Bava Batra 351:1

אמר רב פפא הלכתא מלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות גובה מן היורשין כדי שלא תנעול דלת בפני לוין ואינו גובה מן הלקוחות דלית ליה קלא:

R. Papa said: The law is [that] a verbal loan may be recovered from the heirs<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the debtor. ');">¹</span> but may not be recovered from the buyers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 775, n. 15. ');">²</span>

הוציא עליו כתב ידו שהוא חייב לו גובה מנכסים בני חורין וכו': בעא מיניה רבה בר נתן מר' יוחנן הוחזק כתב ידו בבית דין מאי אמר ליה אף על פי שהוחזק כתב ידו בבית דין אינו גובה אלא מנכסים בני חורין

It 'may be recovered from the heirs' in order that doors might not be locked in the face of borrowers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No one would be able to obtain a loan if creditors could not be assured of recovering it from the debtor's heirs. ');">³</span> 'but may not be recovered from the buyers', because it is not [sufficiently] known.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 775, n. 3. Unlike a loan secured by a bond, it is neither made, nor acknowledged in the presence of witnesses nor in the presence of a scribe. Hence no one besides the lender and debtor may ever be aware of its existence. The buyers of the debtor's property must, therefore, be protected against loss not due to any Fault of theirs. ');">⁴</span>

מתיב רמי בר חמא שלשה גיטין פסולין ואם נישאת הולד כשר ואלו הן כתב בכתב ידו ואין עליו עדים יש עליו עדים ואין בו זמן יש בו זמן ואין בו אלא עד אחד הרי אלו שלשה גיטין פסולין ואם נישאת הולד כשר

[IF A PERSON] PRODUCED AGAINST ANOTHER HIS NOTE-OF-HAND [SHOWING] THAT [THE LATTER] OWED HIM [A SUM OF MONEY]. HE MAY RECOVER [IT] FROM FREE PROPERTY ETC. Rabbah b. Nathan inquired of R. Johanan: What [is the law in the case where] his handwriting<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the note-of-hand mentioned in our Mishnah. ');">⁵</span> was legally endorsed at a court of law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the endorsement confer upon the creditor the same rights as those of a bond signed by witnesses, and thus entitle him to seize the debtor's mortgaged lands as if the clause pledging security had actually been entered (omission of the clause being regarded as the scribe's error); or does it merely establish the authenticity of the debtor's signature, while the creditor's rights remain unaltered? ');">⁶</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר אף על פי שאין עליו עדים אלא שנתנו לה בפני עדים כשר וגובה מנכסים משועבדים

[The other] replied to him: Although one's handwriting had been legally endorsed at a court of law [the debt] may be recovered from free property only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a note-of-hand that has not been endorsed. The endorsement of a document by a court serves only the purpose of safeguarding its current force so that debtor or witnesses should not subsequently be able to deny their signatures. ');">⁷</span> Rami b. Hama raised an objection: [There are] three [kinds of] letters of divorce [which are] invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They do not entitle the woman to re-marry. ');">⁸</span>

שאני התם דמשעת כתיבה הוא דשעבד נפשיה:

but, if [the woman did] remarry, her child is [deemed] legitimate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The invalidity of the divorce not being so definite as to affect the legitimacy of the child. ');">⁹</span> And they are the following: [A letter of divorce] written in the husband's handwriting, which bears no [signatures of] witnesses; [one] bearing [the signatures of] witnesses but no date; [and one] bearing a date and [the signature of] one witness only. These are the three [kinds of] letters of divorce [which are] invalid; did [the woman] however, re-marry, the child is [deemed] legitimate. R. Eleazar said: [A letter of divorce,] although it bears no [signatures of] witnesses but was given<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he (the husband) gave it'. ');">¹⁰</span>

ערב היוצא לאחר חיתום שטרות וכו': אמר רב קודם חיתום שטרות גובה מנכסים משועבדים לאחר חיתום שטרות גובה מנכסים בני חורין

to the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to her'. ');">¹¹</span> in the presence of witnesses, is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, in R. Eleazar's opinion, the legality of a document depends on the witnesses to its delivery, not on those who signed it. ');">¹²</span>

זמנין אמר רב אפילו קודם חיתום שטרות אינו גובה אלא מנכסים בני חורין

and [such a document entitles one to] collect from mortgaged property!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Git. 86a. Whether the document be a kethubah or (as has been explained in Git. 22b) a bond of indebtedness, from this it follows that, though no witnesses had signed the bond, the creditor is entitled to seize the debtor's mortgaged property if there were only witnesses testifying to the delivery to him of the bond; much more so when the bond had been endorsed in a court of law which has certainly more power than ordinary witnesses. How, then, could R. Johanan maintain that an endorsement by a court of a note-of hand does not entitle the creditor to the seizure of sold property? ');">¹³</span> — There<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah of Gittin. ');">¹⁴</span>

קשיא דרב אדרב לא קשיא הא דכתב ביה פלוני ערב הא דכתב ביה ופלוני ערב

it is different, because he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband (in case of a divorce), or a creditor (in the case of a bond). ');">¹⁵</span> pledged himself at the very time of writing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the document, i.e., it was originally written with the intention of delivering it in the presence of witnesses instead of having their signatures on the document. Since witnesses to the delivery confer upon a document the same force as witnesses who sign it, the document is valid. R. Johanan, however, speaks of a note-of-hand given to the creditor sometime after the loan was made as a token of indebtedness. Such a note, not being written in the form of a bond and bearing no signatures of witnesses, cannot transform a verbal loan into one secured by a bond. ');">¹⁶</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר אחד זה ואחד זה אינו גובה אלא מנכסים בני חורין ואף על גב דכתב ביה ופלוני ערב

