Bava Batra

[IF A PERSON] PRODUCED AGAINST ANOTHER HIS  NOTE-OF-HAND  [SHOWING] THAT [THE LATTER] OWES HIM [A SUM OF MONEY], HE MAY RECOVER [IT] FROM HIS FREE PROPERTY. [IF THE GUARANTEE AND SIGNATURE OF] A GUARANTOR APPEAR  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 REPLIED NEITHER FROM SOLD PROPERTY NOR FROM FREE PROPERTY.' 'WHY?' THE OTHER ASKED HIM. BEHOLD', HE REPLIED TO HIM, 'THIS IS JUST AS IF A CREDITOR] WERE [IN THE ACT (IF] THROTTLING A DEBTOR  IN THE STREET,  AND HIS FRIEND FOUND HIM AND SAID, "LEAVE HIM ALONE AND  WILL PAY YOU", HE WOULD [CERTAINLY] BE EXEMPT [FROM LIABILITY], SINCE THE LOAN WAS NOT MADE THROUGH TRUST IN HIM.  BUT WHAT MANNER OF GUARANTOR, HOWEVER, IS LIABLE [TO REFUND A DEBT]? [IF THE GUARANTOR SAID], "LEND HIM [A SUM OF MONEY] AND I WILL REPAY [IT] TO YOU", HE IS LIABLE, SINCE THE LOAN WAS MADE THROUGH TRUST IN HIM. R. ISHMAEL FURTHER STATED: HE WHO WOULD BE WISE SHOULD ENGAGE IN THE STUDY OF CIVIL LAWS,  FOR THERE IS NO BRANCH IN THE TORAH MORE COMPREHENSIVE  THAN THEY, AND THEY ARE LIKE A WELLING FOUNTAIN. AND HE THAT WOULD ENGAGE IN THE STUDY OF CIVIL LAWS LET HIM WAIT  UPON SIMEON BEN NANNUS. GEMARA. 'Ullah said: [According to] the word of the Torah, either a loan [secured] by a bond or a verbal loan may be recovered from mortgaged property. What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is Biblical.  Why then has it been said [that] a verbal loan may be collected from free property only? — On account of [possible] loss to the buyers.  If so,  [the same law should apply] also [to] a loan [that is secured] by a bond!  [In this case]  they have brought the loss upon themselves. Rabbah, however, said: [According to] the word of the Torah either a loan [secured] by a bond or a verbal loan may be recovered from free property only. What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is not Biblical.  Why then has it been said that a loan [secured] by a bond may be recovered from sold property? — In order that doors may not be locked in the face of borrowers.  If so, [the same law should apply] also [to] a verbal loan! — In that case the loan is not [sufficiently] known. Did Rabbah, however, give such [a ruling]?  Surely, Rabbah said: If land was collected  he  receives [a double portion,  but] if money was collected, he does not, and R. Nahman said: If money was collected he has [a double portion]!  And if it be suggested that [the statement] of Rabbah should be transposed to 'Ulla and that of 'Ulla to Rabbah,  surely [it may be pointed out] 'Ulla said: [According to] the word of the Torah a creditor is to receive  of the worst!  — Rabbah [only] stated the reason of the Palestinians,  but he himself does not share [their view]. Both Rab and Samuel stated: A verbal loan may be recovered neither from the heirs  nor from the buyer.  What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is not Biblical. Both R. Johanan and R. Simeon b. Lakish stated: A verbal loan may be recovered either from the heirs  or from the buyers.  What is the reason? — The hypothecary obligation [involved] is Biblical. An objection was raised: If [a man] was digging a pit in a public domain and an ox falls upon him and kills him, [the owner of the ox] is exempt.  Moreover, if the ox dies,  [compensation for] its value must be paid to its owner by the heirs of the owner of the pit!  — R. Elai replied in the name of Rab: [This law  is applicable to the case only] where he  appeared before [a court of] law.  But, surely, it was stated that it killed him!  — R. Adda b. Ahabah replied: [This is a case] where he was fatally injured.  But R. Nahman, surely. said that a tanna  recited [the statement as follows]: It killed and buried him!  — That [is a case] where judges sat at the mouth of the Pit and convicted him.