Se houvesse dois irmãos, um pobre e um rico, e o pai deles lhes deixasse uma casa de banhos e uma prensa de azeitona —Se ele os criou para lucro, o lucro cai entre eles; se ele os tiver feito para uso pessoal, o irmão rico poderá dizer ao pobre: "Arranje escravos e deixe-os banhar-se na casa de banhos; pegue azeitonas e venha pressioná-los no lagar". [("Consiga escravos": aquecer a casa de banho para você. Pois assim como nosso pai deixou, assim será para sempre. E embora tenha sido ensinado no primeiro capítulo que com algo para o qual não há lei de divisão, pode-se dizer: "Você me vende" (sua parte) "ou eu vou vender você" (minha parte), aqui é diferente, pois o pobre irmão não pode dizer que ele comprará a parte do outro, não tendo nada com o que comprar ] Se houvesse dois homens em uma cidade chamada "Yosef ben Shimon", eles não poderão emitir uma fatura de dívida entre si, [pois cada um pode reivindicar: "Esta fatura em sua mão—Eu devolvi a você quando você me pagou o dinheiro que eu lhe emprestei. "], E outro não pode emitir um atestado de dívida contra eles. [Pois cada um pode" desviá-lo "para o outro.] Se entre as contas de alguém havia encontrou uma conta paga de "Yosef ben Shimon", as contas de ambos são (contabilizadas) pagas. O que eles podem fazer? (para evitar essa confusão)? Eles são "terceiros" [ou seja, escrevem o nome do avô.] E se eles foram "terceirizados"? [Ou seja, se seus nomes, nomes de seus pais e nomes de seus avós fossem iguais], eles escrevem um sinal, [por exemplo, "aquele que é manchado de vermelho" ou " long, "or" short. "] E se eles eram parecidos em seus sinais, eles escreviam" Cohein "[se um era um Cohein e o outro, um israelita.] Se alguém disser ao seu filho:" Uma conta entre os meus as contas são pagas e eu não sei qual delas ", as contas de todos (seus devedores) são pagas. Se foram encontradas para um (devedor) dois (contas, de dois empréstimos que ele fez dele), maior é (considerado) pago, e o menor, não pago. [Pois ele disse "uma conta" a entre suas contas, e não duas.] Se alguém empresta seu vizinho através de um fiador (arev), ele não cobra o pagamento do fiador [primeiro] [antes de reivindicar (pagamento) o devedor primeiro e tê-lo declarado responsável entre si. din, após o qual— se ele não tem nada a pagar com —ele retira do fiador.] E se ele dissesse: "desde que exija o pagamento de quem desejo", ele retira o pagamento do fiador. R. Shimon b. Gamliel diz: Se o mutuário tiver propriedade, em ambos os casos, ele não cobra o pagamento do fiador. [Não que o primeiro tanna diga que, se o mutuário tiver propriedade, ele faz o pagamento exato do fiador. Mas a Mishnah está com defeito, e foi o que foi ensinado: "Se alguém empresta seu vizinho através de um fiador, ele não cobra o pagamento do fiador. E se ele disse: 'Desde que exija o pagamento de quem desejo' ' ele cobra o pagamento do fiador.Quando é assim, quando o mutuário não tem propriedade; mas, se o mutuário tem propriedade, ele não cobra o pagamento do fiador.E um kablan (aquele que se compromete a pagar uma dívida por outro)—Embora o devedor possua propriedades, ele cobra o pagamento do kablan. R. Shimon b. Gamliel diz: Ambos com um fiador e um kablan—Se o devedor possui bens, ele não cobra o pagamento deles. "A halachá não está de acordo com R. Shimon B. Gamliel (" arev "- um fiador, alguém que diz:" Dê a ele (um empréstimo) e eu ". garantia para ele. "" kablan ": alguém que diz:" Dê a ele e eu darei a você. ")] E, da mesma forma, R. Shimon disse: Se alguém fosse garantidor da cetuba de uma mulher, e seu marido se divorciasse dela [ e ele não tinha propriedade, e o fiador deve pagar pelo kethubah], ele (o marido) deve prometer reter benefícios dela, para que eles (o homem e a esposa) não planejem contra a propriedade deste e que reconquistem a esposa. [Ele (o garantidor) não deve pagar pela cetubá até que seu marido prometa reter benefícios dela com conhecimento público, um voto do qual não há liberação, para que ele não possa recuperá-la. ele pode ter a intenção de levá-la de volta e comer de (a propriedade que ela recebeu) seu kethubah depois de coletá-lo do fiador. o fiador de uma kethubah, não se compromete e não é obrigado a pagar, mesmo que o marido não possua bens. Por quê então? Pois ele fez uma mitzvá e não lhe causou perdas. E se ele garantiu a kethubah de seu filho, ele se compromete, um pai "se vinculando" por causa de seu filho. E um kablan para um kethubah se compromete (por pagamento), e a mulher pode reivindicá-lo primeiro, mesmo que o marido tenha propriedades.— isso, desde que o marido jure primeiro reter benefícios dela com conhecimento público.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
קח לך עבדים – that they should warm up for you the bathhouse that it is like what our father left us, so it shall be forever, and even though that we have in the first chapter (Tractate Bava Batra, Chapter 1, Mishnayot 1 and 6), concerning something where there isn’t the law of division. One can say, “I will make a wall or I will divide it,” meaning to say, “sell me your part or I will sell [to you] my part. But it is different here because the poor person cannot say, “I will divide it” because he has nothing with which to buy.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
