Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

I.e., neither a wage nor a percentage of profit was stipulated; see Halachah 3 of the previous chapter.

But a wage is not mentioned; see Halachah 2 of the previous chapter.

See Halachot 4 and 5 of the previous chapter.

One third of the loss.

The 30 dinarim that remained and the 30 that Shimon paid. This is one half of his original investment.

I.e., one third of the loss.

The 15 that remain, and the 35 to be paid by Shimon.

For 60 was given as a loan, and that loan must be repaid.

As mentioned in Chapter 5, Halachah 11, when one of the partners dies, an investment agreement is terminated.

For, as explained in Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 14:1, whenever a person desires to collect a claim against the estate of a deceased person, he must support his claim with an oath.

But only that. The heirs need not, by contrast, pay for the portion that was considered an entrusted object, for the reason the Rambam explains.

I.e., if there was an argument that could be used to excuse an heir from liability, we advance the argument on the heir’s behalf, even if the heir himself is not certain that this argument is true. For example, in the instance at hand, since the administrator would not be liable for the portion of the investment that was considered an entrusted article if it was destroyed by forces beyond his control, we advance this argument on behalf of the heirs and do not hold them liable.
The rationale is that the heirs are not expected to know the details of the property that they inherit. Therefore, we give them the benefit of the doubt and advance any arguments that might possibly be accepted on their behalf.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 108:4) mentions the Rambam’s view, but also mentions a slightly different opinion that explains as follows: Generally, the administrator’s word would be accepted if he claimed that he had returned the entrusted article, on the grounds that had he claimed that it was destroyed by forces beyond his control, his claim would have been accepted (migo). Therefore, we advance this claim on behalf of the heirs.
If, however, the heirs would not be able to claim that the administrator returned the money that was considered an entrusted article – e.g., he admitted not returning it or he died before it was time for him to return it – we do not claim that it was destroyed by forces beyond the administrator’s control, for it is infrequent that articles are destroyed by forces beyond one’s control. (Significantly, the Siftei Cohen 108:8 justifies the view that we mentioned first.)
See also Halachah 5, which states that if property or money that is known to belong to the partnership remains, the investor may collect his portion without taking an oath.

The Rambam is explaining that the sole reason our Sages ordained that the administrator be paid a wage was to prevent their investment arrangement from appearing as interest. There is no fundamental obligation to pay him a wage. Hence, in this instance, where the portion of the investment considered an entrusted article is not returned, there is no obligation to pay him a wage.

For, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachah 5, the percentage of the profit received by the administrator determines the portion of the investment that is considered a loan.

The portion of the loss that – according to the Rambam’s opinion – he is required to bear, as stated in Chapter 6, Halachah 5.

I.e., this consideration is granted to him as his wage.

At the end, once he has already made the profit. If after suffering the loss he informs the investor, and the investor desires to continue investing with him, he can divide the loss and then the profits in the manner the Rambam suggests [(Kessef Mishneh; Ramah (Yoreh De’ah 177:34)].

This would provide him with a benefit. For example, if he was given $100 to invest, at first lost $30, and then worked until the worth of the investment was $115, netting a profit of $15. According to the ordinary division of the profits, the administrator would receive $10. If, however, the loss was first calculated, it would be considered as if he had been given $80 to invest (for the investor is required to bear 2/3 of the original loss, and 100 - 20 equals 80). Afterwards, the profit would be considered as $35 (115 - 80), in which case, the administrator would be due $21 2/3. As the Rambam explains, we do not make such calculations.

If the administrator makes a profit of 24 dinarim on one contract and suffers a loss of 15 on the other, when the contracts are calculated individually, the investor would receive a profit of 8 dinarim for the first contract, and suffer a loss of 10 dinarim for the second contract. Thus, all told, he would lose 2 dinarim. If, however, the two were considered a single investment, there would have been a total profit of 9 dinarim, of which the investor would have received 3.

If the administrator had had two separate contracts written up, he would have been able to profit more than by combining the two in the same contract. For as the Rambam continues to explain, he receives a greater profit when the profits and the losses are tallied separately.

In this way, he will rationalize, the investor will not suffer a loss.

And in this way, give the investor a chance of making a profit.
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 177:30) also mentions the converse of this principle. The administrator cannot take the portion he was given as a loan and use it for his private purposes and do business solely with the portion that is considered an entrusted article.

Of the half with which he continued to do business.

Chapter 6, Halachot 3-4.

For the money or the goods were given to invest and not to be given away as presents.

We have based our translation on the gloss of the Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De’ah 177:60). Since the administrator was the one who caused the loss, he is responsible. If, however, the administrator is unable to pay, the person who received the article from him is liable. If, however, that person gave the article to a second person, that second person is not held responsible if the article no longer exists. (See Nekudot HaKessef.)

See Halachah 1.

As stated in Chapter 5, Halachah 11, if one of the partners in a business dies, the other may dissolve the partnership; he need not continue the arrangement with his partners’ heirs.

These goods are not considered part of the estate of the deceased [in which instance they would not be under lien (Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 11:8)], because they are always considered to belong to the partnership. Therefore, once that fact is established, they are returned to the investor. They may be expropriated even if the heirs are below majority and incapable of representing themselves in court (Siftei Cohen 177:57).

Although the creditors may collect any debts due them, and the wives may collect the money due them by virtue of their ketubah (prenuptial agreement) from the deceased’s estate before it is granted to his heirs, this merchandise never became part of the estate.

I.e., he does not have a monetary claim against him.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 177:40) states that his claim must be substantiated by the testimony of witnesses.

The Kessef Mishneh states that the investor must prove that the administrator purchased the produce with the money given him as an investment. If, by contrast, he purchased the produce with his own money, he is allowed to keep the money. He is, however, considered a deceiver. (See Hilchot Mechirah 7:11.)

Since he has already paid him the principal, all that is necessary is for him to pay him his share of the profit.

I.e., any entity that is not produce. For this would be violating the conditions of the original investment (Kessef Mishneh).
When quoting this law, the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 177:38) states that he may even purchase livestock, for livestock is occasionally called “the fruit of the womb.” The Shulchan Aruch also explicitly excludes “utensils.”
See also the Siftei Cohen 177:66, which understands the Rambam to be excluding garments and wood because they are not profitable merchandise. He thus infers that in a place where they would be considered profitable merchandise, they could be purchased.

For his partner could wait on the customers at that time.

I.e., merchandise not belonging to the partnership. By doing so, he will take his attention away from the business of the partnership.

But not the loss. If there is a loss, the storekeeper must suffer it alone. See Chapter 5, Halachot 1 and 2.