Bava Batra 350:1

הוציא עליו כתב ידו שהוא חייב לו גובה מנכסים בני חורין

[IF A PERSON] PRODUCED AGAINST ANOTHER HIS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The debtor's. ');">¹</span> NOTE-OF-HAND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And no other evidence. ');">²</span>

ערב היוצא לאחר חיתום שטרות גובה מנכסים בני חורין

[SHOWING] THAT [THE LATTER] OWES HIM [A SUM OF MONEY], HE MAY RECOVER [IT] FROM HIS FREE PROPERTY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mortgaged property may be seized only where the creditor can produce a bond duly signed by qualified witnesses. Y. Gemara, infra. ');">³</span> [IF THE GUARANTEE AND SIGNATURE OF] A GUARANTOR APPEAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which goes out'. ');">⁴</span>

מעשה ובא לפני ר' ישמעאל ואמר גובה מנכסים בני חורין אמר לו בן ננס אינו גובה לא מנכסים משועבדים ולא מנכסים בני חורין

BELOW THE SIGNATURES TO BONDS OF INDEBTEDNESS, [THE CREDITOR] MAY RECOVER [HIS DEBT] FROM [THE GUARANTOR'S] FREE PROPERTY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not from property he sold. Since the signatures of the witnesses do not appear below the guarantee, the guarantor's undertaking can have no more force than a verbal promise, or a loan that has not been secured by a bond, in which case no mortgaged property is pledged to the creditor. ');">⁵</span> SUCH A CASE ONCE CAME BEFORE R. ISHMAEL, WHO DECIDED THAT [THE DEBT MAY] BE RECOVERED FROM [THE GUARANTOR'S] FREE PROPERTY. BEN NANNUS [HOWEVER] SAID TO HIM, '[THE DEBT MAY] BE REPLIED NEITHER FROM SOLD PROPERTY NOR FROM FREE PROPERTY.' 'WHY?' THE OTHER ASKED HIM. BEHOLD', HE REPLIED TO HIM, 'THIS IS JUST AS IF A CREDITOR] WERE [IN THE ACT (IF] THROTTLING A DEBTOR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one'. ');">⁶</span>

אמר לו למה אמר לו הרי החונק את אחד בשוק ומצאו חבירו ואמר לו הנח לו [ואני אתן לך] פטור שלא על אמונתו הלוהו אלא איזה הוא ערב שהוא חייב הלוהו ואני נותן לך חייב שכן על אמונתו הלוהו

IN THE STREET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., using violence against him. ');">⁷</span> AND HIS FRIEND FOUND HIM AND SAID, "LEAVE HIM ALONE AND<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a guarantee was offered for the sole purpose of rescuing the debtor from the creditor's violence. It cannot be regarded as a serious guarantee to discharge the debt, since the debt was incurred prior to the guarantee. ');">⁸</span>

ואמר רבי ישמעאל הרוצה שיחכים יעסוק בדיני ממונות שאין לך מקצוע בתורה יותר מהן והן כמעיין הנובע והרוצה שיעסוק בדיני ממונות ישמש את שמעון בן ננס:

WILL PAY YOU", HE WOULD [CERTAINLY] BE EXEMPT [FROM LIABILITY], SINCE THE LOAN WAS NOT MADE THROUGH TRUST IN HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such a guarantee was offered for the sole purpose of rescuing the debtor from the creditor's violence. It cannot be regarded as a serious guarantee to discharge the debt, since the debt was incurred prior to the guarantee. ');">⁸</span> BUT WHAT MANNER OF GUARANTOR, HOWEVER, IS LIABLE [TO REFUND A DEBT]? [IF THE GUARANTOR SAID], "LEND HIM [A SUM OF MONEY] AND I WILL REPAY [IT] TO YOU", HE IS LIABLE, SINCE THE LOAN WAS MADE THROUGH TRUST IN HIM.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר עולא דבר תורה אחד מלוה בשטר ואחד מלוה ע"פ גובה מנכסים משועבדים מאי טעמא שעבודא דאורייתא ואלא מה טעם אמרו מלוה על פה אינו גובה אלא מנכסין בני חורין משום פסידא דלקוחות

