## Bava Batra Daf 175b

###### Bava Batra 175b:1
[Bava Batra 175b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:1)

הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לוֹ – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one **presents to** a debtor a document in the **handwriting of** the debtor stating **that he owes** money **to him,** but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor **can collect** only **from unsold property.**


###### Bava Batra 175b:2
[Bava Batra 175b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:2)

עָרֵב הַיּוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the case of **a guarantor whose** commitment **emerged after the signing of** the promissory **note,** the creditor **can collect** the sum only **from unsold property** of the guarantor.


###### Bava Batra 175b:3
[Bava Batra 175b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:3)

מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאָמַר: גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אָמַר לוֹ בֶּן נַנָּס: אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים וְלֹא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna relates: **An incident** occurred where such a case **came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said:** The creditor can **collect** the sum **from unsold property** of the guarantor, but not from liened property that he has sold to others. **Ben Nannas said to** Rabbi Yishmael: The creditor **cannot collect** the sum from the guarantor at all, **not from liened property** that has been sold, **nor from unsold property.**


###### Bava Batra 175b:4
[Bava Batra 175b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:4)

אָמַר לוֹ: לָמָּה? אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי הַחוֹנֵק אֶת אֶחָד בַּשּׁוּק, וּמְצָאוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ ״הַנַּח לוֹ [וַאֲנִי אֶתֵּן לָךְ]״ – פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא עַל אֱמוּנָתוֹ הִלְוָהוּ. אֶלָּא אֵיזֶה הוּא עָרֵב שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב? ״הַלְוֵהוּ, וַאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָךְ״ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁכֵּן עַל אֱמוּנָתוֹ הִלְוָהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yishmael **said to him: Why** not? Ben Nannas **said to him:** If **one was strangling someone in the marketplace,** demanding repayment of a loan, **and another** person **found him** doing so and **said to** the attacker: **Leave him** alone **and I will give you** the money he owes, the person who intervened is **exempt** from paying, **as** the creditor **did not loan** the money in the first place **based on his trust** of the one who intervened. **Rather, who is a guarantor who is obligated** to repay the loan he has guaranteed? One who tells the creditor before the loan takes place: **Lend** money to **him, and I will give you** the repayment, **as** in that case the creditor **did loan** the money **based on his trust** of the guarantor.


###### Bava Batra 175b:5
[Bava Batra 175b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:5)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּחְכִּים – יַעֲסוֹק בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת; שֶׁאֵין לָךְ מִקְצוֹעַ בַּתּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מֵהֶן, וְהֵן כְּמַעְיָין הַנּוֹבֵעַ. וְהָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיַּעֲסוֹק בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת – יְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נַנָּס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yishmael** thereupon **said: One who wants to become wise should engage in** the study of **monetary law, as there is no greater discipline in the Torah, and it is like a flowing spring. And,** he added, **one who wants to engage in** the study of **monetary law should attend to,** i.e., become a disciple of, **Shimon ben Nannas.**


###### Bava Batra 175b:6
[Bava Batra 175b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֶחָד מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר, וְאֶחָד מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. מַאי טַעְמָא? שִׁעְבּוּדָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וְאֶלָּא מַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִין בְּנֵי חוֹרִין? מִשּׁוּם פְּסֵידָא דְלָקוֹחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Ulla says: By Torah law,** a creditor, **whether** in the case of **a loan with** a promissory **note or** the case of **a loan by oral** contract, can **collect** the debt **from liened property** that has been sold by the debtor subsequent to his receiving the loan. **What is the reason** for this? The property of a debtor at the time of the loan, even an oral loan, is **liened by Torah law. And what is the reason** the Sages **said** that one who gives **a loan by oral** contract can **collect** the debt **only from unsold** property? **Because of the loss** that would be incurred **by purchasers** of land if the seller’s creditors could seize the land they have purchased.


###### Bava Batra 175b:7
[Bava Batra 175b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:7)

אִי הָכִי, מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר נָמֵי! הָתָם, אִינְהוּ נִינְהוּ דְּאַפְסִידוּ אַנַּפְשַׁיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, a loan with** a promissory **note** should **also** not be collected from purchasers of property, as this would cause them a loss. The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of a loan recorded in a promissory note, the purchasers, who neglected to investigate the financial status of the seller before purchasing land from him, **brought the loss upon themselves.** By contrast, loans by oral contract are often impossible to discover, even with a thorough investigation.


###### Bava Batra 175b:8
[Bava Batra 175b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:8)

וְרַבָּה אָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֶחָד מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר וְאֶחָד מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? שִׁעְבּוּדָא לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ מִלְוֶה בִּשְׁטָר גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים? כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לֹוִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba says: By Torah law,** a creditor, **whether** in the case of **a loan with** a promissory **note or** the case of **a loan by oral** contract, can **collect** the debt **only from** the debtor’s **unsold property. What is the reason** for this? The property of a debtor is **not liened by Torah law. And what is the reason** the Sages **said** that one who gives **a loan with** a promissory **note can collect** the debt **from liened property** that has been sold? **So as not to lock the door in the face of** potential **borrowers.** If one could not collect a debt by taking liened property that has been sold, people would be hesitant to put their money at risk by lending it.


###### Bava Batra 175b:9
[Bava Batra 175b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:9)

אִי הָכִי, מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה נָמֵי! הָתָם לֵית לֵיהּ קָלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that there is a desire to encourage people to lend money by granting greater power of collection to creditors, **a loan by oral** contract should **also** be collectible from liened property that has been sold. The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of a loan by oral contract, **it has no publicity** associated with it, so that purchasers often cannot find out about it, even after a thorough investigation, and it would be an unfair burden on them to have the property purchased by them seized in such cases.


