Enter your email address to get our weekly email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life.

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 16, Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 17, Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 18

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 16

1

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.

א

הַחוֹב בְּאַחֲרָיוּת הַלּוֶֹה עַד שֶׁיִּפְרָעֶנּוּ לְיד הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ לְיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ הַמַּלְוֶה זְרֹק לִי חוֹבִי וְהִפָּטֵר וּזְרָקוֹ וְאָבַד אוֹ נִשְׂרַף קֹדֶם שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד הַמַּלְוֶה פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ זְרֹק לִי חוֹבִי בְּתוֹרַת גִּטִּין. הָיוּ הַמָּעוֹת קְרוֹבוֹת לַלּוֶֹה הֲרֵי עֲדַיִן בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ. הָיוּ קְרוֹבוֹת לַמַּלְוֶה נִפְטָר הַלּוֶֹה. מֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה אִם אָבְדוּ מִשָּׁם אוֹ נִגְנְבוּ מְשַׁלֵּם הַלּוֶֹה מֶחֱצָה:

2

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.

ב

הָיָה רְאוּבֵן חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְאָמַר לְלֵוִי הוֹלֵךְ לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ. אִם בָּא לַחְזֹר אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וְהוּא חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ הַמָּנֶה לְשִׁמְעוֹן. הֶחְזִיר לֵוִי אֶת הַמָּנֶה לִרְאוּבֵן שְׁנֵיהֶן חַיָּבִין בְּאַחֲרָיוּתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לְיַד שִׁמְעוֹן כָּל חוֹבוֹ:

3

A transfer of a debt is rescinded in the following situation.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."

ג

רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָנֶה וְאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן לִרְאוּבֵן מָנֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּיָדְךָ תְּנֵהוּ לְלֵוִי וְהָיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עוֹמְדִין וְקִבֵּל לֵוִי וְנִמְצָא רְאוּבֵן עָנִי וְאֵין לוֹ מִמַּה שֶּׁיִּגְבֶּה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲרֵי לֵוִי חוֹזֵר בַּחוֹב שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁזֶּה הִטְעָהוּ. וְאִם יָדַע לֵוִי שֶׁהוּא עָנִי אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה עָשִׁיר בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה וְהֶעֱנִי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר שֶׁהֲרֵי קִבֵּל. טָעַן לֵוִי שֶׁהָיָה רְאוּבֵן עָנִי וְהִטְעָהוּ וְשִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר עָשִׁיר הָיָה וְהֶעֱנִי יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁעַל שִׁמְעוֹן לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִפָּטֵר מֵחוֹב לֵוִי. לֹא יִהְיֶה אֶלָּא שׁוֹבֵר בְּיָדוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ קַיֵּם שׁוֹבֶרְךָ וְהִפָּטֵר:

4

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.

ד

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר שֶׁרְאוּבֵן שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לוֹ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן כְּלוּם וְהָיָה רְאוּבֵן חַיָּב לְלֵוִי מָנֶה וְהִמְחָהוּ אֵצֶל שִׁמְעוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִמְחָהוּ בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן לֹא קָנָה. וְאִם רָצָה שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן לֹא יִתֵּן וְאִם נָתַן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מֵרְאוּבֵן שֶׁהֲרֵי עַל פִּיו נָתַן. וְכֵן אִם רָצָה לֵוִי לַחְזֹר וְלוֹמַר אֵינִי רוֹצֶה לִגְבּוֹת מִשִּׁמְעוֹן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה מֵרְאוּבֵן וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּפְרָע מִקְצָת מִשִּׁמְעוֹן חוֹזֵר וְגוֹבֶה הַשְּׁאָר מֵרְאוּבֵן:

5

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.

