Eli was undergoing severe financial difficulties and borrowed $2,000 from his neighbor Reuven, agreeing to pay him back in six months.
Three months went by, and Eli needed money again, so he turned to another neighbor, Shimon, and borrowed another $2,000, this time agreeing to pay the sum back after three months.
Three months later, Shimon asked Eli for his money.
“I only have $2,000 and I need that sum to pay someone else who lent me money before you,” Eli said to Shimon.
“But my loan is due,” said Shimon. “So if you have the money, I really would like it now rather than later.”
“But would that be fair to the other person?” Eli asked. “You asked me first for payment, but he lent me first and he might ask me soon to pay him back.”
Eli decided to speak with Rabbi Dayan. He approached Rabbi Dayan, and after hearing the question and pondering the matter, the rav replied, “If a person owes two people money and doesn’t have enough to pay them both, the creditor whose loan is not yet due cannot restrain the borrower from paying the loan that is due – even if he lent him money first [Pischei Choshen, Halvaah 4:31; Taz 104:1].
“If both loans are due and both creditors demand payment, the Sma and most other authorities rule that the first lender does not have priority and they should divide the available money. There is a dispute whether it is divided equally or proportionately to the loans [Choshen Mishpat 104:10; Sma 104:1, 9, 26; Knesses Hagedola, Hagahos Hatur 104:38; Pischei Choshen, Halvaah 4:32-34].
“If both are due but only one creditor demanded payment, the Beis Yosef and Ketzos write that the borrower should pay that creditor the full amount. Others maintain that the money should be divided between the two creditors. Still others say that if the first lender demanded payment, he receives the full amount whereas if the second lender demanded payment, he receives only his share [Shach 104:6; Ketzos 104:2; Aruch HaShulchan 104:1].
“Regardless, once a creditor collected, whether the first or second one – we do not take away anything he received. If the other creditor subsequently grabs some of the money from him, he must return what he took [Choshen Mishpat 104:3; Shach 104:10; Pischei Choshen 4:35].
“Moreover, since cash (and certainly a bank transfer) is not specifically identifiable, even if the first lender stipulated a halachic lien (shi’abud agav karka), he cannot extract the money from a later lender who collected before him (Choshen Mishpat 104:5).
“Thus, since only Shimon so far demanded repayment,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “you can pay him the full amount in accordance with the first opinion.”
