Responsa 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. ');"><sup>17</sup></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. ');"><sup>18</sup></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. ');"><sup>19</sup></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.). ');"><sup>20</sup></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. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> which was subsequently destroyed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'blighted'. ');"><sup>22</sup></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. ');"><sup>23</sup></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. ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
Teshuvot Maharam
A. Since the women of our generation are loose in their manner of life, we do not permit the husband to remarry while she is forced to remain single till old age, which procedure was recommended by R. Eleazar b. Nathan, and we do not require a waiting period of twelve months till the divorce be granted. Therefore, the elders of the community should endeavor to persuade both parties to a speedy divorce without resorting to coercion of either party. Upon the granting of the divorce the woman should receive only what she actually brought in as dowry, but not the full fifty pounds of dowry written in her ketubah; for when the husband received her dowry and evaluated it at fifty pounds, though actually it was worth less, he did so because he wanted to marry her and live with her. Now that she refuses to live with him she loses the extra value placed on her dowry, the additional jointure promised her by the husband, as well as the 200 zuzin prescribed by the Talmud. Though in this country the same amount of dowry is written in the ketubah of a rich as in that of a poor bride, irrespective of the amount she actually brings in, in order not to shame the brides who bring in a small dowry, this rebellious wife is not entitled to collect the full amount of dowry written in her ketubah, since she never lived with her husband.
SOURCES: Pr. 442–443.