Ketubot — Daf 102a

לא בשטרי פסיקתא וכדרב גידל

דאמר רב גידל אמר רב כמה אתה נותן לבנך כך וכך וכמה אתה נותן לבתך כך וכך עמדו וקידשו קנו הן הן הדברים הנקנין באמירה

תא שמע כתב לכהן שאני חייב לך חמש סלעים חייב ליתן לו חמש סלעים ובנו אינו פדוי

שאני התם דמשועבד ליה מדאורייתא אי הכי אמאי כתב כדי לברר לו כהן

אי הכי בנו אמאי אינו פדוי כדעולא דאמר עולא דבר תורה פדוי לכשיתן ומ"ט אמרו בנו אינו פדוי גזירה שמא יאמרו פודין בשטרות

אמר רבא כתנאי ערב היוצא אחר חיתום שטרות גובה מנכסים בני חורין

מעשה בא לפני רבי ישמעאל ואמר גובה מנכסים בני חורין אמר לו בן ננס אינו גובה לא מנכסים בני חורין ולא מנכסים משועבדים

אמר לו למה אמר לו הרי שהיה חונק את חבירו בשוק ומצא חבירו ואמר לו הנח לו ואני אתן לך פטור שלא על אמונתו הלוהו

לימא רבי יוחנן דאמר כרבי ישמעאל וריש לקיש דאמר כבן ננס

אליבא דבן ננס כ"ע לא פליגי

— No, [our Mishnah is dealing] with deeds on verbal agreements,  and [the ruling  was necessary] in accordance with [the view] of R. Giddal, since R. Giddal has laid down in the name of Rab:  [if  one man said to another.] 'How much are you giving to your son?' [and the other replies.] 'Such and such a sum', and [when the other asks.] 'How much are you giving to your daughter?' [the first replies.] 'Such and such a sum', [and on the basis of this talk] a betrothal was effected,  kinyan is deemed to have been executed, these being matters concerning which kinyan is effected by a mere verbal arrangement. Come and hear: If a man gave to a priest in writing [a statement] that he  owed him five sela's  he must  pay him the five sela's and his son is not redeemed thereby!  — There [the law] is different because one is under a pentateuchal obligation [to give them] to him.  If that be so, why did he write? — In order to choose for himself a priest.  If that is the case  why is not his son redeemed?  — In agreement with a ruling of 'Ulla; For 'Ulla said, pentateuchally [the son] is redeemed as soon as [the father] gives [the note of money indebtedness to the priest,] and the reason why the Rabbis ruled that he was not redeemed is because a preventive measure was enacted against the possibility of the assumption that redemption may be effected by means of bonds [in general]. Raba said: [Their  dispute seems to follow the same principles] as [laid down by] Tannaim: [If the guarantee] of a guarantor appears  below the signatures to bonds of indebtedness,  [the creditor] may recover his debt from [the guarantor's] free property.  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 recovered neither from free property nor from assigned property'. 'Why?' the other asked him. 'Behold', he replied, 'this is just as if [a creditor] were [in the act of] throttling a debtor  in the street,  and his friend found him and said to him, "Leave him alone and I will pay you", [where he is undoubtedly] exempt from liability, since the loan was not made through trust in him.'  May it not be suggested that R. Johanan holds the same view as R. Ishmael while Resh Lakish holds that of Ben Nannus? — On the view of Ben Nannus there can be no difference of opinion;