Responsa for Ketubot 103:9
ואי דנדרה איהי מה לי הדירה ולבסוף נשבית מה לי נשבית ולבסוף הדירה
Now if [this is a case] where she herself had made the vow, what difference is there whether he made the vow first against her and then she was taken captive or whether she was first taken captive and he then made the vow?
Teshuvot Maharam
Q. [While B was out of town] B's wife was put under house arrest by the officer. The latter's servants kept constant watch over her not letting her take a single step outside of her house without their permission. She asked A to go surety for her to the officer. A complied with her wishes, and she was released. The officer, however, made unjust and extravagant demands on A, with which demands he was forced to comply. A now demands that B make good the losses he has suffered because of his suretyship.
A. B was under obligation to ransom his wife, for there was no practical difference between her being taken captive or her being placed under house arrest. When B's wife asked A to ransom her, she assumed responsibility for all damages A might suffer on this account. Since A is entitled to collect such damages from B's wife, and she is entitled to collect them from her husband B, A is entitled to collect such damages directly from B through "R. Nathan's lien" (garnishee proceedings).
SOURCES: Cr. 164. Cf. Agudah B. K. 138.
A. B was under obligation to ransom his wife, for there was no practical difference between her being taken captive or her being placed under house arrest. When B's wife asked A to ransom her, she assumed responsibility for all damages A might suffer on this account. Since A is entitled to collect such damages from B's wife, and she is entitled to collect them from her husband B, A is entitled to collect such damages directly from B through "R. Nathan's lien" (garnishee proceedings).
SOURCES: Cr. 164. Cf. Agudah B. K. 138.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy