Reuven leaned back in his chair, frustrated. “I don’t understand Shimon,” he sighed to his friend. “I lent him $20,000 last year to help with his business. The loan was due a few months ago, but ever since then, he’s been giving me the runaround.”
“Did he say he can’t pay?” his friend asked.
“Not exactly,” replied Reuven. “His business seems profitable, and he keeps promising, ‘Next month, next month,’ but it never happens. I’m going to have to take him to a din Torah!”
A few days later, Reuven bumped into Levi, Shimon’s younger brother, at a simcha. During small talk about the rising cost of weddings, Levi mentioned casually, “My brother Shimon lent me $20,000 half a year ago for my daughter’s wedding. I was supposed to pay him back already, but he’s not asking me for the money in the meantime.”
Reuven’s eyebrows shot up. “Shimon can afford to lend money to others, but not repay me?” he thought.
That night, he sat at his kitchen table doing the math. If Shimon owes me $20,000, and Levi owes him $20,000, why should I have to wait for Shimon at all? Maybe I can bypass Shimon and tell Levi that he must return the $20,000 directly to me! Levi is easier to deal with.
Reuven asked his chavrusa whether there was any halachic basis for this proposition.
“Sure, there is a concept of shi’abuda d’Rabi Nosson when there is a chain loan, which might apply here,” replied his chavrusa, “but before acting, you should consult a halachic authority.”
Reuven approached Rabbi Dayan and explained the situation. He asked:
“Can I collect the money Shimon owes me directly from Levi?”
“The Gemara (Kesubos 19a, 82a) teaches the law of shi’abuda d’Rabi Nosson,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “When C owes B, who owes A, A can collect directly from C. The simple logic is that it is superfluous for C to pay B, who in turn will pay A (C.M. 86:1).
“Several Rishonim, followed by the Shulchan Aruch, understand from the Gemara (B.K. 40b) that this rule applies only when B does not have other assets from which A can collect. When B has other assets available, however, A cannot collect directly from C. If B has assets in another locale, it depends on the ease with which they can be collected (C.M. and Kessef Kodashim 86:2).
These Rishonim explain that the rule of shi’abuda d’Rabi Nosson is similar to collecting property with a lien on it from one who purchased from the borrower, which is allowed only when the borrower no longer has property of his own available (Sma 86:5).
Alternatively, Nesivos (86:3) compares C’s obligation to pay A to that of a guarantor of B, who is liable only after he is sued by the lender and defaults.
However, other Rishonim, followed by Shach (86:5), maintain that in principle, C is indebted to A, even when B has assets available, since the rule of shi’abuda d’Rabi Nosson is derived from a pasuk (Vayikra 5:7). Nonetheless, if B has assets available, and C will be affected detrimentally when A collects from him – for example, if B is willing to allow C to retain the money, even though the loan is already due – the Sages instituted that A cannot collect from C when B has other assets.
When the rule of shi’abuda d’Rabi Nosson applies, such as if B does not have other assets available, Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 86:5) rules that B cannot forgo C’s debt to him, nor extend the time of the loan and thereby undermine A’s right, since A has a direct claim against C based on this principle. Shach (86:11) notes that many Rishonim disagree, but nonetheless concurs with this ruling (see, however, Be’er Heitev 86:9).
“Thus, according to the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch, since Shimon has assets, you cannot collect directly from Levi,” concluded Rabbi Dayan. “Even according to the Shach, since Shimon is letting Levi hold the money, you cannot collect from Levi if Shimon has other assets. On the other hand, Shimon should not be procrastinating in repaying you, even if for the benefit of his brother (C.M. 97:3).”
Verdict: When C owes B who owes A, A can collect directly from C when B does not have assets reasonably available, based on shi’abuda d’Rabi Nosson. However, when B has assets available, Shulchan Aruch rules that A cannot collect from C.