Creditor and Debtor Chapter 18

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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."

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.