Introduction
Mishnah seven deals with various subjects such as brothers who share an inheritance and the recognition of documents in a case where two people in a city have the same. The final section of the mishnah deals with loan guarantors.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
אינן יכולין להוציא שטר חוב זה על זה – because each one can claim that this document that is in your hands, I returned to you when I paid you repaid me the monies that I lent to you.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If there were two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bath house or an olive press, if the father had made them for hire, the profit is split equally. But if he made them for his own use alone, the rich brother may say to the poor brother, “Buy for yourself slaves and they can wash in the bath house” or “Buy for yourself olives and prepare them in the olive press.” A bath house and an olive press could either be owned for personal usage or as a rental. If two sons, one rich and one poor, inherited either a bath house or an olive press, the poor son will want to rent them out to others and collect the money and the rich son, who doesn’t need the money and may be able to make personal use of a bath house and an olive press, may want to use them for personal usage. According to the mishnah, the determining factor is what the father had done with them. If he had used them for rent, then the poor son can force the rich son to continue to use them in such a manner. If they had been used for personal needs the rich son can say to the poor son, use them as much as you like, buy slaves to bathe in the bath house or olives to press, but you may not rent them out to others.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
ולא אחד יכול להוציא שטר חוב עליהם – because each one can supersede him regarding his fellow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If there were two in the same town, and one’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon and other’s name was Joseph the son of Shimon, neither can bring forth a debt document on the other, and another person cannot bring forth a debt document against them. And if some person finds amongst his documents a document that states, “The [debt] document of Joseph ben Shimon is paid”, both of their [debt] documents are paid. What should they do? They should write their names to the third generation. And if the names are the same through the third generation, they should give themselves a sign. And if their signs are the same, they should write “Cohen”. If two people in a city have the same name, it will problematic for them to collect debts from each other and for others to collect debts against them. Neither of them will be able to claim against the other for the other could claim that he is actually the creditor and not the debtor. Nor will others be able to claim from them for each of them may claim that the other Joseph ben Shimon is the debtor. If a third party who had loaned them both money should find amongst his documents a document that says that Joseph ben Shimon paid back his debt, both of their debts are cancelled. The way to remedy this problem is to write a third generation with their names, Joseph the son of Shimon the son of Jacob, or a sign that would designate the person’s profession, i.e. a saw for a carpenter, or a fish for a fisherman, or to write Cohen, Levi, depending on the person’s status.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
ישלשו – he will write the name of his father’s father.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If a man said to his son, “One of my debt documents is paid and I do not know which one”, then all are deemed to be paid. If two documents were found [amongst his documents] written to the same debtor, then the large one is paid and the small one is not paid. If a dying person told his son that one of the debt documents that he held (containing what other people owe him), was paid off but he didn’t know which one, the son will not be able to collect any of the debts. If amongst his documents were two different loans to the same person, we can be sure that only one of them is paid off. In such a case the son may collect on the smaller loan.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
ואם היו משולשים – that their names and the names of their fathers and the names of their father’s fathers are the same.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
