(Rav Huna): If Levi told Reuven 'lend to Shimon and I will be an Arev', 'lend to him and I will pay', 'lend to him and I am liable'; or 'lend to him and I will give', Levi becomes an Arev;

If he said 'give to him and I will be a Kablan', 'give to him and I will pay', 'give to him and I am liable'; or 'give to him and I will give', he becomes a Kablan.

Question: If he said 'lend to to him and I will be a Kablan', or 'give to him and I will be an Arev', what is the law?

Answer (R. Yitzchak): If he said that he will be an Arev, he is an Arev (whether he said 'give' or 'lend'), if he said that he will be a Kablan, he is a Kablan.

(Rav Chisda): In all of Rav Huna's cases he becomes a Kablan, except for 'lend to him and I will be an Arev'.

(Rava): In all of Rav Huna's cases he becomes an Arev, except for 'give to him and I will give'.

(Mar bar Ameimar): If he said 'give to him and I will give', Reuven cannot claim from Shimon (the borrower).

Rejection: This is wrong. Shimon is exempt only if the Arev took the money from the lender. (Then, the Arev is the borrower, even though the Arev immediately gave the money to Shimon.)

A case occurred in which a judge gave the borrower's property to the lender before the lender claimed from the borrower; Rav Chanin brei d'Rav Yeva removed the judge.

Rava: Rav Chanin acted properly. He holds that one's property is an Arev for him;

(Mishnah): If Reuven lent to Shimon, and Levi was an Arev, Reuven may not collect from Levi.

This means, he may not collect from the Arev first.

A case occurred in which Levi was an Arev for Shimon. Shimon died, and Levi paid the lender before informing Shimon's orphans.

(Rav Papa): (The orphans now owe Levi.) Paying a creditor is a Mitzvah. The orphans are not obligated in Mitzvos (until they become adults).

(Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The orphans do not pay. We are concerned for Tzrari (perhaps their father gave money to Reuven, in order that Reuven will not ask the Arev to pay).

Question: What is the difference between these answers?

Answer #1: If Shimon admitted, just before he died, that he did not pay (we are not concerned for Tzrari. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua obligates the orphans in this case).

Answer #2: Shimon was put in Niduy (excommunication) for refusal to pay, and he died in Niduy (we are not concerned for Tzrari).

(Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael): If Shimon died in Niduy, the Halachah follows Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua. (Rashbam - the orphans must pay. We do not exempt them because they are exempt from Mitzvos; R. Chananel - we are concerned for Tzrari. Perhaps Shimon died before asking for the Niduy to be lifted.)

Question (Beraisa): If an Arev was holding a loan document (on which he was an Arev), he cannot collect from the borrower's orphans.

If the lender (Rashbam; Tosfos - borrower) signed 'I received the money from you', [the Areiv] collects.

We understand according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua. The case is, the borrower admitted that he did not pay.

However, according to Rav Papa, the orphans are exempt from Mitzvos. They need not pay!

Answer: Because he signed 'I received the money from you', the Arev is now like a creditor with a document, so he collects from orphans.

Shimon borrowed from a Nochri, and died. Levi was an Arev. Levi paid the lender before he claimed from Shimon's orphans.

(Rav Mordechai): Even Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua is concerned for Tzrari only when the lender is a Yisrael;

A Nochri would claim from the Arev even if he was paid, so we are not concerned for Tzrari.

Rejection (Rav Ashi): Just the contrary! Even Rav Papa is concerned for Tzrari when the lender is a Nochri!

Since Nochrim claim from the Arev first, surely Shimon gave Tzrari to Levi to make him agree to be an Arev!

(Mishnah): Similarly, R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if Yehudah was an Arev for a Kesuvah...

Moshe bar Atzri was an Arev for his daughter-in-law's Kesuvah. His son, Rav Huna, was a very poor Chacham.

Abaye: Why doesn't someone suggest to Rav Huna to divorce his wife, she will collect her Kesuvah, and he can remarry her!

Question (Rava - Mishnah): He must vow that he will not benefit from her!

Answer (Abaye): He can divorce her outside of Beis Din. Perhaps the father will pay without making him vow!

It became known that Rav Huna was a Kohen (who cannot marry a divorcee), so the scheme was not feasible.

Abaye: Poverty clings to the poor (they do not easily escape it).

Question: How could Abaye have suggested such a scheme?!

(Abaye): A crafty Rasha is one who counsels (one who received a gift on condition that it will pass to someone else after him) to sell it, according to R. Shimon ben Gamliel (that the sale works).

Answer: This was different, for the father's money would go to his son. Also, the son was a Chacham.

Question: The Halachah is that an Arev for a Kesuvah is not obligated (this will be explained later)!

Answer: The father was a Kablan.

Question: This is like the opinion that a Kablan for a Kesuvah is obligated;

According to the opinion that a Kablan for a Kesuvah is not obligated unless the husband had property, how can we answer?

Answer #1: The case is, Rav Huna had property (when his father became a Kablan), and later it was flooded.

Answer #2: A father obligates himself for his son (even if the son has no property).

All agree that an Arev for a Kesuvah is not obligated;

All agree that a Kablan for a loan is obligated;

They argue about a Kablan for a Kesuvah and an Arev for a loan. One opinion says that the Kablan (Arev) is obligated only if the husband (borrower) has property;

The other opinion says that in either case, he is obligated.

The Halachah is, an Arev is obligated whether or not the borrower has property, except for an Arev for a Kesuvah, who is never obligated;

Question: Why is he not obligated for a Kesuvah?

Answer: He gets no benefit. He thinks 'I am doing a Mitzvah (to help them get married). She is not losing anything (she prefers to be married, even if there is no guarantor for her Kesuvah).' The Arev has no real intent to pay.

(Rav Huna): If a Shechiv Mera (one who fears lest he die from his illness) was Makdish all his property, and later said '100 Zuz in my possession really belongs to Ploni', he is believed. There is a Chazakah that people do not scheme to cheat Hekdesh.

Objection (Rav Nachman): Do people scheme to cheat their children?!

(Rav and Shmuel): If a Shechiv Mera said '100 Zuz in my possession really belongs to Ploni', we give to Ploni only if he said 'give it to Ploni.'

(This is not a scheme to cheat his children. Rather,) one does not want people to think that his children are wealthy, so we suspect that he is lying;

Likewise, when he was Makdish, we should be concerned lest he did not have Ploni's money, just he did not want people to think that he himself is wealthy!