ה

חֶנְוָנִי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹתֵן לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת מִן הַחֲנוּת כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה בְּתוֹרַת הַלְוָאָה וּמַקִּיפוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּתְקַבֵּץ הַכּל וּפוֹרֵעַ לוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת תֵּן לַפּוֹעֲלִים סֶלַע אוֹ לְבַעַל חוֹבִי מָנֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֶצְלִי וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ וַהֲרֵי הַחֶנְוָנִי אוֹמֵר נָתַתִּי וְהַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹמֵר לֹא לָקַחְתִּי הֲרֵי הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת חוֹבוֹ וְכֵן הַחֶנְוָנִי נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַה שֶּׁטָּעַן שֶׁנָּתַן שֶׁהֲרֵי הוּא אָמַר לוֹ לִתֵּן. וְהַפּוֹעֵל נִשְׁבָּע בְּמַעֲמַד הַחֶנְוָנִי וְכֵן הַחֶנְוָנִי בְּמַעֲמַד הַפּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּכָּלְמוּ זֶה מִזֶּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וּשְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּאִין שְׁנֵיהֶן לִטּל. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מֵת הַחֶנְוָנִי נוֹטֵל בַּעַל חוֹב בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה וְכֵן אִם מֵת פּוֹעֵל אוֹ בַּעַל חוֹב הַחֶנְוָנִי נוֹטֵל בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מַפְסִיד כְּלוּם וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא תַּשְׁלוּם אֶחָד:

6

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.

ו

הַחֶנְוָנִי אוֹמֵר אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִתֵּן לָזֶה מָנֶה אוֹ צִוִּיתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ לִי אִם יָבוֹא פְּלוֹנִי תֵּן לוֹ וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ הֲרֵי בַּעַל הַבַּיִת נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר וְהַחֶנְוָנִי עוֹשֶׂה דִּין עִם זֶה שֶׁנָּתַן לוֹ. וְכֵן אִם אָמַר הַחֶנְוָנִי לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת הַמַּקִּיפוֹ כָּתוּב בְּפִנְקָסִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי אֶצְלְךָ מָנֶה וּבַעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ נִשְׁבָּע בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הֶסֵּת שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ וְנִפְטָר כְּדִין כָּל טוֹעֵן עַל חֲבֵרוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר וְאֵין בָּזֶה תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים:

7

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.

ז

רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְלֵוִי עַל שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָעַן שֶׁלֵּוִי נְתָנוֹ לוֹ בִּכְתִיבָה וּמְסִירָה וְאָבַד הַשְּׁטָר שֶׁהִקְנָהוּ בּוֹ אוֹ שֶׁטָּעַן שֶׁהִקְנָהוּ לוֹ עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה אוֹתוֹ מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ. טָעַן שִׁמְעוֹן שֶׁפָּרַע לְלֵוִי וְאָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי יִשָּׁבַע לֵוִי לְשִׁמְעוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִגְבֶּה רְאוּבֵן. הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁפָּרַע יְשַׁלֵּם לֵוִי לִרְאוּבֵן. טָעַן לֵוִי שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר וְלֹא נָתַן שְׁטָר זֶה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת וְנִפְטָר:

8

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.

ח

שְׁטָר שֶׁהָיָה בְּיַד שָׁלִישׁ וְהוֹצִיא מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר פָּרוּעַ הוּא נֶאֱמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַשְּׁטָר מְקֻיָּם שֶׁאִלּוּ רָצָה הָיָה שׂוֹרְפוֹ אוֹ קוֹרְעוֹ. וְכֵן אִם מֵת הַשָּׁלִישׁ וְנִמְצָא כְּתָב יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה הַמֻּנָּח אֶצְלוֹ פָּרוּעַ הוּא הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב. אֲבָל כְּתָב שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי מַלְוֶה שֶׁשְּׁטָר פְּלוֹנִי פָּרוּעַ אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה בִּכְתַב יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא כְּמִשְׂחָק:

9

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.

ט

הָיוּ עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב אִם הָיוּ מְקֻיָּמִין הֲרֵי הַשְּׁטָר פָּרוּעַ. וְאִם אֵין עָלָיו קִיּוּם יִשְׁאֲלוּ הָעֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עַל זֶה הַשּׁוֹבֵר. אִם לֹא יָדְעוּ אוֹ שֶׁאֵין הָעֵדִים מְצוּיִין הוֹאִיל וּמִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה אוֹ מִתַּחַת יְדֵי יוֹרְשָׁיו יָצָא אֵין הַשּׁוֹבֵר כְּלוּם:

10

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.

