Bava Batra

R. Papa said: The law is [that] a verbal loan may be recovered from the heirs  but may not be recovered from the buyers.  It 'may be recovered from the heirs' in order that doors might not be locked in the face of borrowers;  'but may not be recovered from the buyers', because it is not [sufficiently] known. [IF A PERSON] PRODUCED AGAINST ANOTHER HIS NOTE-OF-HAND [SHOWING] THAT [THE LATTER] OWED HIM [A SUM OF MONEY]. HE MAY RECOVER [IT] FROM FREE PROPERTY ETC. Rabbah b. Nathan inquired of R. Johanan: What [is the law in the case where] his handwriting  was legally endorsed at a court of law?  [The other] replied to him: Although one's handwriting had been legally endorsed at a court of law [the debt] may be recovered from free property only. Rami b. Hama raised an objection: [There are] three [kinds of] letters of divorce [which are] invalid;  but, if [the woman did] remarry, her child is [deemed] legitimate.  And they are the following: [A letter of divorce] written in the husband's handwriting, which bears no [signatures of] witnesses; [one] bearing [the signatures of] witnesses but no date; [and one] bearing a date and [the signature of] one witness only. These are the three [kinds of] letters of divorce [which are] invalid; did [the woman] however, re-marry, the child is [deemed] legitimate. R. Eleazar said: [A letter of divorce,] although it bears no [signatures of] witnesses but was given  to the woman  in the presence of witnesses, is valid;  and [such a document entitles one to] collect from mortgaged property!  — There  it is different, because he  pledged himself at the very time of writing. [IF THE GUARANTEE AND SIGNATURE OF] A GUARANTOR APPEAR BELOW THE SIGNATURES TO BONDS OF INDEBTEDNESS, etc. Rab said: [If the guarantee appears] before the signatures on the bond, [the debt] may be recovered from mortgaged property; if after the signatures on the bond, [it] may be recovered from free property [only]. At times, Rab said: Even [if the guarantee appears] before the signatures on the bond [the debt] may be recovered from free property only. [This, surely, presents] a contradiction [between one ruling] of Rab and the other ruling of his!  — There is no contradiction. The one  [refers to the case] where it was entered,  'X is guarantor'; the other [speaks of a case] where it was entered, 'and X is guarantor'. R. Johanan. however, said: Either with the one or with the other  [the debt] may be recovered from [the guarantor's] free property only; even though it was entered 'and X is guarantor'. Raba raised an objection: A bill of divorce containing greetings, under which the witnesses have signed, is invalid,  [because we apprehend that they might have signed the greetings [only];  and R. Abbahu said: I had the [following] explanation of this law  from R. Johanan: [The entry.] 'give greetings' [renders the bill] invalid, [but with the entry,] 'and give greetings'  it is valid'!  — Here also  [it is a case] where the entry was,  'X is guarantor'.  If so, [this statement] is exactly the same [as that] of Rab!  — Read,  'and so said R. Johanan'. SUCH A CASE ONCE CAME BEFORE R. ISHMAEL etc. Said Rabbah b. Bar Hana in the name of R. Johanan: Although R. Ishmael praised Ben Nannus,  the halachah is in accordance with his  [own view]. A question was raised: What is R. Ishmael's view  in [the case of] 'throttling'?  — Come and hear that which R. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Ishmael differed in [the case of] 'throttling' also. [Is the] halachah in accordance with his view or is the halachah [in this case] not in accordance with his view? — Come and hear: When Rabin came  he stated in the name of R. Johanan: R. Ishmael differed in [the case of] 'throttling' also; and the halachah is in accordance with his view in [the case of] 'throttling' also. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel; [A guarantor, even in a case of] 'throttling', who was made to enter into a legal obligation,  assumes responsibility [for the payment of the debt], [from this] it is to be inferred  that a guarantor generally  does not require a kinyan.  And [this is] in disagreement with [the statement] of R. Nahman. for R. Nahman said: