Based on a statement of Rav Huna ...

... 'Hilveihu va'Ani Areiv'; 'Hilveihu va'Ani Pore'a'; 'Hilveihu va'Ani Chayav'; 'Hilveihu va'Ani Etein' - are all cases of Areiv (in which case the creditor goes first to the debtor), and that ...

... 'Ten lo va'Ani Kablan'; 'Ten lo va'Ani Pore'a; 'Ten lo va'Ani Chayav', 'Ten lo va'Ani Etein' - are all cases of Kablanus (where he may go directly to the Kablan, should he so wish).

The reason for the difference is - because whereas 'Hilveihu' implies that the creditor is lending the money to the debtor, and that the Areiv is merely a guarantor, 'Ten lo' implies that he intends the creditor to perform his Sh'lichus, and that he will pay back the loan.

They asked what the Din will be if he said 'Hilveihu va'Ani Kablan' or 'Ten Lo va'Ani Areiv'; to which Rebbi Yitzchak replied that - the words 'Kablan' and 'Areiv' override the Lashon 'Hilveihu' or 'Ten'.

Rav Chisda disagrees with Rav Huna. In his opinion, all the above cases imply Kablanus (even 'Ten Lo va'Ani Areiv') - except for that of 'Hilveihu va'Ani Areiv' (since there is nothing in those words that implies Kablanus).

Rava too, disagrees with Rav Huna, though he goes to the other extreme. According to him - all combinations imply Arvus (even 'Hilveihu va'Ani Kablan'), except for 'Ten lo va'Ani Etein lo' (and certainly 'Ten lo va'Ani Kablan', since there is nothing in those words that implies Arvus).

We rule like Rava - because he is the last opinion.

When Mar bar Ameimar quoted his father as saying that the creditor has no claim on the borrower whatsoever - he was referring to 'Ten lo va'Ani Nosen'.

Rav Ashi retorted however - that this ruling will only apply there where the Areiv actually took the money from the creditor's hand and gave it to the debtor.

When a certain Dayan sent a creditor to claim from the debtor's property before he had claimed from the debtor himself, Rav praised Rav Chanin b'rei de'Rav Yeiva - for stopping him from taking anything.

He did that - because a person's property is like an Areiv ...

... as we learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Im Ein l'cha Leshalem, Lamah Yikach Mishkavcha mi'Tachtecha", and from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei - "ve'ha'Ish ... Yotzi Eilecha es he'Avot".

The basis of this ruling was our Mishnah - 'ha'Malveh es Chavero ... Lo Yipara min ha'Areiv Techilah'.

The reason behind it is - because one has no right to trouble the Areiv when the debtor is likely to settle the debt himself, and likewise, one cannot take property before knowing that the debtor will not pay from his pocket.

An Areiv of Yesomim Ketanim paid their debt out of his own poket without their knowledge. In fact, the debt that he paid - was that of their father.

Rav Papa therefore absolved them from reimbursing the Areiv on the grounds that - paying one's debts is a Mitzvah, and Yesomim Ketanim are not obligated to perform Mitzvos.

Once they grew up however - they would become obligated to pay (but only after the Areiv made the Shevu'ah that every claimant from Yesomim is obligated to make).

Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua absolved them from paying (even assuming that Yesomim are obligated to pay their father's debt) on the grounds that - their father may have handed the creditor bundles of cash (Tzar'ri) in his lifetime (as a Pikadon [to get the creditor off the Areiv's back]).

He disagreed with Rav Papa - due to the fact that, in spite of Ketanim being Patur from Mitzvos in general, that P'tur does not extend to any branch of Gezel (holding money that belongs to somebody else).

The fact that the debt that the Areiv was claiming was an oral one - was significant, both according to ...

... Rav Papa because, if it was a documented one, they would then be paying their father's debt with his property, and according to ...

... Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - because we only contend with 'Tzar'ri' by an oral loan, not by a documented one.

To reconcile this with the Sugya later which rules that one can claim an oral loan from Yesomim - we establish that ruling either when we know the father did not yet pay at the time of his death (as we shall see shortly) or where he specifically said 'T'nu'.

Rava rules in Erchin that one only claims from Yesomim (a debt which is not tied up with Ribis) if their father said 'T'nu' before he died. In fact, Rava concurs with Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who holds that they are Chayav only if their father admitted that he was Chayav before he died - only each one presented a different aspect of the case.

In spite of the fact that even when one does claim a father's debt from his Yesomim, that is only from Karka (since 'Metalteli de'Yasmi Lo Mishtabdi le'Ba'al-Chov'), it is nevertheless customary to claim even from Metaltelin nowadays - because most people do not own land, and not being able to claim Metaltelin, would constitute 'Ne'ilas Deles' (discouraging creditors from lending money to those who need it).

One of the two differences between Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua is there were the father admitted that he owed the money in which case, they will be Chayav according to Rav Huna ... , but will remain Patur, according to Rav Papa (since the Yesomim are not subject to Mitzvos). The other difference is - where Beis-Din had placed him in Cherem for refusing to pay, and he died without having the Cherem released (a clear indication that he had not yet paid).

The b'nei Ma'arva ruled - like Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua.

