## Bava Batra Daf 176a

###### Bava Batra 176a:1
[Bava Batra 176a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:1)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הִלְכְתָא: מִלְוֶה עַל פֶּה – גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת. גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין – כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תִּנְעוֹל דֶּלֶת בִּפְנֵי לֹוִין, וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַלָּקוֹחוֹת – דְּלֵית לֵיהּ קָלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: The *halakha*** is that when a creditor gives **a loan by oral** contract, he can **collect** the debt **from the heirs** of the debtor after his death, **but he cannot collect** the debt **from the purchasers** of the debtor’s property. He can **collect** the debt **from the heirs so as not to lock the door in the face of** potential **borrowers. But he cannot collect** the debt **from the purchasers, as** a loan by oral contract **has no publicity** associated with it.


###### Bava Batra 176a:2
[Bava Batra 176a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:2)

הוֹצִיא עָלָיו כְּתַב יָדוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב לוֹ – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין וְכוּ׳. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבָּהּ בַּר נָתָן מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוּחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּחְזַק כְּתַב יָדוֹ בְּבֵית דִּין – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: 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. Rabba bar Natan asked Rabbi Yoḥanan:** If the document in the **handwriting of** the debtor **was ratified in court** at a later time, **what** is the *halakha*? Would it then be possible to collect the debt from liened property that has been sold? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him** in reply: **Even if** the document in the **handwriting of** the debtor **was ratified in court,** the creditor **can collect** the debt **only from unsold property.**


###### Bava Batra 176a:3
[Bava Batra 176a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:3)

מֵתִיב רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת – הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: כָּתַב בִּכְתַב יָדוֹ – וְאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים; יֵשׁ עָלָיו עֵדִים – וְאֵין בּוֹ זְמַן; יֵשׁ בּוֹ זְמַן – וְאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא עֵד אֶחָד; הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה גִּיטִּין פְּסוּלִין, וְאִם נִישֵּׂאת – הַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama raises an objection** from a mishna (*Gittin* 86a), which states: There are **three** types of **bills of divorce** that **are not valid** *ab initio*, **but if** the woman **marries** another man on the basis of one of these bills of divorce the lineage of **the offspring** from this marriage **is unflawed.** In other words, she is not considered to be a married woman who engaged in sexual intercourse with another man, which would impair the lineage of their child. **And they are these:** A bill of divorce that the husband **wrote in his handwriting but there are no** signatures of **witnesses in** the document at all; a bill of divorce where **there are** the signatures of **witnesses in** the document **but there is no date** written **in it;** and a bill of divorce where **there is a date** written **in it, but it contains only one witness. These are** the **three bills of divorce** that are **not valid** with regard to which the Sages said: **And if she marries,** the lineage of **the offspring is unflawed.**


###### Bava Batra 176a:4
[Bava Batra 176a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:4)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו עֵדִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁנְּתָנוֹ לָהּ בִּפְנֵי עֵדִים – כָּשֵׁר, וְגוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar says: Even though there are no** signatures of **witnesses in** the document, **but he handed it to her in the presence of** two **witnesses,** it is **a valid** bill of divorce. **And** on the basis of this bill of divorce the woman can **collect** the amount written to her in her marriage contract even **from liened property** that has been sold. This indicates that even when no witnesses signed the document, the debt listed therein can be collected from liened property that has been sold, as long as witnesses saw the document being transferred to the creditor. All the more so a debt listed in a document in the handwriting of the debtor that has been ratified by a court should be eligible for collection from liened property that has been sold.


###### Bava Batra 176a:5
[Bava Batra 176a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:5)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּמִשְּׁעַת כְּתִיבָה הוּא דְּשַׁעְבַּד נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There** it **is different, as** the husband **obligated himself** and his property immediately **from the time of** the **writing** of the document, as he knew at that time that the document would be transferred in the presence of witnesses. By contrast, in the case of the mishna here, the document in the handwriting of the debtor was written without the intent of ratifying it. It was only at a later date, as an afterthought, that it was ratified, and the terms of the obligation of the debt cannot be changed at that time.


###### Bava Batra 176a:6
[Bava Batra 176a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:6)

עָרֵב הַיּוֹצֵא לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: קוֹדֶם חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים מְשׁוּעְבָּדִים. לְאַחַר חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת – גּוֹבֶה מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In the case of **a guarantor whose** commitment **emerged,** i.e., was written, **after the signing of** the promissory **note,** the creditor can collect the debt only from unsold property of the guarantor. **Rav says:** If the guarantor’s commitment is written **before the signing of the document,** the creditor can **collect** the debt from the guarantor **from liened property** that has been sold; if it is written **after the signing of the document,** the creditor can **collect** the debt only **from unsold property.**


###### Bava Batra 176a:7
[Bava Batra 176a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:7)

זִמְנִין אָמַר רַב: אֲפִילּוּ קוֹדֶם חִיתּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
At other **times, Rav said: Even** if the guarantee is written **before the signing of the document,** the creditor can **collect** the debt **only from unsold property.**


###### Bava Batra 176a:8
[Bava Batra 176a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:8)

קַשְׁיָא דְּרַב אַדְּרַב! לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דִּכְתִב בֵּיהּ ״פְּלוֹנִי עָרֵב״. הָא דִּכְתִב בֵּיהּ ״וּפְלוֹנִי עָרֵב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: There is **a difficulty** resulting from the contradiction between one statement **of Rav to** the other statement **of Rav,** as they seem to contradict one another with regard to a guarantee that is written before the signing of the document. The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. This** case, where Rav says the creditor can collect the debt only from unsold property, is **where it was written in** the document as follows: **So-and-so** is **a guarantor,** as this formulation is an independent statement, and the witnesses signing the document do not necessarily relate to that statement. And **that** case, where Rav says the creditor can collect the debt from liened property that has been sold, is **where it was written in** the document as follows: **And so-and-so** is **a guarantor.** The usage of the conjunctive: And, causes this clause to be an integral part of the document, so that the signatures of the witnesses relate to it as well.


