.”
The Hagahot Maimoniot quotes a more lenient view, stating that even if the partners did not perform a kinyan, when they make a sincere commitment to each other, their word is binding. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 176:3) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, while the Ramah mentions the other views.

See Hilchot Mechirah 22:1.

As explained in the previous halachah.

100 zuz.

If, however, one partner is not involved in the work of the partnership and just invests, different laws apply, as the Rambam states in Chapter 6.

In contrast to the latter clauses of the Halachah, which speak of instances where the money remains intact.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 176:15 explains one rationale for this ruling. Since the partners did not make a stipulation at the outset, one may assume that the partner investing the larger sum of money thought that the other partner’s business acumen was greater than his, and it was worth granting him an equal share because of it. However, that this approach does not fit the Rambam’s logic. According to the Rambam, the reason is that while the bull is alive, all of its organs are necessary for it to continue living, thus the profit comes from all of the partner’s shares together. Hence, it should be divided among them equally (Sefer Me’irat Einayim).
According to the Rambam, he explains, the reason is that while the bull is alive, all of its organs are necessary for it to continue living, thus the profit comes from all of the partner’s shares together. Hence, it should be divided among them equally.

The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam, stating that although his ruling does apply when one hires out a bull for work (i.e., with regard to profit), if one sells the bull and there is a loss, that loss should be divided according to the ratio of the investments made by the partners. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 176:5), however, quotes the Rambam’s ruling.

For even if the money had remained in the possession of its original owner, its price would have risen or fallen accordingly. The fact that he entered into the partnership is of no consequence in this regard (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 176:16).

Certainly, this ruling applies if a partnership was established with regard to produce, and before the produce was sold the partners decided to dissolve the partnership. Each one is given a share according to the degree of money he invested [Tur and Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 176:5)].

Because of his superior business acumen.

The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 176:15) states that even if one of the partners has been negligent in dealing with the partnership’s assets, the other partners may not arbitrarily dissolve the partnership. See Chapter 5, Halachah 9, with regard to how the assets are divided.

From Bava Metzia 31b, 69a, it is apparent that one partner can decide to dissolve the partnership without even notifying the other.

E. g., an animal that would die if divided, or an article that would lose its value if divided. See Hilchot Sh’chenim 1:4.

The Siftei Cohen 176:29 states that if either of the partners desires, instead of selling the merchandise to another person, they can tell the other partner: gud o iggud, “Either purchase [my share at this price] or I will purchase it from you.” (See Hilchot Sh’chenim 1:2 and notes.)

It is local custom to sell a particular type of merchandise at a given time.

Note, however, the Netivot HaMishpat, Biurim 176:1 who states that the Ram bam is speaking about debts that have already become due. If the debts have not become due, the partnership may not be divided. See, however, the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 176:20), who writes that the promissory notes can be divided by the evaluation of the court or through the principle of gud o iggud.

I.e., the terms of the loan specify that each of the partners is personally responsible for only half the loan. See Hilchot Mechirah 25:9.

Since the debts are owed by the partners individually, neither one is responsible to the other.

The commentaries on Bava Metzia 105a explain that the intent is that the fortunes of one individual will not succeed to the same degree as the fortunes of two people.

Although a worker can quit in the middle of the day (Hilchot Sechirut, Chapter 9). Similarly, a person who manages the investment in a heter iska may quit whenever he desires [Tur and Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 176:23)].

As explained in the previous halachah.