Responsa for Bava Batra 351:14

מעשה ובא לפני רבי ישמעאל וכו': אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן אף על פי שקילס רבי ישמעאל את בן ננס הלכה כמותו

it is valid'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The signatures clearly bearing testimony to the entire bill (text of divorce and greetings). Now, since R. Johanan draws here a distinction between the insertion and the omission of the conjunction, how could he be said to hold that there is no such distinction in the case of a guarantee to a bond, and that whether 'and' was, or was not inserted, the debt may be recovered from Free property only? ');">²⁶</span> — Here also<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A guarantee on a bond, which does not entitle to the seizure of sold property. ');">²⁷</span>

Explore responsa for Bava Batra 351:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.