###### Bava Batra 175b:10
[Bava Batra 175b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:10)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבָּה הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבָּה: גָּבוּ קַרְקַע – יֵשׁ לוֹ. גָּבוּ מָעוֹת – אֵין לוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabba** really **say this? But doesn’t Rabba say,** in the case of a firstborn son, that if he and his brothers **collected** a debt from **land, he has** the right to receive a double portion of that payment, but if **they collected** a debt from **money, he does not have** the right to a double portion? A firstborn son is entitled to a double share of inheritance of any property that was owned by his father at the time of his death, but not to profits or income that accrue to the estate after his death. If a debt owed to the father is collected from land after his death, Rabba said that the firstborn is entitled to a double portion, indicating that the land was considered in the father’s possession even before he died, which indicates that Rabba holds that the property of a debtor is liened to a creditor by Torah law.


###### Bava Batra 175b:11
[Bava Batra 175b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא אֵיפוֹךְ דְּרַבָּה לְעוּלָּא וּדְעוּלָּא לְרַבָּה, וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, בַּעַל חוֹב דִּינֵיהּ בְּזִבּוּרִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say:** The opinions as they were cited earlier are attributed incorrectly, and it is necessary to **reverse** the two opinions, and exchange the opinion of **Rabba for** that of **Ulla, and** that **of Ulla for** that **of Rabba,** there is a difficulty: **But doesn’t Ulla say** elsewhere: **By Torah law** the ***halakha* of a creditor is** to collect his debt only **from inferior-quality land?**


###### Bava Batra 175b:12
[Bava Batra 175b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:12)

אֶלָּא רַבָּה – טַעְמָא דִּבְנֵי מַעְרְבָא קָאָמַר, וְלֵיהּ לָא סְבִירָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves the contradiction between Rabba’s two statements: **Rather, Rabba was stating an explanation for** the opinion of the **people of the West,** Eretz Yisrael, cited earlier (125a), **but he himself does not hold accordingly,** as he holds that a firstborn son is not entitled to a double portion of a debt collected from land.


###### Bava Batra 175b:13
[Bava Batra 175b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:13)

רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה לֹא מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין וְלֹא מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? שִׁעְבּוּדָא לָאו דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues to discuss the issue of the extent of liens on a debtor’s property. **Rav and Shmuel both say:** In the case of **a loan by oral** contract, the creditor **can collect** the debt only from the one who took the loan, but **not from the heirs** of the debtor after his death, **and not from purchasers** of his property. **What is the reason** for this? They maintain that the property of a debtor is **not liened by Torah law.**


###### Bava Batra 175b:14
[Bava Batra 175b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:14)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה – גּוֹבֶה בֵּין מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, וּבֵין מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. מַאי טַעְמָא? שִׁעְבּוּדָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish both say:** In the case of **a loan by oral** contract, the creditor **can collect** the debt **both from the heirs** of the debtor after his death **and from the purchasers** of his property. **What is the reason** for this? They maintain that the property of a debtor is **liened by Torah law.**


###### Bava Batra 175b:15
[Bava Batra 175b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:15)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְנָפַל עָלָיו שׁוֹר וַהֲרָגוֹ – פָּטוּר. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם מֵת הַשּׁוֹר – יוֹרְשֵׁי בַּעַל הַבּוֹר חַיָּיבִים לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי שׁוֹר לִבְעָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav and Shmuel from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Bava Kamma* 6:2): If **one was digging a pit in the public domain, and an ox fell on him and killed him** as he was in the pit, the owner of the ox is **exempt** from paying for the damage caused, as it is the one who dug the pit who is at fault. **Moreover, if** it occurred **that the ox died** as a result of the fall, **the heirs of the owner of the pit are liable to pay the value of the ox to its owner.** Compensation for damages is comparable to a loan by oral contract, and yet the *baraita* states that the heirs of the culpable party must pay it.


###### Bava Batra 175b:16
[Bava Batra 175b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי אִלְעָא אָמַר רַב: בְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ela says** that **Rav says:** The *baraita* is discussing a case **in which** the one who dug the pit **stood trial** for the damage before he died, and once judgment is rendered by a court, the resulting financial liability is comparable to a loan with a promissory note.


###### Bava Batra 175b:17
[Bava Batra 175b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:17)

וְהָא ״הֲרָגוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ טְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But it is taught** in the *baraita* that the ox **killed him** by falling on him. How then can one say that he stood trial? **Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The *baraita* does not mean that the ox killed him instantly, but **that it rendered him one who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [*tereifa*],** and there was enough time before his death to try him and deem him liable to pay for damages.


###### Bava Batra 175b:18
[Bava Batra 175b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/175b:18)

וְהָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, תָּנֵי תַּנָּא: ״מֵת וּקְבָרוֹ״! הָתָם – דְּיָתְבִי דַּיָּינֵי אַפּוּמָּא דְבֵירָא, וְחַיְּיבוּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects that there is a different version of the *baraita* according to which this interpretation is not possible: **But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say** that a certain ***tanna* taught** the *baraita* with a different formulation, stating that the one who dug the pit **died** from the impact of the ox **and** the ox in effect **buried him** in the ground at the bottom of the pit? In this scenario it would be impossible to take the one who dug the pit to court to stand trial. The Gemara answers: **There,** according to that second version, it is discussing a case **where judges sat at the opening of the pit and deemed liable** the one who dug the pit to pay for the damage before he died.