[IF THE GUARANTEE AND SIGNATURE OF] A GUARANTOR APPEAR BELOW THE SIGNATURES TO BONDS OF INDEBTEDNESS, etc. Rab said: [If the guarantee appears] before the signatures on the bond, [the debt] may be recovered from mortgaged property; if after the signatures on the bond, [it] may be recovered from free property [only]. At times, Rab said: Even [if the guarantee appears] before the signatures on the bond [the debt] may be recovered from free property only. [This, surely, presents] a contradiction [between one ruling] of Rab and the other ruling of his!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'on Rab'. ');">¹⁷</span> — There is no contradiction. The one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the guarantor's mortgaged property may not be seized. ');">¹⁸</span>

מתיב רבא עדים החתומין על שאילת שלום בגט פסול חיישינן שמא על שאילת שלום חתמו

[refers to the case] where it was entered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that he wrote in it'. ');">¹⁹</span> 'X is guarantor'; the other [speaks of a case] where it was entered, 'and X is guarantor'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the latter case, 'and' indicates continuation, so that the guarantee forms a part of the bond the whole of which is attested by the witnesses whose signatures appear below. In the former case, the guarantee appears as a detached statement; and the witnesses may, consequently, be regarded as having attested the text of the bond only, exclusive of the guarantee. ');">²⁰</span>

ואמר רבי אבהו לדידי מיפרשא ליה מיניה דרבי יוחנן שאילו פסול ושאילו כשר

R. Johanan. however, said: Either with the one or with the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one this and one this', 'whether one or the other', i.e., whether the guarantee is entered above, or below the signatures of the witnesses. ');">²¹</span> [the debt] may be recovered from [the guarantor's] free property only; even though it was entered 'and X is guarantor'.

הכא נמי דכתב פלוני ערב

Raba raised an objection: A bill of divorce containing greetings, under which the witnesses have signed, is invalid,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'witnesses who are signed on an enquiry of peace in a letter of divorce'. ');">²²</span> [because we apprehend that they might have signed the greetings [only];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the text of the divorce. Tosef., Git. VII. ');">²³</span>

אי הכי היינו דרב אימא וכן אמר רבי יוחנן:

and R. Abbahu said: I had the [following] explanation of this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'to me it was explained'. ');">²⁴</span> from R. Johanan: [The entry.] 'give greetings' [renders the bill] invalid, [but with the entry,] 'and give greetings'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The conjunction, 'and', combining the greetings and the text into one unit. ');">²⁵</span>

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>

איבעיא להו בחנוק מה לי אמר רבי ישמעאל תא שמע דאמר ר' יעקב אמר רבי יוחנן חלוק היה רבי ישמעאל אף בחנוק

[it is a case] where the entry was,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'when he wrote'. ');">²⁸</span> 'X is guarantor'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had the conjunction 'and' been inserted, the guarantee would have assumed full force and the guarantor's sold property also could be seized. ');">²⁹</span>

הלכה כמותו או אין הלכה כמותו תא שמע דכי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן חלוק היה רבי ישמעאל אף בחנוק והלכה כמותו אף בחנוק

If so, [this statement] is exactly the same [as that] of Rab!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab also draws the same distinction between the insertion, and the omission of the conjunction. ');">³⁰</span> — Read,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say'. ');">³¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל חנוק וקנו מידו משתעבד מכלל דערב בעלמא לא בעי קנין ופליגא דרב נחמן דאמר רב נחמן

'and so said R. Johanan'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Johanan does not differ from, but agrees with Rab. ');">³²</span> SUCH A CASE ONCE CAME BEFORE R. ISHMAEL etc. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: Although R. Ishmael praised Ben Nannus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Later in the Mishnah. ');">³³</span> the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael's; that free property may be seized. ');">³⁴</span> [own view]. A question was raised: What is R. Ishmael's view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'what to me said etc.'. ');">³⁵</span> in [the case of] 'throttling'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case cited by Ben Nannus in our Mishnah where the guarantee was made after the loan was granted for the purpose of saving the debtor from the creditor's power. ');">³⁶</span> — Come and hear that which R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Ishmael differed in [the case of] 'throttling' also. [Is the] <i>halachah</i> in accordance with his view or is the <i>halachah</i> [in this case] not in accordance with his view? — Come and hear: When Rabin came<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' from Palestine to Babylon. ');">³⁷</span> he stated in the name of R. Johanan: R. Ishmael differed in [the case of] 'throttling' also; and the <i>halachah</i> is in accordance with his view in [the case of] 'throttling' also. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel; [A guarantor, even in a case of] 'throttling', who was made to enter into a legal obligation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'and they (witnesses) acquired from him', by means of a kinyan (v. Glos.). ');">³⁸</span> assumes responsibility [for the payment of the debt], [from this] it is to be inferred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a kinyan is specifically postulated in this case. ');">³⁹</span> that a guarantor generally<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'in the world'. ');">⁴⁰</span> does not require a <i>kinyan</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He assumes responsibility though no kinyan had been effected. ');">⁴¹</span> And [this is] in disagreement with [the statement] of R. Nahman. for R. Nahman said: