Commentary for Bava Batra 348:3

שלחו מתם שמתוהו ומת בשמתיה הלכתא כרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע

[Where one] was placed under a ban<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both these cases it is obvious that the debtor had not entrusted the creditor with any valuables as a security for the loan. Hence, according to R. Huna, the orphans, whose duty it is to discharge their father's debts, must indemnify the guarantor. According to R. Papa. however, they are not obliged to pay even in such cases. ');">⁵</span> and died under the ban, the law is in accordance with [the view of] R. Huna the son of R. Joshua.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the guarantor who discharged the debt of such a debtor is entitled to exact payment from the orphans; since, in such a case, it is certain that no valuables were deposited by the debtor with the creditor. ');">⁷</span> An objection was raised: A guarantor who produced<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from under whose hand goes out'. ');">⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Batra 348:3. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.