י

נִמְצָא הַשְּׁטָר בֵּין שְׁטָרוֹת פְּרוּעִין הֲרֵי זֶה פָּרוּעַ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עֵדִים עַל הַכְּתָב הַנִּמְצָא. וְכֵן אִם נִמְצָא כָּתוּב בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר בֵּין מִפָּנָיו בֵּין מֵאֲחוֹרָיו וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמִקְצָתוֹ שְׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ אוֹ נִפְרָע מִמֶּנּוּ כָּךְ וְכָךְ עוֹשִׂין עַל פִּי הַכְּתָב וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עַל הַכְּתָב עֵדִים וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי הַמַּלְוֶה שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא נִפְרָע לֹא הָיָה כּוֹתֵב עַל הַשְּׁטָר:

11

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.

יא

הַמּוֹצֵא שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו וְאֵין יוֹדֵעַ מַה טִּיבוֹ יִהְיֶה מֻנָּח עַד שֶׁיָּבוֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ:

12

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.

יב

הָאוֹמֵר לְבָנָיו שְׁטָר בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתַי פָּרוּעַ וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵיזֶה הוּא שִׁטְרוֹתָיו כֻּלָּן פְּרוּעִין. נִמְצָא לְאֶחָד שָׁם שְׁנֵי שְׁטָרוֹת הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ. אָמַר לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁטָר לְךָ בְּיָדִי פָּרוּעַ הַגָּדוֹל פָּרוּעַ וְהַקָּטָן אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ. חוֹב לְךָ בְּיָדִי פָּרוּעַ כָּל שְׁטָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָלָיו כֻּלָּן פְּרוּעִין:

Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 17

1

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.

א

מַלְוְה שֶׁמֵּת וּבָא היּוֹרֵשׁ לִתְבֹּעַ אֶת הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁעָלָיו וְאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי לְאָבִיךָ וְהַיּוֹרֵשׁ אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אוֹמְרִים לוֹ עֲמֹד וְשַׁלֵּם לוֹ. אָמַר יִשָּׁבַע לִי הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע בִּנְקִיטַת חֵפֶץ שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא בְּפִיו וְשֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ וְגוֹבֶה:

2

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.

ב

מֵת הַלּוֶֹה אַחַר שֶׁמֵּת הַמַּלְוֶה וּבָא הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ לֹא יִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ תְּחִלָּה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה פָּרוּעַ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה הַיּוֹרֵשׁ קָטָן הַמֻּטָּל בָּעֲרִיסָה כְּשֶׁמֵּת מוֹרִישׁוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל. וְאִם צִוָּה הַמַּלְוֶה בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ שֶׁשְּׁטָר זֶה אֵינוֹ פָּרוּעַ יִפָּרַע הַיּוֹרֵשׁ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ:

3

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.

ג

מֵת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַמַּלְוֶה אֵין יוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה נוֹטְלִין מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה כְּלוּם שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁמֵּת הַלּוֶֹה נִתְחַיֵּב הַמַּלְוֶה לְהִשָּׁבַע וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִטּל כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וּכְבָר מֵת וְאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לְהִשָּׁבַע שֶׁלֹּא נִפְרַע אֲבִיהֶם כְּלוּם. וְאִם עָבַר הַדִּין וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ יוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה וְגָבוּ אֶת חוֹבָן אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדָם. לְפִיכָךְ שְׁטַר חוֹב שֶׁל יְתוֹמִים הַבָּאִים לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמֵּת אֲבִיהֶן הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה אֵין קוֹרְעִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין מַגְבִּין בּוֹ. אֵין גּוֹבִין בּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ שְׁבוּעָה לְבָנָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ וְאֵין קוֹרְעִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁמָּא יָבוֹא דַּיָּן שֶׁיָּדוּן וְיוֹצִיא בּוֹ:

4

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.

ד

אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה שָׁם עָרֵב וּמֵת הַלּוֶֹה תְּחִלָּה לֹא יִפָּרְעוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי הַמַּלְוֶה מִן הֶעָרֵב. שֶׁאִם תֹּאמַר יִפָּרְעוּ מִן הֶעָרֵב הֲרֵי הֶעָרֵב חוֹזֵר וְנִפְרָע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה:

5

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.