R. ISHMAEL FURTHER STATED: HE WHO WOULD BE WISE SHOULD ENGAGE IN THE STUDY OF CIVIL LAWS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'laws of monies' or 'property'. ');">⁹</span> FOR THERE IS NO BRANCH IN THE TORAH MORE COMPREHENSIVE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. BaH, a.l. ');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי מלוה בשטר נמי התם אינהו נינהו דאפסידו אנפשייהו

THAN THEY, AND THEY ARE LIKE A WELLING FOUNTAIN. AND HE THAT WOULD ENGAGE IN THE STUDY OF CIVIL LAWS LET HIM WAIT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'serve', as a disciple to his master. ');">¹¹</span> UPON SIMEON BEN NANNUS.

ורבה אמר דבר תורה אחד מלוה בשטר ואחד מלוה על פה אינו גובה אלא מנכסים בני חורין מ"ט שעבודא לאו דאורייתא ומה טעם אמרו מלוה בשטר גובה מנכסים משועבדים כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. 'Ullah said: [According to] the word of the Torah, either a loan [secured] by a bond or a verbal loan may be recovered from mortgaged property. What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is Biblical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXIV, 11. Every debt carries with it a pledge of the debtor's property in favour of the creditor. ');">¹²</span> Why then has it been said [that] a verbal loan may be collected from free property only? — On account of [possible] loss to the buyers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who might not be aware of the existence of the loan and would thus purchase property which might at any time be taken away from them. ');">¹³</span>

אי הכי מלוה על פה נמי התם לית ליה קלא

If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the interests of the buyers are to be safeguarded. ');">¹⁴</span> [the same law should apply] also [to] a loan [that is secured] by a bond!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. n. 6. ');">¹⁵</span>

ומי אמר רבה הכי והא אמר רבה גבו קרקע יש לו גבו מעות אין לו

[In this case]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there', a loan secured by a bond. ');">¹⁶</span> they have brought the loss upon themselves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A loan that has been secured by a bond and made or acknowledged in the presence of witnesses receives due publicity, and intending buyers are well aware of its existence. ');">¹⁷</span>

וכי תימא איפוך דרבה לעולא ודעולא לרבה והא אמר עולא דבר תורה בעל חוב דיניה בזבורית

Rabbah, however, said: [According to] the word of the Torah either a loan [secured] by a bond or a verbal loan may be recovered from free property only. What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is not Biblical.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 114b. ');">¹⁸</span> Why then has it been said that a loan [secured] by a bond may be recovered from sold property? — In order that doors may not be locked in the face of borrowers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No man would consent to lend any money if no land security were available. ');">¹⁹</span>

(אלא) רבה טעמא דבני מערבא קאמר וליה לא סבירא ליה

If so, [the same law should apply] also [to] a verbal loan! — In that case the loan is not [sufficiently] known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it has no voice'. ');">²⁰</span> Did Rabbah, however, give such [a ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say so', that the hypothecary obligation involved by debts is not Biblical. ');">²¹</span>

רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו מלוה על פה אינו גובה לא מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות מ"ט שעבודא לאו דאורייתא

Surely, Rabbah said: If land was collected<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By sons, in payment of a debt that was due to their deceased father. ');">²²</span> he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstborn son. ');">²³</span>

ר' יוחנן ור' שמעון בן לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו מלוה על פה גובה בין מן היורשין ובין מן הלקוחות מ"ט שעבודא דאורייתא

receives [a double portion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Biblically land is deemed to have been in their father's virtual possession, and a firstborn son is entitled to a double share in all that his father possessed. Cf. Deut. XXI, 17. ');">²⁴</span> but] if money was collected, he does not, and R. Nahman said: If money was collected he has [a double portion]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 124b; B.K. 43a. At any rate, in view of this statement of Rabbah's, the debtor's land is Biblically deemed to be in the creditor's virtual possession; how then could ho say here that the hypothecary obligation is not Biblical? ');">²⁵</span>

