Bava Batra 176a — the Talmud in English

Rav Pappa said: The halakha is: an oral loan -

he collects from heirs but does not collect from purchasers.

For according to Rav Pappa, the lien on property is not biblical , and therefore only concerning heirs did the Sages institute that and therefore only concerning heirs did the Sages institute that

he collects from heirs -

so that the door should not be locked before borrowers.

And he does not collect from purchasers -

since

it has no public notice,

for an oral loan has no public notice, and the Sages were concerned for the loss of purchasers who would not know to be cautious about purchasing the borrower's property.

We learned in the Mishna:

“He produced concerning him his handwritten document that he owes him” -

“he collects from unencumbered property, etc.”

Rabba bar Natan asked Rabbi Yohanan:

If

his handwriting had been established

of the borrower

in court,

that the borrower had given the lender a document without the signatures of witnesses, but in his own handwriting, stating that he owed him money, and the lender came to court and acknowledged before them that it was his handwriting , or witnesses testified that it was his handwriting , and the court wrote “verification” on it—that the court examined the document, investigated, and established the truth of the matter, that everything written in the document was true.

What?

After the court wrote “verification” on the document, is it considered like a document signed by witnesses, so that he collects from encumbered property? Or perhaps the verification of the document served only to establish it in court as it is, so that the borrower cannot claim, “This is not my handwriting,” but it did not serve to give it the status of a document signed by witnesses, and he collects only from unencumbered property.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Even though his handwriting had been established in court -

he collects only from unencumbered property .

He challenged,

he objected to this

Rami bar Hama

from a beraita in which we learned:

Three bills of divorce are invalid

initially, and the woman divorced by them is not permitted to marry on the basis of these bills of divorce,

but if she married

on the basis of these bills of divorce—after the fact—

the child

born from her second marriage

is fit

and is not a mamzer, for the bill of divorce is fit by Torah law and invalid by rabbinic law.

And these are they:

the three bills of divorce invalid by rabbinic law: a.

The husband wrote

the bill of divorce

in his handwriting, and there are no

signatures of

witnesses upon it,

but it was given to her in the presence of witnesses, so that after the fact the woman is divorced through witnesses of delivery .

b. If

there are witnesses

signed upon it, but

there is no

date written

in it.

c. If

there is a date in it, but there is only one witness

and the handwriting of the scribe, which is considered like a second witness.

These are three invalid bills of divorce

by rabbinic law.

But if she married

another man on the basis of these bills of divorce -

the child

from her second marriage

is fit,

for by Torah law the bill of divorce is fit.

Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no

signatures

of witnesses upon it

at all,

but it was given to her in the presence of witnesses -

this is a bill of divorce

fit,

and if that document written in his handwriting, with no witnesses in it, but given in the presence of witnesses, had been a loan document,

he collects

through it

from encumbered property

of the husband .

It is explained in the beraita that if he produced concerning him his handwriting stating that he owes him, and gave it in the presence of witnesses, he collects from encumbered property; and all the more so in a case where his handwriting had been established in court . And this is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan, who said that he collects only from unencumbered property.

And we reject this:

It is different there,

the law there is different, that he collects from encumbered property, since

from the time of writing

of the document

he bound himself,

for from the outset it was written in order to be given in the presence of witnesses who would be witnesses of delivery in place of witnesses of signature. And according to Rabbi Eliezer, witnesses of delivery are like witnesses signed on the document, for the document was written in order to place a lien upon the property.

This is not so with handwriting that the court established after some time, for at the time of its writing it was not written at all in order to place a lien upon his property; rather, it was written only in place of an admission, so that he would not be able to retract and deny it, saying that he had paid, so long as his signature was in the lender's possession. If so, at the time he lent him the money it was like an oral loan, and afterward the court cannot, through its verification, make the document into a document that places a lien upon the borrower's property, for the document was not originally written with this in mind.

We learned in the Mishna:

A guarantor appearing after the completion of the signatures of the document,

that beneath the signatures of the witnesses on the loan document the guarantor wrote: “I, so-and-so son of so-and-so, am guarantor for the borrower.” In such a case

he collects

the lender

from property

unencumbered

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

Rav said: If the guarantee is written

before

the completion of the signatures of the document -

he collects from encumbered property,

and if the guarantee is written

after

the completion of the signatures of the document -

he collects

only from unencumbered property.

Sometimes

at times

Rav said: Even if

the guarantee is written

before the completion of the signatures of the document -

he collects only from unencumbered property.

And apparently

there is a difficulty from Rav against Rav!

