Arakhin 23b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: An ordinary guarantor

was a kabbalan!

For Rav Huna had designated movable property for his wife for her ketuba, and she gave it to her husband’s father, and he returned it to his son. And this is a kabbalan, who takes and gives the loan directly from the lender to the borrower and becomes himself a borrower of the lender. And here too, through her giving it to his father, who was the guarantor, the guarantor became liable to the woman.

And we raise an objection:

This works out well according to the one who says

later in the discussion:

a kabbalan, even though the borrower does not have property

at the time of the loan—from which the guarantor could collect if the borrower did not pay and the guarantor had to pay—

becomes obligated

; it is understandable that Moshe bar Atzrei became obligated through his being a kabbalan to pay the woman, even though Rav Huna, who was poor, did not have property at the time of his marriage.

But according to the one who says

: If

he has

property at the time of the loan,

the guarantor becomes obligated

; if

he does not have

property at the time of the loan,

he does not become obligated

, because since the guarantor has nothing from which to collect from the borrower if he has to pay the lender, he does not wholeheartedly intend to become obligated,

what is there to say

? How did Moshe bar Atzrei become obligated to the woman? Rav Huna did not have property at the time of his marriage, for he was poor?!

And we answer:

a.

Alternatively, one can say: Rav Huna had

property at the time of his marriage,

and they were destroyed

afterward, and only afterward did he become poor!

b.

And alternatively, one can say

: Even though an ordinary kabbalan does not become obligated when the borrower has no property, nevertheless,

a father, with regard to his son,

a father for his son,

makes himself obligated

wholeheartedly intending to become obligated, even when his son has no property from which he could collect! Therefore Moshe bar Atzrei became obligated to pay the ketuba to the wife of his son Rav Huna, even though Rav Huna had no property at the time of his marriage.

And now they explain the laws concerning a guarantor and a kabbalan,

as it was stated:

An ordinary guarantor

—who is not a kabbalan—

for a ketuba, according to everyone, does not become obligated

, even if the husband has property at the time the guarantor becomes obligated.

A kabbalan for a debt, according to everyone, becomes obligated

, even when the borrower has no property at the time of the loan.

An ordinary guarantor for a debt, and a kabbalan for a ketuba

when the debtor has no property at the time the guarantor becomes obligated—

there is a dispute: There is one who says: If the borrower has property

or the husband has property at the time the guarantor becomes obligated,

he becomes obligated

, but if

he does not have

property,

he does not become obligated!

And there is one who says: Even though he does not have

property,

he becomes obligated!

And the halakha: In all of them

—that is, an ordinary guarantor and a kabbalan for a debt, and a kabbalan for a ketuba—

even though he does not have property

belonging to the borrower or the husband,

he becomes obligated! Except

outside

an ordinary guarantor

for a ketuba,

for even though he has

property,

he does not become obligated!

What is the reason

that an ordinary guarantor for a ketuba does not become obligated?

It is a mitzva

that the guarantor

performs

; he does not intend to pay the guarantee, but intends to bring the two of them together, and through this guarantee they become reconciled,

and she is not deprived of anything

—for it is better for a woman to sit as a couple than to sit as a widow, and he intended her benefit, [Rashbam, Bava Batra 174:].

A certain man sold his property

—he sold his lands, and the woman has the right to collect her ketuba when she is divorced even from purchasers—

and he divorced his wife

and divorced his wife. And the question arose whether one should be concerned that he is making a conspiracy against the purchasers: the woman will collect her ketuba from them, and he will remarry her, and the two of them will benefit from what she extracted. Therefore, one might say that when he divorces her, he should vow that deriving benefit from her is forbidden to him, so that he will not be able to remarry her, just as we learned in our Mishna concerning one who consecrates his property and concerning one whose guarantor for her ketuba was his wife’s husband.

Rav Yosef son of Rava sent

this question

before Rav Pappa

, and this is what he wrote to him: When a woman can collect her ketuba from a

guarantor, we learned

in our Mishna that the husband must vow that deriving benefit from her is forbidden to him when he divorces her! And if she can collect from the

consecrated property, we learned

also in our Mishna that he must vow that deriving benefit is forbidden to him when he divorces her! But if she can collect from a

purchaser, what

is the law: must he vow that deriving benefit from her is forbidden to him when he divorces her?

He said to him

Rav Pappa: Certainly, the husband must vow that deriving benefit from her is forbidden to him when he divorces her, just as he must vow concerning a guarantor and consecrated property. Although the tanna did not mention in our Mishna that in the case of a purchaser too he must vow,

does the tanna enumerate everything like a peddler and proceed

—must the tanna specify everything, like a merchant who counts his coins?! The tanna taught us guarantor and consecrated property, and the same law applies to a purchaser!

The Nehardeans say

: He need not vow in the case of a purchaser! And their reason is:

For we learned

in our Mishna that he must vow—that is, in the cases of a guarantor and consecrated property—

we learned! What we did not learn

in our Mishna that he must vow—for example, in the case of a purchaser—

we did not learn!

Rav Mesharsheya said: What is the reason of the Nehardeans

, who say that he need not vow in the case of a purchaser?

Granted, when his property is in the hands of

performs a mitzva

consecrated property

, he must vow

because of the benefit of the consecrated property

, so that they will not take it from him. And likewise, when there is a

guarantor, too

, he must vow, because the guarantor

performs a mitzva

to bring them together;

he performs it, and she is not deprived of anything

, and for this reason they require him to make her forbidden to him, so that a person will not refrain from performing a mitzva [Rabbeinu Gershom]!

But a purchaser

, why should we require him to make her forbidden to him?

