Arakhin

— He1 was a kabbelan.2 That will be right according to him who holds that a kabbelan is held responsible, although the debtor had no property [at the time of contracting the debt]. But what can be said on the view that he is held responsible only if the debtor had property, but if he has no property the kabbelan is not responsible?3 If you like say: R. Huna had property,4 but it was struck with blast; and if you like say: A father, where his son is concerned, will always hold himself responsible. For it was stated: As to a guarantor for a kethubah, all agree he is not held responsible; the kabbelan for a creditor, all agree is held responsible. [In the case however of] a guarantor for a creditor and a kabbelan for a kethubah, there is a dispute. There is one authority who holds that if the debtor had property he [the kabbelan] is held responsible, but if he had none he is not held responsible: whereas there is another authority who holds that even if the debtor had no property he is also held responsible. The law with regard to all cases is that though the debtor has no property the guarantor is responsible, with the exception of the guarantor for a kethubah who, even though [the husband] had property, is not held responsible. For what reason? He performed a mizwah,5 and he caused her no loss.6 There was a man who sold his possessions and divorced his wife. R. Joseph son of Raba sent her to R. Papa [with the following question]: We learnt [in our Mishnah] about A GUARANTOR. about CONSECRATED PROPERTY, what about a purchaser?7 — He replied: Shall the Tanna go on enumerating like a pedlar?8 The Nehardeans said: What we learnt we learnt, and what we did not learn we did not learn!9 Said R. Mesharshaya: What is the reason of the Nehardeans? — With regard to consecrated property the teaching is in order to safeguard the profit of the Sanctuary; also with regard to a guarantor, [the reason is] because he performed a mizwah and did not cause her any loss;10 but as for a purchaser, since he must have known that upon everyone's possessions there is a kethubah as lien, why did he go and buy? It is he [the buyer] who caused damage to himself! MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEDICATES HIS POSSESSIONS TO THE SANCTUARY WHILST STILL LIABLE FOR HIS [DIVORCED] WIFE'S KETHUBAH OR IN DEBT TO A CREDITOR,11 THEN THE WIFE CANNOT COLLECT HER KETHUBAH FROM THE CONSECRATED PROPERTY,12 NOR THE CREDITOR HIS DEBT, BUT HE WHO REDEEMS THEM MUST REDEEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE WIFE HER KETHUBAH OR THE CREDITOR HIS DEBT. IF HE HAD DEDICATED NINETY MINAS WORTH OF PROPERTY, WHILST OWING A HUNDRED MINAS. THEN HE13 [THE CREDITOR] MUST ADD ONE DENAR MORE AND HE REDEEMS THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE KETHUBAH TO THE WIFE OR THE DEBT TO THE CREDITOR. GEMARA. Why is it necessary to state: He who redeems must redeem’?14 — That is because of the teaching of R. Abbuha, for R. Abbuha said: Lest people say consecrated property goes out [of the Sanctuary] without any redemption. Our Mishnah will not be in accord with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, for it was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, If his debt correspond, with [the value of] the consecrated property. then he redeems it, but if not, then he cannot redeem it.15 And as for the Rabbis, to what extent [must the debt correspond to the consecrated property]? — R. Huna b. Judah in the name of R. Shesheth said: Up to one half.16 MISHNAH. ALTHOUGH IT WAS SAID: PLEDGES MUST BE TAKEN FROM THOSE WHO OWE VALUATIONS, ONE ALLOWS17 HIM FOOD FOR THIRTY DAYS, GARMENTS FOR TWELVE MONTHS, BED AND BEDDING, SHOES AND TEFlllin18 FOR HIMSELF, BUT NOT FOR HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN. IF HE WAS A CRAFTSMAN, ONE LEAVES HIM TWO TOOLS OF EVERY KIND; IF HE WAS A CARPENTER, ONE LEAVES HIM TWO AXES AND TWO SAWS. R. ELIEZER SAYS, IF HE WAS A FARMER, ONE LEAVES HIM HIS YOKE [OF OXEN]. IF AN ASS-DRIVER, ONE LEAVES HIM HIS ASS. IF HE HAD MANY [TOOLS] OF ONE KIND, AND FEW OF ANOTHER KIND, ONE DOES NOT THEN TELL HIM TO SELL OF THE MANY AND BUY SOME OF THE FEW, BUT ONE LEAVES HIM TWO OF THE KIND OF WHICH HE HAS MANY AND ALL THAT HE HAS FROM THEM OF WHICH HE HAS FEW. IF ONE CONSECRATES [ALL] HIS POSSESSIONS TO THE SANCTUARY, THEN ONE VALUES19 HIS TEFILLIN. GEMARA. What is the reason?20 — Scripture said: not have become liable for the payment of the kethubah. ed., pp. 769ff. therefore similarly insist that if the wife wishes to collect her kethubah from the field bought by an outsider that here, too, the husband takes a vow that he will not in future derive any benefit from his wife, so as to prevent his receiving the kethubah from her, and thereupon remarrying her. He states a principle in one or several instances, allowing for application of the precedent to new situations. Thus the case of the purchaser is covered by the first two. does not arise. Sanctuary. they had a prior lien on the property? creditor had extended the loan with that property as security in his mind. But if the sum was larger than the value of the property, then obviously the creditor has not relied on that property but upon the character of the debtor. Therefore that property cannot be considered encumbered by the debt, and hence cannot be re-obtained from the Sanctuary. because, as stated in n. 1, the security was the debtor's character, and he should await the latter's ability to repay the debt, but must not collect from the Sanctuary its rightful (because hitherto unencumbered) property. For another interpretation v. Tosaf. to purchase them. the former case his tefillin as his spiritual tools are left to him, in the latter not; v. infra. (Rashi); or, ‘remove’ i.e., take away, as included in his dedication (R. Gershom). He must redeem them as one of his possessions which, in their totality. he had consecrated to the Sanctuary.