Siman 74

A loan is given to be claimed in any place, even not in the place of the loan, provided that the lender encountered the borrower in some place at the time of repayment and the borrower has money and no damage will reach him in his commerce if he pays him here, he is obligated to pay him. But if damage will reach him in his commerce, he does not need to pay him with his money that is here, and they give him a beit din time of thirty days [Netivot HaMishpat]. And even if he lent to him in a settled area, he can claim from him in the wilderness when its time has arrived, if the borrower has his money here and also has enough for his sustenance until he reaches a settled area and no damage will reach him in his commerce. But when he does not have money in his hand not in the place of the loan, the lender cannot force him to send for the money to here [Shach], and the borrower can say to him: "Come to my place where you lent to me and I will repay you." And if the lender claims "I am certain that he is able to pay here because he has enough for his sustenance and no damage will reach him in his commerce," and the borrower claims that he is not able to pay here, the borrower shall swear a hesset oath. And if the lender does not claim with certainty, the borrower receives a ban in general. However, the borrower cannot force the lender to receive his debt in the wilderness when he lent to him in a settled area. Nevertheless, in a settled area he can force him to receive it even not in the place of his loan, and even not in the place of the residence of the lender and the borrower, and even if there are several wildernesses before he reaches his place; since there are caravans and the time of repayment has arrived, he can force him to receive it, for when there are caravans it is not called a place of danger that we should fear robbery. And if he lent to him in the wilderness, he can force him to receive it also in the wilderness. And even if he lent to him in a settled area and the borrower said to him "it is my desire to go out to the wilderness" and the lender said to him "it is also my desire to go out to the wilderness," it is as if he lent to him in the wilderness and he must receive them in the wilderness.

A pikaon does not have the same law as a loan, and it will be explained in siman 293; however, rental fees, theft, robbery, or the price of a purchase have the same law as a loan.

If the lender set a time for the borrower and he wishes to repay him within the time, and the lender does not wish to accept them, the borrower can compel him to accept, for the setting of a time is for the benefit of the borrower. In what case does this apply? When there is no concern regarding why he does not wish to accept them. But if there is any concern because of which he does not wish to accept his debt, such as if there currently exists a loss in the exchange of currency or taxes and the like, he cannot compel him to accept before the time. However, once the time has arrived, he can compel him to accept. And even though in the wilderness he cannot compel him to accept when he lent to him in a settled area, as I wrote in section 1, for there the mishap is before us at the time of payment, but in this case it is only a concern of what is destined to be, and the borrower does not have to pay heed to this regarding what will be [Sma]. And even if he lent for a time because of a concern of a change in currencies, in a manner where the time was for the benefit of the lender, and the concern passed and now the borrower wishes to repay him within his time, he can compel him to accept [Shach]. But as long as the concern has not passed, he is not obligated to accept. And those who lend in an iska and it was compromised in exchange for the oath to give him every year such and such, and he wishes to remove himself within his time, even though from the iska he can retract like the law of a worker as I wrote in Yoreh Deah siman 177, nevertheless he is obligated to give him the profit for the entire duration of the time that he received the iska from him, or he shall swear how much the profit was and give him half of it with the deduction of the payment for his labor according to the law of an iska [Netivot HaMishpat].

A debt involving a mortgage on land where the lender consumes the produce, and in a place where they do not remove [the lender] until the time arrives, he cannot compel him to accept [payment] before the time unless he leaves him the produce to consume until the time; but in a place where they do remove [the lender], he may remove him within his time.

A borrower who said to the lender, "Take your money, for the time has arrived," and the lender did not want to receive them, and the money is bound and placed in the hand of the borrower and they were stolen or lost through an accident, the borrower is liable to pay; and all the more so if the time had not yet arrived. However, regarding a deposit in such a case, the bailee is exempt. The reason is that regarding a loan, if some business opportunity had presented itself to the borrower, he would have taken the money since the lender did not want to receive them; therefore, they remain in his possession as before. This is not the case regarding a deposit when the time arrived to return the deposit to him. However, within the time of a deposit, he cannot return it to the depositor against his will [Shach], for in a deposit the time is for the benefit of the depositor. And sometimes even in a loan the borrower is exempt from accidents, such as if the lender did not want to receive them and the borrower said to him, "Behold your money is bound in my house, come and take it," for then he may not use the money, and he is exempt from accidents, as will be explained in siman 120 [ibid.].

