Bava Batra

What [is the practical difference] between them?  — [The difference] between them is [the case] where the debtor admitted [liability],  or  where he was placed under the ban  and died [while still] under the ban.  [A message] was sent from Palestine:  [Where one] was placed under a ban  and died under the ban, the law is in accordance with [the view of] R. Huna the son of R. Joshua. An objection was raised: A guarantor who produced  a bond of indebtedness  cannot exact payment.  If, however, it contains the entry,  'I  received  from you' he  may exact payment.  [Now], according to R. Huna the son of R. Joshua one can well understand [this law]  to be applicable in the case where the debtor had admitted [liability].  According to R. Papa.  however, there is a difficulty!  — There it is different; since  he  took the trouble to write  for him, 'I received,'  for this [very object]. A certain guarantor to a gentile once paid the gentile before he sued the orphans.  Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi:  Thus said Abimi of Hagronia  in the name of Raba: Even according to him who said [that the possibility that] bundles [of valuables were deposited with the creditor was] to be taken into consideration,  this is only applicable to  an Israelite,  but [in the case of] a Gentile, since he [invariably] goes [for payment] to the guarantor  [the possibility that] bundles [of valuables were deposited with the creditor] need not be taken into consideration.  [The other]  said unto him: On the contrary; even according to him who said that [the possibility that] bundles [of valuables were deposited with the creditor] need not be taken into consideration, this is only applicable to  an Israelite, but [in the case of] gentiles, since their judges [invariably] go to the guarantor, [it may be taken for granted] that had not [the debtor] deposited with him  [some] bundles [of valuables] at the outset, he would not have accepted [any responsibility whatsoever]. AND SO SAID R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL: WHERE [A MAN] IS GUARANTOR FOR A WOMAN IN [RESPECT OF] HER KETHUBAH ETC. Moses b. Azri was guarantor for the kethubah of his daughter-in-law. Now his son, R. Huna, was a scholar but in poor circumstances.  Said Abaye: Is there no one who would go and advise R. Huna to divorce his wife, so that she might go and collect her kethubah from his father, and then re-marry her?  'But,' said Raba to him, 'have we [not] learned that [the husband] MUST VOW TO DERIVE NO [FURTHER] BENEFIT FROM HER?' 'Does everyone who divorces [his wife]', said Abaye to him, 'do it  at a court of law?'  Finally, [however], it was discovered that he  was a priest.  'This is just what people say', exclaimed Abaye, 'poverty follows the poor'. Could Abaye have said such a thing?  Surely Abaye had said, 'Who is a cunning rogue? He who counsels to sell an estate, in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel'!  — [The case of] one's son is different, and [the case of] a scholar is [also] different. But, surely, he  [was only] a guarantor, and a guarantor for a kethubah, it has been definitely established,  is not responsible for payment? — He was a kabbelan.  This [reply] would be quite correct according to him who said that, though the husband had no property, a kabbelan for a kethubah is responsible for payment; what, however, can be replied according to him who said [that] he is responsible for payment [only] where the [husband]  has [property], but is not responsible for payment where the husband has not?  — If you wish, I might say: [R. Huna] did have property  but it was struck with blast. And if you prefer, I might Say: A father in the case of his son always undertakes responsibility,  for it was stated: A guarantor for a kethubah is, in the opinion  of all, not responsible for payment;  a kabbelan for a creditor is, in the opinion of all, responsible for payment; [in the case, however, of] a kabbelan for a kethubah or a guarantor for a creditor, there is a dispute. [One] Master holds that he  is responsible only where the debtor has property, but if he has none, he is not responsible;  and the [other] Master holds that he  is responsible whether [the debtor] has, or has not any property. And the law [is that a guarantor] is responsible for payment in all  [cases],  with the exception of a guarantor for a kethubah who is not responsible for payment even though the husband possessed property. What is the reason? — He  was [merely] performing a religious act  and [the woman]  had lost nothing. R. Huna said: If a dying man consecrated all his property and then stated 'I owe  a maneh to X', he is believed, because it is known that no one would form a conspiracy against sacred property.  R. Nahman demurred: Would a person form a conspiracy against his children  and yet both Rab and Samuel stated that if a dying man said, 'I owe a maneh to X', if he [specifically] added, 'Give [it to him]', it is to be given, but if he did not [specifically] say, 'Give', it is not to be given,  from this it clearly follows [that] a person is wont to disclaim wealth for  his children;