###### Bava Batra 176a:9
[Bava Batra 176a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:9)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה – אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה אֶלָּא מִנְּכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִב בֵּיהּ ״וּפְלוֹנִי עָרֵב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** In **both this** case **and that** case, the creditor can **collect** the debt **only from unsold property.** The Gemara comments: **And** according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, this is the *halakha* **even if it is written in** the document: **And so-and-so** is **a guarantor.**


###### Bava Batra 176a:10
[Bava Batra 176a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:10)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: עֵדִים הַחֲתוּמִין עַל שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם בְּגֵט – פָּסוּל; חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא עַל שְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם חָתְמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Gittin* 9:9): In a case where **witnesses are signed on a greeting** written **in a bill of divorce,** the bill of divorce is **not valid,** as **we are concerned** that **perhaps** the witnesses **signed on the greeting** alone, i.e., they did not intend to testify to the divorce, but only to verify that the greeting was written.


###### Bava Batra 176a:11
[Bava Batra 176a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:11)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״שְׁאִילוּ״ – פָּסוּל. ״וּשְׁאִילוּ״ – כָּשֵׁר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Abbahu said** concerning this *baraita*: **It was explained to me** personally **by Rabbi Yoḥanan** himself that it is only when the wording of the greeting begins: **Send a greeting** to so-and-so, that the bill of divorce is **not valid,** as this is an independent statement and it is possible that the signatures relate to it alone. But if the wording is: **And send a greeting** to so-and-so, the usage of the conjunctive: And, causes this clause to be an integral part of the document, and the bill of divorce is **valid.** This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan himself maintains that when the conjunction is used the signatures relate to the entire document.


###### Bava Batra 176a:12
[Bava Batra 176a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:12)

הָכָא נָמֵי, דִּכְתִב ״פְּלוֹנִי עָרֵב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Here too,** when did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the creditor can collect the debt only from the guarantor’s unsold property? **Where it was written: So-and-so** is **a guarantor.** If the conjunction is used, he can collect the debt even from liened property that has been sold.


###### Bava Batra 176a:13
[Bava Batra 176a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:13)

אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּרַב! אֵימָא: וְכֵן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: But **if so, this is** identical to the opinion **of Rav,** whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan was presented as disagreeing with Rav. The Gemara answers: That presentation was inaccurate. **Say** instead: **And so Rabbi Yoḥanan says** as Rav did.


###### Bava Batra 176a:14
[Bava Batra 176a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:14)

מַעֲשֶׂה וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּילֵּס רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אֶת בֶּן נַנָּס, הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ.

**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 debt from unsold property of the guarantor, but not from liened property that the guarantor has sold to others. Ben Nannas said to Rabbi Yishmael: The creditor cannot collect the debt from the guarantor at all, not from liened property that has been sold, nor from unsold property. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Although Rabbi Yishmael praised Ben Nannas** after hearing his dissenting opinion (see 175b), the ***halakha*** is actually **in accordance with** Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion as he stated it initially, i.e., that in the case of a guarantee that is written after the signatures, the creditor can collect the debt only from unsold property of the guarantor, but not from liened property that has been sold.


###### Bava Batra 176a:15
[Bava Batra 176a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:15)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּחָנוּק – מָה לִי אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אַף בְּחָנוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What** would **Rabbi Yishmael say to me about** the case of the debtor who was being **strangled,** as depicted by ben Nannas? Perhaps he would agree in that case, since the guarantee was given under duress, that it is not valid. The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear, as Rabbi Yaakov says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yishmael disagreed** with ben Nannas **also in** the case of the debtor being **strangled.**


###### Bava Batra 176a:16
[Bava Batra 176a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:16)

הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּכִי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָלוּק הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אַף בְּחָנוּק, וַהֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ אַף בְּחָנוּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: And is the ***halakha* in accordance with** Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion even in the case of the debtor being strangled, **or** is the ***halakha* not in accordance with his** opinion in that case? **Come** and **hear, as when Ravin came** he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Yishmael disagreed** with ben Nannas **also in** the case of the debtor being **strangled, and** the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion **also in** the case of the debtor being **strangled.**


###### Bava Batra 176a:17
[Bava Batra 176a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/176a:17)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: חָנוּק, וְקָנוּ מִיָּדוֹ – מִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. מִכְּלַל דְּעָרֵב בְּעָלְמָא – לָא בָּעֵי קִנְיָן. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** If the debtor was being **strangled, and** in addition **an act of acquisition was performed with** the guarantor, the guarantor **becomes obligated** to repay the debt. The Gemara deduces: **By inference** it emerges **that a guarantor generally does not require an act of acquisition** to become obligated to pay. **And** this **disagrees with** a statement of **Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman says:**