In a case where there are two brothers, one poor and one rich, and their father left them a bathhouse or an olive press as an inheritance, if the father had built these facilities for profit, i.e., to charge others for using them, the profit that accrues after the father’s death is shared equally by the two brothers. If the father had built them for himself and for the members of his household to use, the poor brother, who has little use for these amenities, cannot force the rich brother to convert the facilities to commercial use; rather, the rich brother can say to the poor brother: Go take servants for yourself, and they will bathe in the bathhouse. Or he can say: Go take olives for yourself, and come and make them into oil in the olive press. If there are two people who were living in one city, one named Yosef ben Shimon and the other also named Yosef ben Shimon, one cannot present a promissory note against the other, as the purported debtor can claim: On the contrary, it is you who owed me money; you repaid me and I returned this note to you upon payment. Nor can another, third person, present a promissory note against either of them, as each one can claim: It is not I but the other Yosef ben Shimon who owes you money. If a document is found among one’s documents stating: The promissory note against Yosef ben Shimon is repaid, and both men named Yosef ben Shimon owed this man money, the promissory notes of both of them are considered repaid, as it cannot be determined which debt was repaid and which is outstanding. What should two people with the same name in a single city do in order to conduct their business? They should triple their names by writing three generations: Yosef ben Shimon ben so-and-so. And if they have identical triple names, i.e., not only their fathers but their grandfathers had identical names, they should write an indication as to which one is referred to, such as: The short Yosef ben Shimon or the dark Yosef ben Shimon. And if they have identical indications, they should write: Yosef ben Shimon the priest, if one of them is a priest. In the case of one who says to his son before dying: One promissory note among the promissory notes in my possession is repaid, but I do not know which one, the promissory notes of all of those who owe him money are considered repaid, i.e., they are not valid for collection, as it cannot be determined which debt was repaid and which are outstanding. If there were found among his papers two promissory notes owed by one person, the one for the greater amount is considered repaid, and the one for the smaller amount is not considered repaid and can be collected; the debtor is favored in the case of an uncertainty. One who lends money to another with the assurance of a guarantor cannot collect the debt from the guarantor.But if the creditor said to the debtor: I am lending the money on the condition that I will collect the debt from whomever I wish, i.e., either the debtor or the guarantor, he can collect the debt from the guarantor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If the debtor has property of his own, then whether in this case, where the creditor stipulated this condition, or that case, where he did not, he cannot collect the debt from the guarantor.And so Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would say: If there is a guarantor for a woman for her marriage contract, from whom the woman can collect payment of her marriage contract instead of collecting it from the husband, and her husband was divorcing her, the husband must take a vow prohibiting himself from deriving any benefit from her, so that he can never remarry her. This precaution is taken lest the couple collude [kenunya] to divorce in order to collect payment of the marriage contract from this guarantor’s property, and then the husband will remarry his wife.
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.”
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.
ולא אחד יכול להוציא שטר חוב עליהם – because each one can supersede him regarding his fellow.
ישלשו – he will write the name of his father’s father.
ואם היו משולשים – that their names and the names of their fathers and the names of their father’s fathers are the same.
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.
נמצא – to one borrower there two documents from two loans that he borrowed from him.
הקטן אינו פרוע – that one document among his documents is spoken of and not two.
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.
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.”
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.
קח לך עבדים. שיחממו לך המרחץ. דכמו שהניחה אבינו כן תהיה לעולם. ואע״ג דאית לן בפ״ק דבמידי דלית בה דין חלוקה יכול למימר גוד או אגוד, כלומר מכור לי חלקך או אני אמכור לך חלקי, שאני הכא, שאין העני יכול לומר אגוד, שאין לו במה לקנות:
אין יכולין להוציא שטר חוב זה על זה. דכל אחד מהם יכול לטעון זה השטר שבידך אני החזרתי לך כשפרעת לי המעות שהלויתיך:
ולא אחר יכול להוציא שטר חוב עליהם. דכל אחד מצי מדחי ליה לגבי חבריה:
ישלשו. יכתוב שם אבי אביו:
ואם היו משולשים. ששמותן ושמות אבותיהן ואבות אבותיהן שווין:
יכתבו סימן. פלוני. שהוא גיחור או ארוך או גוץ. ואם הן שוין בסימנין, יכתבו כהן, אם אחד כהן ואחד ישראל:
נמצא. ללוה אחד שם שתי שטרות משתי הלואות שלוה ממנו:
הקטן אינו פרוע. דשטר אחד בין שטרותיו קאמר, ולא שנים:
לא יפרע מן הערב. תחלה, עד שיתבע את הלוה לדין ויחייבו אותו בית דין, ואם אין לו מה לשלם אז יפרע מן הערב:
רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אם יש נכסים ללוה. לא יפרע מן הערב. לאו מכלל דתנא קמא סבר אפילו אם יש נכסים ללוה יפרע מן הערב, אלא מתניתין חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני, המלוה את חבירו על ידי ערב לא יפרע מן הערב, ואם אמר על מנת שאפרע ממי שארצה, יפרע מן הערב. במה דברים אמורים כשאין נכסים ללוה, אבל יש נכסים ללוה לא יפרע מן הערב. וקבלן, אע״פ שיש נכסים ללוה יפרע מן הקבלן. רשב״ג אומר אחד ערב ואחד קבלן אם יש נכסים ללוה לא יפרע מהן. ואין הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל. ערב, הוא שאומר תן לו ואני ערב. קבלן, הוא שאומר תן לו ואני נותן לך:
הערב לאשה בכתובתה. ואין לבעל נכסים וצריך הערב לפרוע כתובתה, לא יפרע הכתובה עד שידירנה הבעל תחלה הנאה על דעת רבים, נדר שאין לו התרה, שלא יוכל להחזיר אותה, דחיישינן שמא דעתו להחזירה ולאכול כתובתה לאחר שתגבנה מן הערב. ולענין דינא, ערב דכתובה לא משתעבד ואינו חייב לפרוע, ואפילו אין לו נכסים לבעל. מאי טעמא, דמצוה עבד ולאו מידי חיסרה. ואי ערב כתובתא דבריה הוא, משתעבד, דאבא לגביה בריה שעבודי שעביד נפשיה. וקבלן דכתובה משתעבד ויכולה האשה שתתבע ממנו תחלה, ואפילו יש לו נכסים לבעל. והוא שידירנה הבעל הנאה תחלה על דעת רבים:
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.”
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.
ולא אחד יכול להוציא שטר חוב עליהם – because each one can supersede him regarding his fellow.
ישלשו – he will write the name of his father’s father.
ואם היו משולשים – that their names and the names of their fathers and the names of their father’s fathers are the same.
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.
נמצא – to one borrower there two documents from two loans that he borrowed from him.
הקטן אינו פרוע – that one document among his documents is spoken of and not two.
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.
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.”
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.