ה

אֵין דָּנִין מִדִּין זֶה לְכָל הַדּוֹמֶה לוֹ אֶלָּא הֲרֵי הַפּוֹגֵם אֶת שְׁטָרוֹ וּמֵת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה הֲרֵי בָּנָיו נִשְׁבָּעִין שֶׁלֹּא פְּקָדָנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא צִוָּנוּ אַבָּא וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בֵּין שִׁטְרוֹתָיו שֶׁל אַבָּא שֶׁכָּל הַשְּׁטָר הַזֶּה פָּרוּעַ וְגוֹבִין אֶת שְׁאָר הַשְּׁטָר בֵּין מִן הַמַּלְוֶה בֵּין מִיּוֹרְשָׁיו:

6

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."

ו

יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁבָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִן הַיּוֹרֵשׁ וְאָמְרוּ יוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא לֹא לָוִיתִי חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי יוֹרְשֵׁי הַמַּלְוֶה גּוֹבִין שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי דָּמִי. וְכֵן מַלְוֶה שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִיּוֹרְשֵׁי לוֶֹה וְאָמְרוּ אָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא לֹא לָוִיתִי חוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֵהוּ בְּלֹא שְׁבוּעָה אֲפִלּוּ הֶאֱמִינוֹ בַּשְּׁטָר כָּל זְמַן שֶׁאָמַר פָּרַעְתִּי שֶׁכָּל הָאוֹמֵר לֹא לָוִיתִי כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא פָּרַעְתִּי:

7

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.

ז

יוֹרֵשׁ שֶׁבָּא לְהִפָּרַע מִן הַלּוֶֹה בִּשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נֶאֱמָנוּת לַלּוֶֹה כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיֹּאמַר פָּרַעְתִּי הֲרֵי הַלּוֶֹה נִשְׁבָּע הֶסֵּת שֶׁפָּרַע לִשְׁטָר זֶה וְנִפְטָר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לוֹ וַהֲרֵי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן עַל יוֹרְשַׁי שֶׁעִקַּר הַשְּׁטָר עַל תְּנַאי זֶה הָיָה. אִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁיְּהֵא נֶאֱמָן בְּלֹא שׁוּם שְׁבוּעָה אֵינוֹ נִשְׁבָּע אֲפִלּוּ לְיוֹרְשֵׁי מַלְוֶה:

8

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.

ח

יוֹרֵשׁ קָטָן שֶׁהָיָה שְׁטַר חוֹב לְאָבִיו וְיָצָא עָלָיו שׁוֹבֵר אַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו אֵין קוֹרְעִין אֶת הַשְּׁטָר וְאֵין מַגְבִּין בּוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּגְדְּלוּ הַיְתוֹמִים שֶׁמָּא שׁוֹבֵר זֶה מְזֻיָּף הוּא וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא הוֹצִיאוֹ הַלּוֶֹה בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו:

9

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.

ט

הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָיָה כָּתוּב בְּבָבֶל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל. הָיָה כָּתוּב בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּכְתֻבָּה. לֹא הָיָה בַּשְּׁטָר שֵׁם מָקוֹם וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּבָבֶל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל. הוֹצִיאוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. בָּא לִגְבּוֹת מִמְּעוֹת הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁיָּצָא בּוֹ הַשְּׁטָר וְטָעַן הַלּוֶֹה שֶׁהַמָּעוֹת שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ מִכֶּסֶף שֶׁהוּא פָּחוֹת מִזֶּה הַמַּטְבֵּעַ יִשָּׁבַע הַמַּלְוֶה וְיִטּל. הָיָה בּוֹ כֶּסֶף סְתָם מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה לוֶֹה מַגְבֵּהוּ. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁשְּׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שֵׁם מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בּוֹ כָּשֵׁר לְכָל דָּבָר. וְהוּא הַדִּין לִשְׁטָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן כְּלָל שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֵדוּת זוֹ אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִמָּהּ שֶׁאֵין מְדַקְדְּקִין בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּדְרִישָׁה וַחֲקִירָה כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לוֹוִין. וּלְפִיכָךְ שִׁטְרֵי חוֹב הַמְאֻחָרִין כְּשֵׁרִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לַהֲזִמָּן כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:

Malveh veLoveh - Chapter 18

1

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.

