Bava Batra 174: The Arev, The Kablan, and Ketuba Scenarios

Rav Chuna states that a person can become an arev, a guarantor, or a kablan, a third-party payer if he contracts himself to be in these roles.  The rabbis attempt to differentiate between a loan guarantor and a third-party payer.  A case is presented to illustrate further.  A father dies and an arev pays the father's debt before consulting the father's orphaned children.  Then the arev insists that his payment be reimbursed by the inheritance.  Rav Papa believes that the arev did a mitzvah, but the orphans are not obligated to perform mitzvot until they are adults.  They should pay the arev.  Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua argues that the orphans do not pay back the arev, for their father might have paid another friend to not ask the arev to pay his debt.  We do not know the father's intentions, and so the orphans do not owe money to the arev.

The Gemara walks through approximately a dozen "what if" scenarios.  Each of these scenarios adds context to the situation above.  For example, perhaps the father admitted just before he died that he owed this money.  Taking into account this admission, the orphans are obliged to pay back the arev for it was publicly known that their father owed this money.  Interestingly, each scenario is very unique and nuanced.  This would suggest that the rabbis expect future cases to be complex.

A new Mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamlield says that if Yehudah was an arev for a ketuba, Moshe bar Atari was an arev for his daughter-in-law's ketubah.  His son, Rav Chuna, was an impoverished Talmud scholar.  Abaye says that someone should have suggested that he divorce her so that she will collect her ketuba and then he can remarry her.  He could divorce her without the help of the beit din.  The father-in-law might pay without asking for a vow.  Because Rav Chuna was a kohen, he was not permitted to remarry his ex-wife (for kohanim can only marry women who have not been married before).  

Abaye admits that "poverty clings to the poor".  The rabbis wonder how Abaye could suggest such a scheme in the first place.  Abaye admits that he was crafty in advising that the person who receives a gift on a condition that it will pass to someone after him - like and arev or a kablan for a ketuba - should sell that gift to benefit the receiver.  Further, this case was one where a father's money would go to his son, as it should.  As well, the son was a Talmudic scholar.  

The rabbis argue about whether or not the father-in-law was a kablan or perhaps an arev.  They debate whether as an arev or a kablan they were obligated for a ketuba.  The Gemara debates who benefits from such a transaction and whether anyone, including the wife, is disadvantaged by this situation.  They determine that the transaction would benefit everyone and it is permitted in this case.

Rav Chuna asks whether or not we should believe a person who believes he is on his deathbed when he consecrates all of his property and later says that 100 zuz really belongs to someone else.  We know that one's statements on their deathbeds are not schemes.  We do not believe that people will ever scheme to cheat their children.  Instead, we assume that a person is suggesting that he is lying and saying his children are wealthy to impress others while on his deathbed.  As well, Rav and Shmuel note that the person must say "give that 100 zuz to that person"; a direction.  Finally, when he consecrated all of his belongings he might have not mentioned his debt because he wanted people to believe that he himself was wealthy.