And we explain:

It is not difficult: This

that Rav said that even if the guarantee is written before the witnesses' signatures on the document, he collects only from unencumbered property, is speaking

where he wrote in it, “So-and-so is a guarantor”

without the conjunction vav, which is an independent matter, and the witnesses did not sign upon this, but only upon the body of the loan document.

This

whereas that which Rav said, that if the guarantee is written before the witnesses' signatures, he collects from encumbered property, is speaking

where he wrote in it, “And so-and-so is a guarantor,”

with the conjunction vav. In this wording, the guarantee is a continuation of the body of the document, and the witnesses signed both the document and the guarantee; therefore he also collects from encumbered property.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Both this and that,

whether the guarantee is written before the witnesses' signatures on the document or whether it is written after the witnesses' signatures -

he collects only from unencumbered property, even though he wrote in it, “And so-and-so is a guarantor,”

with the conjunction vav.

Rava challenged

Rabbi Yohanan's words from what we learned in a beraita:

Witnesses who signed on a greeting

appearing

in a bill of divorce

at its end -

it is invalid,

for

we are concerned that perhaps it was only concerning the greeting

alone that

the witnesses signed

and not on the bill of divorce.

And Rabbi Abbahu said: For me, it was explained to me from Rabbi Yohanan,

I received from Rabbi Yohanan an explanation of the beraita: if the greeting was written as an independent matter, so that the wording was

“Sha'ilu” -

“Ask about the welfare of so-and-so,” without the conjunction vav -

the bill of divorce is invalid,

for perhaps the witnesses signed only on the greeting and not on the bill of divorce.

But if it was written

“Usha'ilu” -

with the conjunction vav, as a continuation of the bill of divorce -

it is fit,

for it is evident that they signed also on the bill of divorce.

And it follows that when one adds a sentence beginning with the conjunction vav, we say that the witnesses' signature applies to everything, whereas here Rabbi Yohanan said that there is no difference!

And we answer:

Here too,

also here, concerning the guarantee, we must amend Rabbi Yohanan's words, that it is specifically

where he wrote, “So-and-so is a guarantor,”

without the conjunction vav, that he does not collect from encumbered property. But if he wrote, “And so-and-so is a guarantor,” with the conjunction vav, the witnesses' signature applies to everything, and he collects from encumbered property.

And we ask:

If so,

Rabbi Yohanan's words

are

exactly like the words

of Rav,

for even according to Rav, if the guarantee was not written with the conjunction vav, the witnesses' signature applies only to the body of the document, and he collects the guarantee only from unencumbered property.

And we answer: Indeed, this is so, and

say: And so Rabbi Yohanan said

in accordance with Rav's words.

It once happened that a guarantor came before Rabbi Ishmael

who had written his guarantee after the witnesses' signatures, and Rabbi Ishmael ruled that he collects from unencumbered property. And Ben Nannas disagreed with him and said that he does not collect from him at all. And he proved this from one who strangles his fellow in the marketplace in order to collect his debt: one who saves him from the strangler and says to him, “Release him, and I will give you [the money],” does not thereby become obligated, since the lender did not rely upon him when he lent him the money. And Rabbi Ishmael praised Ben Nannas's wisdom.

Rabba bar bar Hanna said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Even though Rabbi Ishmael praised Ben Nannas,

nevertheless

the halakha is according to him,

according to Rabbi Ishmael concerning a guarantee written after the witnesses' signatures on the document, through which he becomes bound and collects from him from unencumbered property.

They raised a dilemma: In the case of the strangled man,

in the case of a strangled man,

what did Rabbi Ishmael say to me?

Does Rabbi Ishmael also disagree with Ben Nannas in this case and hold that the guarantor becomes bound because his fellow is suffering and being strangled, or perhaps he intends only to fulfill a mitzva and save him from strangulation, but does not truly become bound to be a guarantor?

Come and hear

a proof from this

that Rabbi Yaakov said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Ishmael was in disagreement

with Ben Nannas

even in the case of the strangled man.

For the one who saves him truly intends to bind himself and become a guarantor.

And we inquire concerning it: Is in this matter

the halakha according to him

according to Rabbi Ishmael,

or is the halakha not according to him?

Come and hear: For when

when

Ravin

came from the Land of Israel to Babylonia,

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Rabbi Ishmael was in disagreement even in the case of the strangled man, and the halakha is according to him even in the case of the strangled man.

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A strangled man,

whose creditor seized him and strangled him in the marketplace, and his fellow came and became a guarantor for him in order to save him,

and they acquired from him

and performed an act of acquisition concerning the guarantor's obligation -

he becomes bound

the guarantor.

And the Gemara infers:

By implication

you learn from his words

that an ordinary guarantor

at the time of the loan

does not require

does not need

an act of acquisition,

in order to become bound; rather, a verbal statement alone is sufficient.