Gittin 50a — the Talmud in English

B. One who became

a kablan for a creditor

for a loan on account of which the lender suffered a monetary loss on the basis of his undertaking,

according to everyone, he becomes liable.

C. But

a guarantor for a creditor

whose undertaking is deficient in value, for he did not become a “kablan,” but rather a “guarantor”; and, on the other hand, it may be said that his intention was to become liable, since the lender suffered a monetary loss on his account.

D.

And

And likewise

a kablan for a ketubah,

for although the woman did not suffer a monetary loss on his account, on the other hand, there is an advantage in the value of his undertaking, since he became a “kablan.”

With regard to these two,

the amoraim dispute:

the amoraim;

there is one who says: even though the debtor has no property, the guarantor becomes liable,

since there is “one advantageous factor,” in any event, as was explained.

And there is one who says: if he has

the debtor has property at the time that he becomes a guarantor,

he becomes liable,

and

if he does not have, he does not become liable,

since there are not “two factors for liability,” and he is not comparable to a creditor’s kablan.

And we conclude:

and the halakha in all of them is that even though he has none, he becomes liable,

since there is one advantageous factor.

Except for a guarantor for a ketubah, for even though he has

the husband has property,

he does not become liable.

And we explain:

what is the reason? He performed a mitzva,

the guarantor, since they married through him,

and she suffered no loss.

She suffered no loss at all on his account.

Now the Gemara returns to the words of Mar Zutra, who holds: a woman’s ketubah from her husband is collected from beinonit, and only from orphans does she collect from ziborit.

Ravina said: ta shma

that it is not in accordance with Mar Zutra,

from the original basis of the enactment

[from the reason given for the root of the enactment] that a ketubah is collected from ziborit:

For we learned in a beraita [above 49b]: Rabbi Shimon said: Why did they say that a woman’s ketubah is collected from ziborit? Because

more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married.

And if it enters your mind that

a woman’s ketubah is collected from ziborit

from orphans

only, because the Sages had compassion on the orphans, then the reason for

this

law

is because they are orphans,

and not because the woman wants to be married?!

And we conclude: indeed,

a refutation of Mar Zutra,

from this beraita,

a refutation

it is.

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said in the name of Rav Naḥman: A promissory note

[of a loan]

that is brought against orphans,

is collected from ziborit, as we learned: “One does not collect from the property of orphans except from ziborit.”

And they said this not only concerning an ordinary loan, but

even though an enhancement is written in it,

meaning that he wrote in the note for the lender to collect from idit, nevertheless

he does not

collect

from the orphans

except from ziborit,

in accordance with the enactment of the Sages.

Abaye said: Know

a proof for Mar Zutra’s words.

For

For

an ordinary creditor, his law is beinonit,

and nevertheless

from orphans

they set aside his law, and he collects only

from ziborit.

And the same applies when he wrote an enhancement for him: they set aside his law with regard to orphans.

Rava said to him: Is it comparable now

meaning, is this a proof?!

For

by Torah law, the legal status of a creditor is to collect from inferior-quality land, as

a creditor’s law according to Torah law is ziborit, as

Ulla said.

For Ulla said: By Torah law, a creditor

collects

from ziborit.

As it is stated [Deuteronomy 24:10–11]: “When you lend your fellow any loan [whatever debt], do not enter his house to take his pledge [to take collateral].

You shall stand outside, and the man

You shall stand outside, and the man

to whom you lend shall bring the pledge out to you.” That is, the debtor brings out to the lender what he wishes to pledge.

And now,

what is the practice of a man—

the debtor—

to bring out

from his house in order to give collateral for his debt?

Certainly, his practice is to bring out

the least valuable of the utensils,

for he will not willingly pay with idit.

And just as when he gives a utensil, his practice is to bring out the worst of his utensils, so too when the debtor gives land, he gives the worst of his lands, namely, ziborit.

We therefore learn that according to Torah law the creditor’s law is ziborit, since the Torah gave him permission to give what he wishes to give.

And for what reason did they say

the Sages:

a creditor collects from beinonit?

So that you should not lock the door

of lenders

before borrowers.

And

since according to Torah law a creditor is paid from ziborit, one may say: indeed, regarding an ordinary creditor, with regard to

orphans, the Sages restored him to the Torah law

the Sages placed him under the Torah law.

But

[however,]

here,

in the case of a note in which an enhancement is written,

since according to Torah law his law is idit.

One may say:

even from orphans, likewise from idit,

for the Sages did not come to set aside the Torah law?!

The Gemara returns and raises a difficulty:

and according to Rava,

who holds that the Sages did not set aside the Torah law by enacting that one should not collect from orphans except ziborit.

If so, with regard to damages, whose law according to Torah law is idit, is their law likewise so even from orphans?!

But Abram the Hozאה taught,

in a beraita,

one does not collect from the property of orphans except from ziborit, even if they are injured parties.

But damages, their law according to Torah law is idit,

and nevertheless the Sages enacted that from orphans one collects from ziborit; and likewise one can say so with regard to a note in which an enhancement is written?!

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which

not

the injured party’s idit

was

like the damager’s ziborit.

And

this beraita is

this beraita is according to Rabbi Yishmael,

holding

that he says: according to Torah law, we assess with regard to the injured party.

And for the betterment of the world,

so that they will be careful not to cause damage,

the Sages enacted with regard to the damager.

And

since according to Torah law he is obligated to pay only ziborit, therefore

with regard to orphans, the Sages restored him to the Torah law.

And we object:

Is that so

for Rabbi Eliezer of Netofa taught

in a beraita:

One does not collect from the property of orphans except from ziborit, even if they are idit.

What is the meaning of “even if they are idit

that he taught,

is it not [that is, is the intention not]

[the intention]

even though he wrote [that the debtor wrote]

[that the borrower wrote]

“idit” in the note ,

and nevertheless he collects only from ziborit, presenting a difficulty to Rava?! And we answer:

No; what is the meaning of idit

from which he does not collect, even though he wrote idit for him in the note? It is a case in which

the idit was cut off [that it leapt away]

[the land disappeared]

the idit

from before him.

That is, after the loan, the idit that he wrote for him was blighted and ruined, and his stipulation was annulled , and he is once again only like an ordinary creditor: according to Torah law, with ziborit, and by rabbinic law, with beinonit.

And

as Rava,

for it is evident from his words that if the “cut-off idit” is involved, its law is annulled.

For Rava said: If he damaged

land,

[the] ziborit, he collects from the idit

of the damager, and even if it is “the best of the idit,” the injured party collects from it.

And if

the idit was cut off [that land which is the best of the idit was blighted] after the damage, and he still has idit

and beinonit and ziborit. He does not collect from the idit , for his original law was annulled, and for the betterment of the world he does not

collect

from ziborit, but

from beinonit.

Now the Gemara returns to explain Rabbi Eliezer of Netofa’s beraita ,

that in the case of cut-off idit, he collects from the orphans from ziborit, because he does not collect from beinonit except by enactment of the Sages, as was explained,

and with regard to orphans, the Sages restored him to the Torah law.

We learned in the Mishna

“One does not collect from the property of orphans except from ziborit.”

Rav Akhdevoy bar Ami asked [that is, asked]

[he asked]

Rav Akhdevoy bar Ami: The orphans that they said

with regard to ziborit,

are minors

specifically

or even adults?

Is this law

an enactment that the Sages made with regard to orphans

?[It is a rabbinic enactment with regard to orphans.]

And if so, one may say:

for minors the Sages made

an enactment, to have compassion on them, since they have no one who will toil on their behalf , but

for adults, the Sages did not make

it, since they can toil on their own.

Or perhaps,

it is a law and not an enactment, that a creditor collects from orphans from ziborit, as is his law according to Torah law.

Because a lender does not take into account that the debtor might die

and the properties might fall before the orphans, which would make it a locking of the door,

that is, a creditor does not lock the door before the debtor out of fear of the debtor’s death—that he will be able to collect only from ziborit—because he does not consider that the debtor will die.

Therefore, even

from

adults likewise,

one collects only ziborit, and not because of an enactment for orphans , but with regard to heirs we place the creditor’s law upon the Torah law.

ta shma,

to resolve [the question]: even from adults, he collects only from inferior land:

For the elder Abaye taught

in a beraita:

“Orphans,” concerning whom they said

the Sages, [means] with adult orphans,

and there is no need to say

with

minors.

a. A creditor who comes to claim his debt—even though he has a document in his possession—the debtor is entitled to assert, “I paid my debt,” and the creditor will not be trusted to collect except by an oath.

b. In the case of one who does not know how to make a claim on his own behalf, the court makes the claim on his behalf.

c. Therefore, the Sages said: one who comes to collect from the property of orphans may collect only by an oath. And although the father does not claim, “I paid,” and the orphans do not know whether he paid, we make the claim on their behalf: perhaps their father paid you; and he will not be trusted except by an oath.

And we reject: from where do you know that the beraita is speaking also about collection from inferior land?

Perhaps

what they said, “even adults,”

these words concern an oath,

and because

that

even a son

in his father’s affairs

[in his father’s business dealings]

is considered a minor,

and does not know whether his father paid him or not.

But concerning

collecting from the

inferior land, not

was it said that adults are like minors, for it is an enactment, and they did not enact it for adults.