מיתיבי החופר בור ברשות הרבים ונפל עליו שור והרגו פטור ולא עוד אלא שאם מת השור יורשי בעל הבור חייבים לשלם דמי שור לבעליו

And if it be suggested that [the statement] of Rabbah should be transposed to 'Ulla and that of 'Ulla to Rabbah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus Rabbah's view here would be that the pledging of property is Biblical, in agreement with his statement, supra 124b, that a firstborn receive a double portion where land was collected, and 'Ulla's view would be that the hypothecary obligation is not Biblical. ');">²⁶</span> surely [it may be pointed out] 'Ulla said: [According to] the word of the Torah a creditor is to receive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his right'. ');">²⁷</span>

אמר ר' אלעא אמר רב בשעמד בדין

of the worst!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the lands of the debtor. And this is deduced from a Biblical text (v. B.K. 8a). which proves that, according to 'Ulla, the debtor's landed property is pledged to the creditor Biblically. ');">²⁸</span> — Rabbah [only] stated the reason of the Palestinians,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, as reported supra 124b, stated that a firstborn son takes a double portion in a loan. ');">²⁹</span>

והא הרגו קתני אמר רב אדא בר אהבה שעשאו טרפה

but he himself does not share [their view].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But maintains that, consistent with his view here that the hypothecary obligation is not Biblical, a firstborn son does not receive a double portion in a loan that was due to his deceased father, whether money or land was collected. ');">³⁰</span> Both Rab and Samuel stated: A verbal loan may be recovered neither from the heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the debtor. ');">³¹</span>

והא אר"נ תני תנא מת וקברו התם דיתבי דייני אפומא דבירא וחייבוהו

nor from the buyer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the dates of their purchases were later than the date of the loan. ');">³²</span> What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is not Biblical. Both R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish stated: A verbal loan may be recovered either from the heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 775, n. 24. ');">³³</span> or from the buyers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 775, n. 15. ');">³⁴</span> What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is Biblical. An objection was raised: If [a man] was digging a pit in a public domain and an ox falls upon him and kills him, [the owner of the ox] is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is the fault of the digger of the pit that the ox had fallen upon him. ');">³⁵</span> Moreover, if the ox dies,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Through the fall. ');">³⁶</span> [compensation for] its value must be paid to its owner by the heirs of the owner of the pit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The liability to compensation is, surely, of no greater legal force than that of a verbal loan (since no bond can be produced in support of it), and yet it has been said that it may be recovered from heirs; how, then, could Rab and Samuel state that heirs are not liable to repay a verbal loan incurred by their father? ');">³⁷</span> — R. Elai replied in the name of Rab: [This law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That heirs are to pay compensation for their father's liability. ');">³⁸</span> is applicable to the case only] where he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was digging the pit. ');">³⁹</span> appeared before [a court of] law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And was ordered to pay compensation. An order made by a court has the same legal force as that of a loan that is secured by a written bond. ');">⁴⁰</span> But, surely, it was stated that <i>it killed</i> him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A dead man could not appear before a court! ');">⁴¹</span> — R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: [This is a case] where he was fatally injured.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The infliction of injuries from which one dies may be described as 'killing'. A man injured, though fatally, may be able to appear before a court. ');">⁴²</span> But R. Nahman, surely. said that a tanna<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 7a. ');">⁴³</span> recited [the statement as follows]: It killed and buried him!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the pit. How could it be said that he appeared before a court. ');">⁴⁴</span> — That [is a case] where judges sat at the mouth of the Pit and convicted him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just before he died. ');">⁴⁵</span>