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

All agree that a Kablan for a loan is obligated.

Opinions differ about an Arev for a loan and a Kablan for a Kesuvah:

Some say that he is obligated even if the borrower has no property;

Others say that he is obligated only if the borrower has property.

The Halachah is, in all cases he is obligated, even if the borrower has no property, except for an Arev for a Kesuvah. In that case, even if the husband has property, the Arev is not obligated.

Question: Why is he exempt?

Answer: The woman does not lose any money, so the Arev does not accept Acharayus (responsibility to pay if her husband will not pay). He thinks that he is merely doing a Mitzvah (to encourage the marriage).

(On 49b 4:b, Mar Zutra taught that a divorcee collects from her ex-husband from Beinonis.)

Question (Ravina): Chachamim enacted a Kesuvah from Ziburis because a woman wants to marry more than the man does (she will marry in any case).

If she collects Ziburis only from orphans, the reason is because she collects from orphans!

Mar Zutra is refuted.

(Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Nachman): If a loan document was brought for payment from orphans, even though it promises that the lender may collect from Idis, he collects only from Ziburis.

Support (Abaye): A normal creditor collects from Beinonis, yet he collects Ziburis from orphans.

Rejection (Rava): That is no proof, for mid'Oraisa, a creditor is only entitled to Ziburis, like Ula taught!

(Ula): Mid'Oraisa, a creditor collects Ziburis - "you will stand outside, and the borrower (will give you a security)."

Normally, the borrower will give the lowest quality Kli.

Chachamim enacted that a creditor collects Beinonis, in order that borrowers will find people to lend to them.

Regarding orphans, no enactment was made. The creditor collects from Ziburis like the Torah says.

(Culmination of rejection): Here, mid'Oraisa the creditor collects from Idis (due to the Tanai). This is even from orphans!

Question (against Rava - Avraham Chuza'ah's Beraisa): Only Ziburis may be collected from orphans, even for damages.

Mid'Oraisa, damages are collected from Idis. (This is like Mar Zutra's case!)

Answer: The case is, the damager's Ziburis is like the victim's Idis. The Beraisa is like R. Yishmael;

R. Yishmael says that mid'Oraisa, the damager must pay with land as good as the victim's Idis. It was an enactment to make him pay with his own Idis. This enactment was not made against orphans.

Question (against Rava - R. Eliezer Niyusa'ah's Beraisa): We only collect from Ziburis of orphans, even if they are Idis!

Question: What does it mean, 'even if they are Idis'?

Suggestion: This is even if the document says that the lender may collect from Idis.

Version #1 - Rashi - Answer: No. It means, even if the borrower had Idis, but no longer has it;

This is like Rava's law.

(Rava): If one damages Ziburis, if he pays for this with land, he pays Idis. If the Idis is gone, he pays Beinonis.

When orphans must pay, we make no enactment. Mid'Oraisa, they pay Ziburis.

Version #2 - Tosfos - Answer: No. It means, even if orphans damaged a man's property on the river bank (he collects only from Ziburis).

This is like Rava's law.

(Rava): One who damages Ziburis, if he pays for this with land, he pays Idis. If he damages the edge of the field by the river, even if the field is Idis, he pays Beinonis. (The river floods it, so one cannot grow crops. It is mere pasture, so one who grazed his animals there is like a borrower, even if the owner did not consent.)

When orphans damage, we make no enactment. Mid'Oraisa, they pay Ziburis. (end of Version #2)

(Mishnah): When we collect land from orphans, we collect Ziburis.

Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami): Does this refer only to minors, or even to adult orphans?

If Ziburis is an enactment to help orphans (it is hard for them to sell property), it was enacted only for minors, but not for adults;

Or, perhaps it is (letter of the law,) because a lender does not expect the borrower to die. People will lend money, even without an enactment to collect from Beinonis of orphans. (This applies equally to minors and adults.)

Answer (Abaye Kashisha - Beraisa): Chachamim referred even to adult orphans, all the more so to minors.

Rejection: Perhaps that is only regarding the oath imposed on one who collects from orphans, since even adult orphans do not know about their father's affairs, but Ziburis is only from minors!

The Halachah is, the enactments of the oath and Ziburis apply to minor and adult orphans.

(Mishnah): We do not collect from Meshubadim if there is Bnei Chorin.

Question (Rav Achdevoy bar Ami): Is a gift considered Meshubadim?

If the enactment was lest buyers lose, if a creditor collects land given for a gift, the receiver did not lose, so no enactment was made;

Or, do we say that surely the receiver benefited the giver, so if he loses the gift, this is like a loss?

Answer (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rav Chisda - Beraisa): If a Shechiv Mera (one who fears lest he die from his illness) said 'give 200 Zuz to Reuven, 300 to Shimon, and 400 to Levi', precedence of document does not give precedence for collection;

Therefore, if a loan document is collected from the estate, it is collected from all of them.

If he said 'give 200 Zuz to Reuven, and after him to Shimon, and after him to Levi', precedence of document gives precedence for collection;

Therefore, if a loan document is collected from the estate, it is collected from the last recipient. If he did not receive enough to pay it, the rest is collected from the previous recipient...

Even if the first recipient received Beinonis, and the last received Ziburis, the loan is collected from the Ziburis (for this was the borrower's last Bnei Chorin).

This shows that the enactment was made also regarding recipients of gifts!

Rejection #1: No. The case is, Reuven, Shimon and Levi did not get gifts. They were creditors being paid up!

Question: The Beraisa says 'give'!

Answer: It means 'give the money that I owe.'

Question: The creditor with the earliest document should be paid first! (When the Shechiv Mera specified an order, why do we follow his order?)

Answer: The case is, the creditors have no documents.

Objection (Beraisa): Precedence of document gives precedence...

Answer: This refers to whoever is mentioned first in the document detailing the command of the Shechiv Mera.

Rejection #2: Really, a creditor takes Beinonis no matter who received it;

The Beraisa discusses taking from the last one , for he always suffers the loss (whenever a recipient or buyer loses land, he is compensated by latter recipients).

Rejection #3: The Beraisa discusses when all lands are the same quality. (If they were not, the creditor would receive Beinonis, even if it the last recipient did not have it!)

(Mishnah): We do not collect for Peros (from Meshubadim).

Question: What is the reason?

Answer #1 (Ula): The obligation to pay for the Peros was never written in a document.

Question (R. Aba): It is as if food of a widow and daughters is written (it is a Tanai of every Kesuvah), yet the Mishnah says that they do not collect from Meshubadim!

Answer (Ula): It was enacted that they are considered written only regarding collecting from Bnei Chorin, but not regarding Meshubadim.

R. Zeira asked the same question of Rav Asi (who holds like Ula), and received the same answer.

Answer #2 (R. Chanina): The obligation to pay for the Peros has no limit.