א

הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ סְתָם הֲרֵי כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחְרָאִין וְעַרְבָאִין לְחוֹב זֶה. לְפִיכָךְ כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לִגְבּוֹת תּוֹבֵעַ אֶת בַּעַל חוֹבוֹ תְּחִלָּה אִם מָצָא עִמּוֹ נְכָסִים בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין בֵּין קַרְקָעוֹת גּוֹבֶה מֵהֶן בִּרְצוֹן הַלּוֶֹה. וְאִם לֹא נָתַן הַלּוֶֹה מִדַּעְתּוֹ מְגַבִּין אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין. לֹא הִסְפִּיק לוֹ כָּל הַנִּמְצָא כְּנֶגֶד שְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִכָּל הַקַּרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לַלּוֶֹה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן עַתָּה מְכוּרִין לַאֲחֵרִים אוֹ נְתוּנִים בְּמַתָּנָה. הוֹאִיל וּמָכַר הַלּוֶֹה אוֹ נָתַן אַחַר שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בְּחוֹב זֶה הֲרֵי זֶה מוֹצִיא מִיַּד הַלָּקוֹחוֹת אוֹ מִיַּד בַּעֲלֵי הַמַּתָּנוֹת וְזֶהוּ הַנִּקְרָא טוֹרֵף. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּקַרְקָעוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה. אֲבָל נְכָסִים הַבָּאִין לוֹ לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה לֹא נִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ לְבַעַל חוֹב וְאֵינוֹ טוֹרְפָן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עָלָיו שֶׁכָּל נְכָסִים שֶׁיִּקְנֶה יִהְיוּ מְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן וְקָנָה אַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה וּמָכַר אוֹ נָתַן הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף מֵהֶן:

2

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.

ב

אֵין כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִין אֶלָּא בְּקַרְקַע אֲבָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת אֲפִלּוּ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בְּעֵת שֶׁלָּוָה שֶׁמְּכָרָן לִשְׁעָתוֹ אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב טוֹרֵף אוֹתָן. הִקְנָה לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין עַל גַּב קַרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ לִהְיוֹתוֹ נִפְרָע מִן הַכּל הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף מֵאוֹתָן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין וְהוּא שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לוֹ בִּשְׁטַר חוֹבוֹ שֶׁהִקְנֵיתִי לְךָ מִטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי שֶׁלֹּא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּטָפְסֵי הַשְּׁטָרוֹת. וְכֵן אִם כָּתַב שֶׁכָּל נְכָסִים שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִקְנוֹת בֵּין קַרְקָעוֹת בֵּין מִטַּלְטְלִין הֲרֵי הֵן מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים לְךָ לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן וְהַמִּטַּלְטְלִין קְנוּיִין לְךָ עַל גַּב הַקַּרְקָעוֹת לְהִפָּרַע מֵהֶן שֶׁלֹּא כְּאַסְמַכְתָּא וְשֶׁלֹּא כְּטָפְסֵי הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הֲרֵי זֶה טוֹרֵף אַף מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁקָּנָה הַלּוֶֹה לְאַחַר שֶׁלָּוָה. שֶׁכָּל תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן קַיָּם:

3

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.

ג

עָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וְהוּא שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לָהֶן מִכָּאן תִּגְבּוּ וּשְׁטָפוֹ נָהָר הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹבֶה מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָן. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לוֹ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזּוֹ אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִשְּׁאָר נְכָסִים. וְכֵן אִם לָוָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּפֵרֵשׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אַחֲרָיוּת עָלָיו הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַמְשֻׁעְבָּדִין לְעוֹלָם:

4

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.

ד

עָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ אַפּוֹתֵיקִי לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ אוֹ לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ וּמְכָרָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְכוּרָה וּכְשֶׁיָּבוֹא בַּעַל חוֹב לִגְבּוֹת אִם לֹא יִמְצָא נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין יִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּשֶׁמָּכַר לִשְׁעָתָהּ אֲבָל מְכָרָהּ מִמְכַּר עוֹלָם אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה:

5

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.

ה

עָשָׂה עַבְדּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ הֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קוֹל. עָשָׂה שׁוֹרוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וּמְכָרוֹ אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה מִמֶּנּוּ. וְכֵן שְׁאָר הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן קוֹל:

6

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."

