Bava Batra 175b — the Talmud in English

He produced it against him

the lender a document with

his handwriting

of the borrower, without the signature of witnesses,

that he owes him

money;

the lender collects

the lender

from unencumbered properties .

He does not collect from encumbered properties, but only when the loan is written in a document signed by witnesses, for through the document and the witnesses together the matter becomes publicized, and for that reason the properties become encumbered for repayment of the debt. For the purchasers who buy the borrower’s lands after the loan has become publicized have caused their own loss, because they did not investigate the matter and did not take care that land should remain in the borrower’s possession for repayment of the debt. This is not so with a document that has no witnesses, which does not become publicized, and its status is like that of an oral loan .

A guarantor who appears after the completion of the documents,

who, beneath the signatures of the witnesses on the loan document, wrote: “I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, am guarantor for the borrower.”

In this manner,

the lender collects

the lender

from unencumbered properties

of the guarantor, since the witnesses did not sign upon the guarantee, and the status of the guarantee is like that of an oral loan.

It once happened that there came before Rabbi Ishmael

a guarantor who wrote his guarantee after the witnesses had signed,

and

Rabbi Ishmael

said:

the lender

collects from unencumbered properties

of the guarantor, as we learned above.

Ben Nannas said to him

to Rabbi Ishmael:

“He collects neither from encumbered properties nor from unencumbered properties,”

for according to Ben Nannas, anyone who became a guarantor after the loan had already been given does not have the status of a guarantor, because the lender did not lend to the borrower on the basis of the guarantor’s trustworthiness and assurance.

He said to him

Rabbi Ishmael to Ben Nannas:

“Why”

is he not considered a guarantor, and does he not collect from this guarantor even from unencumbered properties?

He said to him

Ben Nannas to Rabbi Ishmael: An example of the matter is this:

“Behold,”

a man

“who is strangling another in the marketplace,”

and forcefully demands from him that he pay his debt ,

“and his fellow found him and said to him”

to the forceful man

“Leave him, and I will give you,”

and the forceful man left him—if the forceful man comes to demand the debt from the fellow who promised to give it,

the fellow is exempt

from giving it to him.

And why is he exempt? Because

“he did not lend him on his trust”

in him,

“he lent him,”

meaning, it was not because he relied upon this that he lent to his fellow initially, and the debt did not depend upon this; therefore, he cannot subsequently demand it from him.

And so too is the law with a guarantor who signs after the loan document has already been signed: he is exempt, since the lender had already lent to the borrower even without the guarantor.

“Rather, which is the guarantor who is liable”

to pay?

If the guarantor said to the lender before the loan:

“Lend to him, and I will give you,”

this is a guarantor who is

liable

to pay,

“for on”

the basis of

“his trust he lent him,”

for because he trusted the guarantor and relied upon his responsibility, he lent to the borrower.

But Rabbi Ishmael disagrees with Ben Nannas even in the case of the one who is strangling, for according to him, even one who became a guarantor after the loan is a guarantor and becomes obligated to the lender. However, if he became a guarantor after the loan, he becomes obligated only if he undertook the obligation through a formal act of acquisition; whereas at the time of the loan, the guarantor becomes obligated even without a formal act of acquisition.

And Rabbi Ishmael said: “One who wishes to become wise”—

to acquire wisdom and knowledge and sharpen his intellect—

“should engage”

“in the laws of monetary matters, for you have no discipline”

corner

“in the Torah greater than they,”

because of the multitude of laws and logical analyses in the laws of monetary matters,

“and they are like a flowing spring”

of intellectual distinctions and deliberation ,

“and one who wishes to engage in the laws of monetary matters”—

“should serve Shimon ben Nannas”

and study under him.

Gemara:

Ulla said: “By Torah law”—

from the Torah—

“both a loan by document and an oral loan”

“are collected from encumbered properties.”

What is the reason?

Since, according to Ulla,

“the encumbrance”

the law of encumbering the borrower’s properties to the lender, so that even if he sells or gives them away, the lender can collect his debt from them—is a law

“of Torah,”

as it is stated [Deuteronomy 24:11]: “And the man to whom you lend shall bring the pledge outside to you” .

“But for what reason did they say”

the Sages:

“An oral loan is collected only from unencumbered properties?”

“Because of the loss of purchasers,”

for with an oral loan there is no publicizing of the loan, and perhaps the purchasers will not know and will buy properties from the borrower, and they will suffer a loss when the lender collects them for his debt.

And we challenge:

“If so, a loan by document also”

the Sages should have enacted that the lender should not collect from the borrower’s properties, so that the purchasers would not suffer a loss.

And we answer:

“There,”

with a loan by document, with witnesses signed upon the document, there is publicizing of the loan; and if the purchasers bought from the borrower and did not leave properties in his possession for repayment of the loan,

“they themselves are”

“those who caused their own loss,”

they are the ones who caused their own loss.

And Rabbah said: “By Torah law”—

from the Torah—

“both a loan by document and an oral loan”—

“are collected only from unencumbered properties.”

“What is the reason?”

“The encumbrance”

the law of encumbering the borrower’s properties to the lender

“is not of Torah”

it is not from the Torah , and the verse “he shall bring the pledge to you” speaks of taking collateral at the time of repayment, and not at the time of the loan .