The Beraisa rules that an Areiv who produces a Sh'tar-Chov ...

... that he claims to have paid on the Yesomim's behalf - cannot demand to be reimbursed by them.

... on which it is also written 'Hiskabalti mi'Mecha' - can.

This Beraisa does not pose a Kashya on Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - because it speaks where their father admitted to not having paid before his death (see also Rabeinu Gershom. Note the previous case must then be speaking where the Areiv also had witnesses that he had paid).

The problem the Beraisa creates according to Rav Papa is - why the Tana authorizes the Areiv to claim from the Yesomim, even though their father admitted to not having paid.

We resolve the problem - by pointing out that 'Hiskabalti' is different, inasmuch as it renders the Areiv's claim like a Milveh bi'Sh'tar, in which case even Rav Papa concedes that the Yesomim are obligated to pay (as we explained above).

In a similar case to the previous one, only where the creditor was a Nochri, Rav Mordechai quoted Avimi from Hagrunya in the name of Rava, who ruled in such a case that even according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, the Yesomim would have to pay - because, based on the fact that Nochrim always tend to go after the Areiv (as we learned earlier), the debtor is unlikely to have handed the creditor bundles of money.

Rav Ashi disagreed. He countered that, quite to the contrary, even Rav Papa would concede that, in this case, they would be Patur, even if their father had admitted to not having paid before he died - since, precisely because of that tendency, no Areiv would undertake Arvus, unless the debtor had first handed him bundles of money.

In the case where Moshe bar Atzri was the Areiv for his daughter's Kesubah, and Rav Huna his son, a Talmid-Chacham hit hard times - Abaye expressed the wish that someone would advise him to divorce his wife, and after she had claimed her Kesubah from her father, he would take her back.

Rava queried that however - based on our Mishnah, which, precisely in such a case, requires the husband to be Madir Hana'ah from his wife's property (to prevent him from doing the very thing that Abaye was trying to encourage).

Abaye countered Rava's Kashya - by suggesting that he could divorce her outside of Beis-Din (in which case nobody would force him to make the necessary Neder).

However, when it was discovered that Rav Huna was a Kohen, Abaye cited the adage 'Poverty follows the poor man' (meaning that because he had no money to pay his wife's Kesubah [and obtain funds in the process], he was born a Kohen, who was now unable to divorce his wife, to rectify the situation).

In 'Yesh Nochlin', Abaye confers upon someone who advises the recipient of a gift with the Lashon 'Nechasai lach ve'Acharecha li'Peloni' to sell the property (to prevent P'loni from obtaining it), according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who holds 'Mah she'Asah Asuy') - the title of 'Rasha', for causing someone a loss ...

... since the matter does not concern him personally.

The reason in our Sugya that the person to advise Rav Huna would not be considered a Rasha, too - was because a. it was Moshe bar Atzri's own son who was involved (see Rabeinu Gershom), and b., because Rav Huna was a Talmid-Chacham.

We will see shortly that basically, an Areiv of a Kesubah, unlike other Areivim in similar circumstances, is not Meshubad. We therefore explain initially that Moshe bar Atzri's Arvus was different - inasmuch as he was not an Areiv, but a Kablan.

Not everyone will agree with this answer however - because, according to some, even a Kablan is not Meshubad to the Kesubah if the husband did not own property (as was the case here).

One of two answers to the Kashya is that Rav Huna may have had property at the time when the Shibud came into effect, only it was destroyed later. The other is that, even if he did not - the Areiv Kablan might well have been Meshubad here according to all opinions, because he was the husband's father (and a father is Meshabed himself with a full heart).

Everyone agrees that ...

... an Areiv di'Kesubah is not Meshubad.

... a Kablan of a Ba'al-Chov is.

A Kablan of a Kesubah and an Areiv of a Ba'al-Chov is a Machlokes Amora'im (though we do not know the names of the disputants). They ...

... agree - that, if the debtor owns property, both are Meshubad.

... argue - in a case where he does not.

The reason of those who hold that he is not Meshubad is - because it is obvious that when he volunteered to act as an Areiv, he did not really mean what he said, and only agreed to be an Areiv in order to encourage the creditor to lend the money.

We rule that although an Areiv is Meshubad even if the debtor has no property, an Areiv of a Kesubah is not Meshubad, even if he has - because a. because he does not cause the woman any loss, and b. - because he is only concerned about the two parties performing a Mitzvah.

When we say that he does not cause the woman any loss, this is due to the principle that - a woman wants to get married at all costs. Consequently, she stands to gain whether she receives a Kesubah or not.

Rav Huna ruled that if a Shechiv-M'ra declares all his property Hekdesh, but that one Manah belonged to so-and-so - we give one Manah to so-and-so.

We are not worried about collusion against Hekdesh - because a person would not perform collusion against Hekdesh.

Rav and Shmuel draw a distinction in the case of a Sh'chiv-M'ra who said 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' between whether he said 'T'nu' - in which case we follow his instructions, or not - in which case we do not.

The reason for the latter ruling of Rav and Shmuel is - because as long as he has not said 'T'nu', we suspect that he only declared 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' in order to convey the impression that his sons are not wealthy (in order to Ayin-ha'Ra - Rabeinu Gershon).