If a man lent money to his fellow on a guarantor’s security, he may not exact payment from the guarantor. But if he had said, “On the condition that I may exact payment from whom I wish”, then he may exact payment from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “If the borrower had property, in neither case can he exact payment from the guarantor.” Moreover, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel used to say: “If a man was a guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the husband must vow to derive no further benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of the guarantor and take his wife back again.” If a debtor used a guarantor to secure his loan the creditor may not exact payment from the guarantor, unless, of course, the debtor did not have property with which to pay back the loan. If, however, the creditor had stated at the outset that he was going to exact payment from whomever he wishes, then he may exact payment from the guarantor even if the debtor had property. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds that in any case, if the debtor had property, the creditor cannot collect from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds a similar opinion with regards to a woman’s ketubah. If a woman had a guarantor on her ketubah, in other words someone guaranteed to pay her ketubah should her husband not be able to, and then the husband divorced her and the woman collected from the guarantor, the husband must swear to never receive benefit from her again. The fear is that the husband will make a deal with his wife, that he will divorce, she will collect her ketubah from the guarantor and then be remarried to him, and give him the money that she collected from the guarantor.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
יכתבו סימן – a certain [sign] that this is red-spotted or long or short and if their signs are the same, they should write, “Kohen,” if one is a Kohen and the other is an Israelite.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Batra
Questions for Further Thought: • Section three: Why can he only collect on the smaller loan? What is the halachic principle governing this law and indeed most of the laws contained in this mishnah? • Section four: What is similar about Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel’s two statements in this section?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
נמצא – to one borrower there two documents from two loans that he borrowed from him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
הקטן אינו פרוע – that one document among his documents is spoken of and not two.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
לא יפרע מן הערב – first, until the borrower is brought to court, and the Jewish court makes him liable [to pay it off]; and if he doesn’t have wherewith to pay, then he can collect from the guarantor.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אם יש נכסים ללוה – he should not collect payment from the guarantor, not from the fact that the first Tanna/teacher holds that even if the borrower has property, he should collect payment from the guarantor, but rather, because our Mishnah is deficient, and this is how it should be taught: A person who loans his fellow through a guarantor should not collect payment from the guarantor, but if he said, “on condition that I can collect payment from whomever I desire,” he can collect payment from the guarantor. When is this said? When the borrower lacks property, but if the borrower has property, he should collect payment from the guarantor, or from a person who assumes the other man’s obligations unconditionally (see Talmud Bava Batra 173b and 174a), even though the borrower has property, he should collect from the person who assumes the other man’s obligations unconditionally. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that both the guarantor and the man who assumes the other person’s obligations unconditionally are the same: if the borrower has property, he (i.e., the creditor) may not collect from them. But the Halakha is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel. The guarantor is the person who says [to the creditor]: “Give him and I will be the guarantor [of your repayment].” The קבלן /the person who assumes the other person’s obligations unconditionally who says: “Give him, and I will give it to you.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Batra
הערב לאשה בכתובתה – and the husband lacks property, and the guarantor needs to pay off her Ketubah/Jewish marriage contract [in event of the husband’s death or a divorce], he should not pay off the Ketubah until the husband first makes her take a vow against deriving any benefit with the knowledge/consent of the public a vow that cannot be revoked, that he cannot restore her [as his wife], for we suspect lest it is his intention to restore her [as his wife] and to consume her Jewish marriage contract settlement after she has collected her settlement from the guarantor and regarding law, the guarantor of a Ketubah is not mortgaged and he is not liable to pay it off [for the husband] and even if the husband lacks property. What is the reason that he has performed a Mitzvah and nothing is missing from it? But if he is mortgaged as a guarantor for the Ketubah of his son, a father regarding his son is himself personally mortgaged, but a קבלן/someone who unconditionally assumes the other man’s obligations when the Jewish marriage contract is mortgaged, the wife can claim the Ketubah from him (i.e., the קבלן ) at first, and even if the husband has property, but the husband forces her to take an vow against benefit first with the consent of the public.
