Explanation: He rushed to pay and did not inform [the orphans] if they want to pay him anything. Had he informed them, perhaps they would have paid;

However, if they did not want to pay, [the lender] collects from the Arev. This is considered that the borrower has no property.

Surely, if [the borrower] has no property, the Arev cannot dispel [the lender to wait] until after [the borrower] will hire himself [to work for others] and acquire property. What is the difference between dispelling until the orphans mature, and dispelling until he hires himself?!

Explanation #1: The creditor wrote [in the document "I received"]. Granted, according to Rav Huna we find this when the borrower admitted [that he did not pay]. There is no concern for Tzerari (coins designated to pay the debt, and the borrower told the lender where they are). However, according to Rav Papa, how do we find [that the Arev collects from the orphans]?

Question: If the borrower admitted, even if [the creditor] did not write "I received" (the Arev should collect)!

Answer: We can reject that when he did not write "I received" [the Arev] does not collect from the orphans for we are concerned lest the lender did not collect from him.

Explanation #1 (cont.): [The Gemara] answers that there is different. This is why he wrote "I received", so [the Arev's] strength will be strong, and it will be like a loan with a document.

Support: Also R. Chananel's text says "we find this when the borrower admits." He explains like I explained, that it is powerful because it is like a document.

Question #1: In Erchin (22b) it is proven that Rav Huna and Rav Papa discuss a loan with a document (and say that it is not collected from minor orphans), for it asks there [from a Mishnah that says that] the auction [to sell property] of orphans is 30 days. Granted, Rav Huna establishes this when the borrower admits [just before he died]. However, how can Rav Papa establish it?

[It says that] Rav Papa can say that it discusses a Kesuvah, due to Chen. (We make it easier for women to collect, to encourage marriage.) However, he cannot establish it to discuss a creditor with a document.

Inference: Rather, surely they discuss even with a document!

Question #2: Since [Explanation #1] establishes [Rav Papa's] words to discuss a Milveh Al Peh, if so even if [the orphans] were obligated in Mitzvos, we would not collect from them, for we claim for an heir (above, 23a) that he paid, for the father would have been believed to say "I paid";

Even if they are adults, they are exempt for this reason!

Question #3: What was the answer "this is why he wrote to him 'I received', which is like a loan with a document"? Why should the lender's writing help the Arev to collect from orphans, since the borrower did not write anything?

Explanation #2: If he wrote in it 'I received' he collects, i.e. if [the borrower] wrote in the document "I received from the Arev";

The borrower wrote also the Arev in the document to better [the Arev's] rights to pressure [the borrower] him to exempt him [from being an Arev, i.e. the borrower should] pay his debt to the lender, even if the lender did not claim from [the borrower] yet, [the Arev] will collect [from the borrower];

Granted, according to Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua, it is fine. He is concerned for Tzerari, and here there is no concern for Tzerari;

Since he wrote also to the Arev "I received", and he made it like a loan [for the Arev] to claim from [himself, the borrower], it is not common to deposit Tzerari with the lender;

However, in the Reisha he does not collect, because [Rav Huna] is concerned for Tzerari. Perhaps [the borrower] deposited Tzerari with the lender, and even though there is an Arev;

We need not be concerned for this when he wrote to him "I received", for why would he deposit Tzerari with the Arev? It is not common to deposit Tzerari with him, like we say below (174b) that regarding a Nochri, there is no concern for Tzerari;

Inference: One does not deposit Tzerari with the Arev. If it were common to deposit Tzerari with him, we should be concerned lest he deposited with the Arev!

And even according to the one who asks [there] just the contrary, like Rashi explained, that had he not deposited Tzerari with the Arev, he would not have accepted to be an Arev, here (a loan from a Yisrael) he does not deposit with the lender, and not with the Arev.

Explanation #2 (cont.): [The Gemara asks that] this is difficult according to Rav Papa. [Minors] need not do Mitzvos! [It answers that] there is different. [The borrower] wrote to him "I received" so [the Arev] will have power to collect from the orphans, and he put a lien on his property for this, and [the Arev] has this power.

Question (against the Ri): The Tosefta (at the very end of Bava Basra) teaches "if the creditor wrote in it ["I received"]. "Creditor" connotes like R. Chananel explained! (Explanation #2, that the borrower wrote "I received" was from the Ri.)

Answer (for Ri): The borrower wrote this, but the creditor commanded to write this to him, so he will be a total Arev Kablan.

Explanation (Ri): [Rav Papa] says that it is a Mitzvah for orphans to pay their father's debt. This is even for a Milveh Al Peh;

And in a case when no land remains from their father, only Metaltelim, we do not force orphans for this, even if they are adults, like is proven in Kesuvos (91b) regarding the plot of land of Abaye. [He ruled that] the creditor collects it (and after the orphans bought it back, the creditor collected it again.) This shows that they were adults (and had they not bought it back, the creditor could not have collected the money they used to buy it. Surely, they inherited that money. The creditor cannot collect what they buy from their own money!)

Pesak: Below (176a) we rule that a Milveh Al Peh is collected from orphans. This refers to [from] land, just like "it is not collected from buyers."

Explanation: Perhaps he will pay [the Kesuvah for which he was an Arev] without Beis Din, and without making [her husband vow not to remarry her].

Explanation: Even if [the husband] has property, [an Arev for a Kesuvah] is not obligated. R. Shimon ben Gamliel (173b) discusses a father for his son. He obligates himself.

Comment: My Rebbi was astounded. Why didn't we ask [against this opinion] from our Mishnah? (R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that we make her husband vow. We do not find that the first Tana holds that he cannot collect from the Arev.)

Question (Ri): Above (148b), [the Gemara] asked about a Shechiv Mera who was Makdish all his property. What is the law? It should resolve from here that it he recovered, he cannot retract;

If he could retract, he could retract also his gift (above, 151a). If so obviously he is believed! What scheming would apply? He can retract immediately!

Answer (Ri): We discuss a Shechiv Mera who was Makdish his property when he was healthy, and now he says that he has a Maneh of Ploni. He is believed.

Implied question: Why did it say that [now] he is a Shechiv Mera?

Answer: Only now he is believed, like we say in Erchin (23a) and in Shevuos (42b) that one does not sin if he will not profit from it (he will die soon);

However, if he is healthy, surely we are concerned [that he schemes with Ploni, and Ploni will return some of the money to him].

Explanation: This is when they did not claim from him, and he said so by himself. However, if they claimed from him and he admitted, he is liable, like it says below in our Sugya;

The reason is because it is not applicable there Lo Lehasbi'a Es Banav (that he admit falsely, lest people think that his children will be rich).

Also "I was joking with you" we do not claim, even though for a healthy person, if he did not claim, we claim for [his orphans. A Shechiv Mera is different,] because a person does not jest at the time of death, like it says below (175a).

Pesak: [It says here that] a person is prone [Lo Lehasbi'a Es Banav. My] Rebbi says that this connotes that even if he did not claim, we claim for him;

Source: It says in Sanhedrin (29b) here that Reuven had a reputation that he owed to many people. He said 'I owe only Ploni and Almoni.' They claimed from him in Beis Din. Rav Nachman said that a person is prone [Lo Lehasbi'a];

Inference: (Reuven did not say so himself.) Rav Nachman claimed so for him.