One who lends to his fellow for a set time, and the borrower comes to pay within the time little by little, some say that the lender cannot prevent this and say, "Give me my entire debt at one time," for even little by little is called payment. However, the lender has a grievance against him, saying that when he would receive all his money at one time he would conduct business with it, and now he spends it in small amounts. Nevertheless, the borrower can compel him since it is within the time, and it was explained in section 3 that even within the time the borrower can compel the lender to receive his debt, and it follows that he can compel him to receive it even though he is not yet forced to pay the entire debt. And this is specifically when the borrower gives a correct justification that it is not within his power to pay at one time, for if not so, how is it within his power to cause distress to the lender [it appears to me]. However, if he gave him one pledge or two pledges as security, whether land or movables, he cannot compel him to return half the pledges for half the debt that he gives him now, for the lender can say, "It is my will to have a good pledge until the completion of the payment." And if the time arrived, he is not obligated to receive little by little. And there are those who disagree with all of this and hold that even within the time he cannot compel him to receive little by little; for granted that if he received it, it is considered payment, but initially it is within the power of the lender not to receive it [Shach]. And so it appears primary for the law, and all the more so when there is a shtar, for he must pay the entire shtar in its entirety at one time [Urim VeTummim], and even a shtar in his own handwriting without witnesses.

One who lends to his fellow on a pledge of movable property or land that is worth more than his debt, and the borrower came and said that he should take from the pledges according to his debt and return the remainder to him, his words are of no consequence; for the lender can say to him, "I have no desire to buy, and I do not wish to trouble myself with their sale, and this is incumbent upon you." And likewise, if the pledges are not worth more than the debt, he cannot compel him to take them for his debt and return his document to him. And even with an oral loan, he cannot compel him to accept the pledge, for he received it as a pledge and not for the purpose of repayment. And even if the time for repayment arrived, and even if he has nothing else besides the pledge. However, if the lender is pressuring him to pay and he has nothing with which to pay, the lender is forced to accept the pledge; for even if he did not have a pledge, he could say, "Take the equivalent of money for your debt," as the borrower is not obligated to sell his items and give him cash when he does not have it. But when the lender says to him, "I am not pressuring you to pay now, and I will wait until you have money," the law is with the lender—whether in a loan with a document or an oral loan, whether with a pledge of land or movable property—and the pledge shall remain in the hand of the lender until he has money.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote: One who lends to his fellow based on a coin and it was invalidated—if he can spend it in another country and he has a way to that country, and all the more so when merchants of that country are found here [Shach], he gives him from the coin that he lent him and says to him, "Go and spend them in such-and-such a place." But if he has no way there, or if he has a way there but the governments are strict and search for one who carries invalidated currency, he gives him from the currency current at that time. And so too regarding a ketubah. And all this is when he stipulated to give him "money," but if he did not stipulate anything, he gives him from the coin he lent him in any case. And if he stipulated to give him "money current in expenditure," he is obligated to give him money that is current in any case. Thus far their words. And the intention of what they wrote, "and it was invalidated," is not that the coin is worth nothing now, for if so, even if he did not stipulate, why should he pay with mere shards? Rather, the matter is thus: it deals with a coin of silver or gold that even now has the same value as before, only the king removed it because he changed the form of the coin and decreed that in this country it shall not go as a coin but as a piece of silver or gold, and consequently it was slightly reduced from the market price. Therefore, if he lent him money and did not speak with him regarding what he shall pay, he may pay him even with the coin that was invalidated. And when he stipulated that he would pay him "coin" or "money," or if he sold him merchandise on the condition that he pay him such-and-hundred money, he must pay him with currency current in another country when he has a way there, for then it is called a "coin" to him. But if he has no way there, or the governments are strict, this is not a coin here; therefore, he must pay him with the currency current now here. And if he stipulated to give him "money current in expenditure," he is always obligated to give him money current here. Therefore, in our times, when one borrows paper money, which is a promissory note of the state, if the government invalidated it, it is like mere shards, and he must always pay from the new paper money. And even with silver coins, if the money is not worth [its metal value] but only that the ruler commanded that it shall go for such-and-such and afterwards he invalidated it, he must always give him from the new ones. But when the coin is worth its money [metal value] only the ruler invalidated it because of a change in the form, then the law is as written in the Shulchan Aruch that we cited. And if the coin goes as before, only that it was depreciated or appreciated due to some reason, as is common in our times, he pays it according to what he borrowed and does not calculate what was depreciated or appreciated, even with paper money, since it goes as a coin. And so too if a gold dinar was twenty-five dinars and the ruler set it at twenty, he gives him the coin he lent in any case [Netivot HaMishpat]. And so too if he borrowed shares customary now in countries that do not always stand at one price, and they were depreciated or appreciated, he pays him those that he borrowed. And if they were completely invalidated, such as if the company went bankrupt, he must pay him in money according to the price they stood at the time of the loan. And if he made a transaction with him at the time of the loan, then even if they only depreciated or appreciated, he pays him according to the transaction he made with him. And if in this country the coin goes as before, but outside the country it does not go as before, one does not pay heed to this. And if the government added to the coin or reduced it, it was explained in Yoreh Deah siman 165. And all this is in a place where there is no "law of the kingdom" in this matter, but in a place where there is a "law of the kingdom" regarding how they shall pay when the currency changed, they follow it, for the law of the kingdom is the law, as will be explained in siman 369 with the help of Heaven. With the help of Heaven, the Laws of Loans are concluded.