Bava Batra 176b — the Talmud in English

And it conflicts with Rav Nahman, for Rav Nahman said:

Precisely

a court guarantor,

who became a guarantor before the rabbinical court,

is the one who does not require an act of acquisition,

since through that benefit that the rabbinical court trusted him to rely upon him for this debt, he resolved in his heart to subject himself to the guarantorship .

Here, in general,

with the other guarantorships, which are not made before the rabbinical court, where there is not such a great firmness of intent,

an act of acquisition is required—

he must perform an act of acquisition in order to bind himself to the guarantorship.

And the halakha is: A guarantor

if he undertook to be a guarantor for the loan

at the time of the giving of the money

of the loan to the borrower—

does not require an act of acquisition,

and even if he wrote his guarantorship within the document after the witnesses’ signatures, this is a complete guarantorship, and they collect from this guarantor even from encumbered property.

But if he undertook to be a guarantor

after the giving of the money

of the loan to the borrower—

an act of acquisition is required

to bind himself to the guarantorship, since the loan money was given beforehand; it is apparent that he did not lend to him on the guarantor’s trust, and he does not bind himself at all without an act of acquisition, even if he was signed within the document. And if he was signed after the witnesses’ signatures, he must perform an act of acquisition concerning the guarantorship, and then they collect from unencumbered property .

A court guarantor

who became a guarantor before the rabbinical court

does not require an act of acquisition,

since

through that benefit that it trusts him

the rabbinical court to rely upon him for this debt,

he resolves

in his heart

and binds him

and binds himself to the guarantorship .

We will return to you, chapter Gittin Pashut, and tractate Bava Batra is concluded