Quoting%20commentary for Gittin 98:21

איתמר ערב דכתובה דברי הכל לא משתעבד

But cannot this rule be derived from the fact that a surety for a <i>Kethubah</i> is not responsible [for its payment]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">¹⁷</span> — We speak of a kabbelan [go-between].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The meaning is that he entered into an agreement with his daughter-in-law that she could claim either from him or from his son at will. ');">¹⁸</span> This solves the problem for one who holds that a kabbelan is responsible even though the borrower has no property,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the time when the debt is contracted. ');">¹⁹</span> but what answer is to be given to one who holds that if the borrower has property he is responsible but if the borrower has no effects he is not responsible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since no one would guarantee a loan where it is known that the debtor has no means wherewith to repay. A guarantee in such a case cannot therefore be taken seriously. V. B.B. 174b. And the presumption is here that the husband had no effects when the contract was made. (V. Tosaf.). ');">²⁰</span> — If you like I can say that in this case we suppose [the son to have] had property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the liability was contracted. ');">²¹</span> which was subsequently destroyed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'blighted'. ');">²²</span> or if you like I can say that in respect of his son a man would in all cases regard himself as responsible. It has been stated [elsewhere]: With regard to a surety<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Areb., v. Glos. ');">²³</span> for a <i>Kethubah</i>, all authorities are agreed that he does not become responsible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because she has not actually parted with anything. ');">²⁴</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Gittin 98:21. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.