ו

עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהוּ רַבּוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי וְשִׁחְרְרוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּתַב לוֹ לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ פֵּרָעוֹן אֶלָּא מִזֶּה יֵצֵא לְחֵרוּת. וְכֵן אִם הִקְדִּישׁוֹ. שֶׁהֶחָמֵץ וְהַשִּׁחְרוּר וְהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעִין מִיַּד שִׁעְבּוּד וַהֲרֵי בַּעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה חוֹבוֹ מִן הַלּוֶֹה וְכוֹתֵב עָלָיו שְׁטָר בְּחוֹבוֹ וְטוֹרֵף מִזְּמַן זֶה הַשְּׁטָר. וְלָמָּה הוּא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לְאַבֵּד מָמוֹן חֲבֵרוֹ וְכָל הַגּוֹרֵם לְהַזִּיק מְשַׁלֵּם כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. וְכוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי לְשַׁחְרְרוֹ מִפְּנֵי תִּקּוּן הָעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא יִמְצָאֶנּוּ בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמַר לוֹ עַבְדִּי אַתָּה:

7

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.

ז

הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו אֵין בַּעַל חוֹב יָכוֹל לִטְרֹף מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁהַהֶקְדֵּשׁ מַפְקִיעַ הַשִּׁעְבּוּד. וּכְשֶׁפּוֹדִין הַקַּרְקַע מִיַּד הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם רוֹצֶה לִתֵּן בְּשָׂדֶה זוֹ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּתֵּן לְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ וּלְאִשָּׁה כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. לְפִיכָךְ לִכְשֶׁתִּפָּדֶה וְתֵצֵא לְחֻלִּין בְּיַד הַלּוֹקֵחַ יָבוֹא בַּעַל חוֹב וְיִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ אוֹ הָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתֻבָּתָהּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בַּעֲרָכִין:

8

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.

ח

בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁבָּא לִטְרֹף אִם יֵשׁ מָעוֹת לַלּוֹקֵחַ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ וְלִתֵּן לוֹ דְּמֵי מַה שֶּׁהוּא טוֹרֵף וְחוֹזֵר הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְתוֹבֵעַ לַמּוֹכֵר. וְאִם עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ אַפּוֹתֵיקֵי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְסַלְּקוֹ בְּדָמִים:

9

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.

ט

רְאוּבֵן שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב לְשִׁמְעוֹן מָאתַיִם וְהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת וּמָכַר אַחַת מֵהֶן לְלֵוִי בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר וּמָכַר לוֹ הַשְּׁנִיָּה בְּמָנֶה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וְטָרַף אַחַת בְּמָנֶה וְחָזַר לִטְרֹף הַשְּׁנִיָּה בַּמָּנֶה הַנִּשְׁאָר לוֹ וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מָאתַיִם וְאָמַר לוֹ אִם תִּרְצֶה לִהְיוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁטָּרַפְתָּ שׁוּמָה לְךָ בְּכָל הַמָּאתַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְךָ הֲרֵי מוּטָב וְאִם לָאו הֵילָךְ מָאתַיִם שֶׁל חוֹבְךָ וְהִסְתַּלֵּק. הַדִּין עִם לֵוִי. רָצָה שִׁמְעוֹן וְעָמַד בָּהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּבְּלָהּ בְּמָאתַיִם אֵין לֵוִי חוֹזֵר וְתוֹבֵעַ רְאוּבֵן אֶלָּא בְּמָנֶה:

10

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.

י

מֵת רְאוּבֵן וְהִנִּיחַ שָׂדֶה אַחַת שָׁוָה מֵאָה וּבָא שִׁמְעוֹן וּטְרָפָהּ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ הַיְתוֹמִים מֵאָה מִן הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין שֶׁהִנִּיחַ אֲבִיהֶן וְסִלְּקוּהוּ הֲרֵי זֶה חוֹזֵר וְטוֹרֵף אוֹתָהּ בִּשְׁאָר חוֹבוֹ. שֶׁמֵּאָה שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ מִצְוָה עָשׂוּ שֶׁמִּצְוָה עַל הַיְתוֹמִים לִפְרֹעַ חוֹבוֹת אֲבִיהֶם. וְאִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵלּוּ בְּמֵאָה דְּמֵי הַשָּׂדֶה שֶׁטָּרַפְתָּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחְזֹר וְלִטְרֹף אוֹתָהּ פַּעַם אַחֶרֶת בִּשְׁאָר חוֹבוֹ:

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here. The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard. Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in the one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah