Translation:Shulchan Aruch/Choshen Mishpat/128

Paragraph 1- If one pays back another’s debt without the borrower’s knowledge, the borrower would not be required to pay him, even if the loan was documented and even if collateral were given on it. The borrower would take the collateral for free and the donor will have forfeited his money, even if the lender was pressuring the borrower to pay back, because perhaps the borrower would have appeased the lender and the lender would have waived the debt. ''This seems to me to be the primary ruling, not like those who disagree and say he is required to pay. There are those that say that this is only where he paid back a Jew. If he paid back a gentile, however, everyone would agree that the borrower has to pay him. All the more so in a case where the donor redeemed the borrower’s collateral from a gentile would the borrower be required to pay him. This is the appropriate way to rule. See Yoreh Deah at the end of Siman 252 with respect to someone who was redeemed from captivity if he is required to pay. There are those that say that all this is where the donor did not have anything of the borrower’s in his possession. If, however, he had something of the borrower’s in his possession and he paid his debt, what’s done is done. There are those that say that even where the donor gave his own collateral for the borrower, because had he wanted to give the borrower’s he could have, the borrower would be required to pay him, even though he did not actually give the borrower’s item.''

Paragraph 2- If someone was held responsible because of another and gentiles took his money because of such other person, such other person would not be required to pay the donor. ''If a schoolteacher was at the homeowner’s home and borrowed from gentiles on collateral and then left without closing out with the gentiles and he left some money by the homeowner who wants to retain the money to negotiate with the gentiles, the homeowner would not be able to. See above at the end of Siman 126.'' A person who is held responsible for another will never have such other person be required to pay him except in the case where one is held responsible for another’s affixed annual individual tax or the annual gift that each person is required to give to the king for him or his armies, in which case such person would be required to the pay the donor, so long as they explicitly took the money for such and such person in front of witnesses. ''If someone was held responsible for the tax of another congregation and he is holding one of the members of such other congregation responsible, he is able to hold him responsible for the entire congregation because they are all responsible and cosigners for one another. Therefore, he does not have collect from each person their respective amounts. There are those that say that a person cannot be held responsible for another’s tax except before the king was satisfied with the amount collected. Once the king is satisfied, however, a person cannot be held responsible for another. Nevertheless, the town-supporters that borrowed in order to pay the tax are able to collect from the entire congregation and each person must pay his share. This that a person will not be held responsible for another is only where no regulation has been instituted in the city. If there is a town regulation, however, we would follow the custom. Nevertheless, if some of the congregation acted improperly and the governor fined them, others do not have to pay for that because they certainly didn’t agree to partner on such a case unless they said so explicitly. See above at the end of Siman 126 with respect to someone who had an unavoidable accident occur because of another’s loan or deposit. Also see later Siman 163.''