Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 14, scan section 69

names of Ula and Rabba should be reversed in the above state- ments, this would not hold good, as we have heard Ula saying elsewhere that a creditor collects biblically from the worse estate of the debtor. Hence we see that Ula holds that estates are mortgaged biblically, (This presents no dif^culty, as the cited statement of Rabba [in Chapter VIIL] was only to give the reason of the Palestinians; but he himself does not hold with them.) Both Rabh and Samuel hold : A verbal loan is not collectible — neither from heirs nor from buyers; as, biblically, estates are not mortgaged on any loan. But R. Johanan and Resh Lakish both hold : They are mortgaged, and therefore a loan is collect- ible— whether from heirs or from buyers. Said R. Papa: The Halakha prevails that a verbal loan is collectible from. heirs, for the purpose of not closing the door to borrowers; but is not collectible from buyers, who could not know of the exist- ence of such a debt. " // A holds a zvriting . . . from unencumbered estates," etc. Rabba b. Nathan questioned R. Johanan: How is it if this writing was approved by the court? And he answered: Even then, the same is the case. Rami b. Hama objected from a Mishna in Tract Gittin, in which it is stated that, accord- ing to R. Elazar, if such a document, without witnesses, was given to the lender in the presence of witnesses, he may col- lect from encumbered estates? The case is different, as the writing was with the intention of transferring it in the presence of witnesses ; it is the same as if the witnesses had signed the document. " A surety . . . after the signatures," etc. Said Rabh : If the surety signed before the signatures, it may be collected from encumbered estates; and if after, from unencumbered estates only. But at some other time the same Rabh said: Even if he had signed his name before the signatures, it is to be collected from free estates only. Hence Rabh contradicts him- TRACT BABA BATHRA (LAST GATE). 395 self. This presents no difficulty, as his statement, from free estates only, speaks of when the surety wrote, e.g., " B is a surety," which does not make it clear for whom he is a surety ; and the witnesses who sigjied their names after him, perhaps they have nothing to do with the surety. And his statement that it is collectible from encumbered estates speaks of when there was written after the text, explaining the loan, " And so and so is the surety," to which the approval was by the wit- nesses signed after him. And the same was said by R. Jo- hanan. " Such a case came before R. Ishmael," etc. Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Johanan : Although R. Ishmael praised Ben Nanas, the Halakha prevails with R. Ishmael. The schoolmen propounded a question : How is it if such a case as illustrated by Ben Nanas occurs? Come and hear what R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan : Even then, R. Ishmael differs with him. But with whom, then, does the Halakha pre- vail ? Come and hear what Rabbin, when he came from Pales- tine, said in the name of Johanan : R. Ishmael differs with Ben Nanas even in the case illustrated by him, and the Halakha pre- vails also in this case with R. Ishmael. Said R. Jehudah in the name of Samuel : However, if the man who said, " Leave him alone, I will pay," fulfils his promise with the ceremony of a sudarium, he is mortgaged. Infer from this that in case of all other sureties no sudarium is necessary ; and this differs with R. Na'hman, who said: Only a surety, in the presence of the court, is free from a sudarium; but all others are not. The Halakha, however, prevails that with a surety who was present when the money w^as delivered, a sudarium is not needed, but after the delivery it is needed. With a surety appointed by the court it is not needed, as, because of his pleasure at the court choosing him to be the surety, he makes up his mind to pay, and is mortgaged. END OF TRACT BABA BATHRA AND OF VOL. VI. (XIV.) Princeton Theological ^Seminar); Libraries 1 1012 01251 5823