Commentary for Bava Batra 348:20

מתקיף לה רב נחמן וכי אדם עושה קנוניא על בניו דרב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו שכיב מרע שאמר מנה לפלוני בידי אמר תנו נותנין לא אמר תנו אין נותנין אלמא אדם עשוי שלא להשביע את בניו

and the [other] Master holds that he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The guarantor. ');">⁵⁵</span> is responsible whether [the debtor] has, or has not any property. And the law [is that a guarantor] is responsible for payment in all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. BaH and Rashal, a.l. ');">⁵⁷</span> [cases],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the debtor, has or has no property. ');">⁵⁸</span> with the exception of a guarantor for a <i>kethubah</i> who is not responsible for payment even though the husband possessed property. What is the reason? — He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The guarantor. ');">⁵⁹</span> was [merely] performing a religious act<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By his guarantee he was helping to bring about the marriage of the parties. A guarantee in a matrimonial affair is not to be taken seriously as pledging actual payment, but as a mere expression of confidence in the honesty and integrity of the party concerned. ');">⁶⁰</span> and [the woman]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, it is assumed, always prefers married life to spinsterhood. ');">⁶¹</span> had lost nothing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is certain that even if she had known that her kethubah would not be paid, she would still have consented to the marriage. In the case of a loan, however, it is clear that had it not been for the guarantee, given by the guarantor, the creditor would not have risked his money. In the latter case, therefore, the guarantor is liable. ');">⁶²</span> R. Huna said: If a dying man consecrated all his property and then stated 'I owe<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in my hand'. ');">⁶³</span> a <i>maneh</i> to X', he is believed, because it is known that no one would form a conspiracy against sacred property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, his statement is accepted, and the maneh he mentioned is to be paid to the creditor named. ');">⁶⁴</span> R. Nahman demurred: Would a person form a conspiracy against his children<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To deprive them of their due in favour of a stranger. ');">⁶⁵</span> and yet both Rab and Samuel stated that if a dying man said, 'I owe a <i>maneh</i> to X', if he [specifically] added, 'Give [it to him]', it is to be given, but if he did not [specifically] say, 'Give', it is not to be given,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though ho clearly admitted liability. ');">⁶⁶</span> from this it clearly follows [that] a person is wont to disclaim wealth for<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., not to satisfy'. i.e., a person is in the habit of concealing the wealth of his children in order to ward off envy. ');">⁶⁷</span> his children;

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 348:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.