Siman 76

One who borrowed from two people in a single standing three hundred zuz, a maneh from this one and two hundred from that one, and they informed him whose the maneh was and whose the two hundred was, and when they came to claim from him, each one says with certainty, "You borrowed two hundred from me," and the borrower forgot who is the owner of the maneh and who is the owner of the two hundred, he must pay two hundred to each one after they both swear. And even though regarding a deposit it will be explained in siman 300 that he is not liable when they deposited this in front of that, nevertheless regarding a loan he is liable, for a loan is given for expenditure and he should have been precise as to whose the two hundred were, and he was negligent in that he was not precise. But regarding a deposit, why should he be precise? Since they did not deposit [separately] and they deposited together, this one in front of that one, what is it to him and to them [see Sma]. And specifically regarding a loan by oral agreement, but regarding a loan with a document where they made a document for these 300 gold pieces, even though they informed him that to this one belongs a maneh and to that one two hundred, he gives a maneh to this one and a maneh to that one, and the remainder shall be placed with him until one admits to his fellow or until Eliyahu comes, and he swears a shevuat hesset that he does not know to whom the two hundred belong. And even if he wishes to leave the maneh in beit din, he does not escape an oath [Shach] if they claim the oath, since each one claims with certainty. And the reason for the difference between a document and an oral agreement is that with a document, since they became partners in the loan with a single lien and they trusted one another regarding the possession of the document—for behold, the document cannot be with both of them—he did not have to be precise. And in the following siman more will be explained regarding this. And so too regarding a loan by oral agreement, if they do not claim with certainty, he is not obligated to pay two hundred to each one, and he gives a maneh to this one and a maneh to that one, and they divide the third maneh between them; and the borrower is not even obligated in an oath since they do not claim with certainty. However, to fulfill his obligation toward Heaven, he is obligated to pay two hundred to each one. And if one claims with certainty, "The two hundred are mine," and one claims perhaps, he gives the two hundred to the one who claims with certainty. And regarding a loan with a document, he is not obligated even to fulfill his obligation toward Heaven for the reason we have written.

If there were two claiming from him, each one saying "I lent you a maneh," and he says "I borrowed a maneh from one of you and I do not know which one," he is obligated by the law to pay a maneh to each one after both of them swear. And if they are also uncertain which of them lent to him, the borrower is exempt from giving to each one even to fulfill his obligation toward Heaven. And it is not similar to the previous section, for there, since he borrowed from both of them, he should have been precise and recorded from whom he borrowed a maneh and from whom two hundred; but here, where he borrowed from one, he would not have entertained the thought that he would forget from whom he borrowed, and he was not negligent in that he did not write it down. And some say that nevertheless, if he wishes to fulfill his obligation toward Heaven, he must give to each one, but the primary view is like the first opinion [ibid.]. However, if he says "The father of one of you lent me a maneh and I do not know whose," everyone agrees he is obligated if he wishes to fulfill his obligation toward Heaven, and it will be explained in siman 300 with the help of Heaven. And why did we say in the previous section that when they claim with certainty the third maneh shall be placed aside, and in a case of uncertainty they shall divide? Because with certainty there is definitely a deceiver, therefore they do not divide without the agreement of both of them. But in a case of uncertainty where there is no deceiver, from the fundamental law they should divide, since all of them are uncertain and none of them is more of a muḥzak than his fellow, and it is impossible to cast more upon the borrower as has been explained; therefore they shall divide.