Since

—and after all—

the purchaser knows

the purchaser

that there is a ketuba upon each and every one,

and if so,

why did he go and purchase

—why did he go and buy?! And if he bought,

he is the one who caused the loss

to himself, and we do not require him to make her forbidden to him!

rather: the redeemer

Mishna:

One who consecrates his property, and a woman’s ketuba and a creditor’s debt were upon him

—or a creditor’s debt—even though by law they can collect their debts from the consecrated property without redemption, nevertheless the Sages decreed:

that

the woman cannot collect her ketuba from the consecrated property, nor can a creditor collect his debt

without redemption,

rather: the redeemer

—the owner—

redeems

them from the consecrated property for one dinar, or even for a small amount less than a dinar [Zevach Toda],

on condition that he give the woman

her ketuba

from the property that he consecrated,

and the creditor his debt.

How so [Zevach Toda]?

He consecrated ninety maneh, and his debt was

even

one hundred maneh, which is more than the amount corresponding to his debt; nevertheless, the creditor can collect his debt through a small redemption. Therefore,

her marriage settlement, and give the creditor his debt.

the creditor adds

a loan to the consecrator of

another dinar

so that

he may redeem with it

himself [Tosafot Yom Tov and Zevach Toda—in Rashi’s view]

these properties

from the consecrated property

on condition that he give the woman

statement below, on page 33b.

her ketuba, and the creditor his debt.

Gemara:

And we are astonished:

Why do I need it to say

in the Mishna

“the redeemer redeems,”

that is: why must one redeem the property from the consecrated property, so that the woman or the creditor will take their debt without redemption? For the consecration did not take effect upon the property, since a person cannot consecrate something that is not his but belongs to his creditor?!

And we explain:

Because of Rabbi Abbahu

below 33b!

For Rabbi Abbahu said

: It is a decree , in order to

prevent people from saying, “Consecrated property goes out without redemption!”

We further explain the conclusion of the Mishna, which states that even if the creditor’s debt was one hundred maneh, while the borrower’s consecrated property was only ninety maneh, the creditor can collect from the consecrated property and a redemption of one dinar suffices: This

Mishna is not according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel! For it was taught in a beraita: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, if his debt

—the creditor’s debt—

corresponds to his consecrated property

of the borrower, he collects, and the owner

redeems

with a small amount.

But if not

, rather, the creditor’s debt was greater than his consecrated property,

he does not redeem

with a small amount, and redemption is required as with other consecrated properties.

And the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is that if his debt corresponds to his consecrated property, it can be said that when he lent to him, he lent with the intention of collecting from these properties. But when his debt is greater than his consecrated property, he did not lend with the intention of collecting from these properties , but trusted the borrower to pay, and therefore he does not collect from the consecrated property.

And we ask:

And the Rabbis

who disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and hold that even when his debt is greater than his consecrated property, we say that he lent with these properties in mind, and he collects from the consecrated property and a redemption with a small amount suffices—

up to how much

may the debt exceed the consecrated property and we still say that he lent with these properties in mind, and he can collect from the consecrated property and redeem with a small amount?

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said in the name of Rav Sheshet: Until

the value of the property that he consecrated is

half

of his debt . But if the value of the property was less than half his debt, he does not collect from the consecrated property through redemption with a small amount, since as it is worth only less than half, certainly he did not lend with these properties in mind [Tosafot].

Mishna:

Even though they said

[above 21a] that

those liable

monetary payments to the consecrated property for

valuations

that they vowed,

they are forcibly taken as security

—the treasurer enters their homes and takes against their will—nevertheless,

they give him,

a treasurer who comes to take security when the valuator’s means are insufficient, and he is judged according to the extent of his means, as it is written in the passage concerning valuations: “[And if he is too poor for your valuation,] then he shall be placed before the priest, and the priest shall value him, [according to what the one who vows can afford].” The treasurer leaves him enough for his livelihood and takes the remainder , and he has fulfilled his obligation to the consecrated property , even if he became wealthy after they assessed him and took what was in his possession [Rashi, Bava Metzia 113b and with the fifth], and leaves him

food

for

thirty days and clothing for twelve months,

and

a made bed

—that is, a bed and its bedding [Tosafot, Bava Metzia 113b]—

and his shoes and his phylacteries

—and if he does not have them, they leave him money to purchase them. And they give only

to him, but not to his wife

and his children. That is: they do not give from his property for clothing and food for his wife and children.

That is, they do not provide from his property clothing and food for his wife and children.

If the debtor was

an artisan,

they give him

that is, they leave in his possession

two tools of every kind

of the tools of his trade. How so? If he was a

woodworker,

of wood,

they give him two planes [

a tool with which planks are smoothed — Rashi, end of Bava Kamma]

and two saws [

a knife full of notches, which cuts quickly].

Rabbi Eliezer says:

even

if he was a farmer, they give him his yoke [

a yoke of cattle, which is his tool of trade], and if he was a

donkey-driver, they give him his donkey,

but the first tanna disputes this.

If he had one kind

of trade tool

in abundance,

more than the two that they leave him—for example, he had three planes—

and one kind

he had only

a small amount,

for example, he had only one saw,

we do not say to him to sell the abundant kind

one plane

and purchase

with its money

from the scarce kind,

so that he would have two saws!

Rather, they give him two kinds

that is, two tools

from the abundant kind, and whatever he has from the scarce kind

they give him, and no more.

One who consecrates his property,

even his tefillin are included in his consecration, and therefore:

they assess [

they appraise — Rashi, Bava Kamma 102]:

his tefillin,

he borrows money [Rashi there] and redeems them according to what they appraised them at.

Gemara:

What is the reason

they give him all these things?