משנה: כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר אַף הֶעָרָב לָאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ וְהָיָה בְעָלֶיהָ מְגָֽרְשָׁהּ יַדִּירֶנּוּ הֲנָייָה שֶׁמָּא יַעֲשׂוּ קָיְנוֹנִייָא עַל נְכָסִים שֶׁל זֶה וְיַחֲזִיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. MISHNAH: Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say that if a person was guarantor for a woman’s ketubah and her husband divorced her, the latter has to make a vow106The guarantor does not have to pay unless the husband publicly made the required vow. A public vow cannot be annulled. not to have any usufruct from her so they could not plan a partnership107Greek κοινωνία, in the Talmudim always used in the sense of “partnership in crime”. against that person’s property and then he108The husband. By his vow he is permanently barred from remarrying his divorcee. would take back his wife.
הלכה: כְּיוֹצֵא בוֹ הָיָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כול׳. חָמוֹי דִבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חַגַּיי הֲוָה עֲרָבָא בְּפוֹרְנָהּ דִּבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי חַגַּיי וַהֲוָה מְבַזְבְּזָה בְנִכְסַייָא. אֲתַא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אָחָא. אָמַר. צָרִיךְ לְהַדִּיר הֲנָייָה. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַדִּיר הֲנָייָה. אָֽמְרִין חֲבֵרַייָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וּמַה אִילּוּ וְיַחְזוֹר וְיִסְבִּינָהּ לֵית מָרֵי חוֹבָה אֲתִי וְטָרִף. אֲמַר. דְּלָא יַחְזוֹר. וְיַעַבְדִּינוֹן מִטַּלְטְלִין אוֹ פָּרָאפֶרְנוֹן וְלָא מַשְׁכַּח מָרֵי חוֹבָה מַה מִתְפַּס. וּנְפַק עוֹבְדָא כְרִבִּי אָחָא. HALAKHAH: “Similarly did Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel say,” etc. The father-in-law of Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter was guarantor for Rebbi Ḥaggai’s daughter’s ketubah. She turned out to be a spendthrift109And therefore her husband divorced her. From the later argument it seems that he had to cover his wife’s debts.. The case came before Rebbi Aḥa, who said that he would have to make a vow not to have usufruct. Rebbi Yose said, he does not have to make a vow not to have usufruct. The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose, but if he would take her back, the creditor would come and seize it110They argue that R. Yose should agree with R. Aḥa since otherwise he could pay his debts with his father’s money by remarrying his wife after payment of the ketubah and then let her property be foreclosed by his creditors.. He said, he would not take her back. But it could be transformed into movables111Which in general cannot be forclosed. or paraphernalia112Which never become the husband’s property and cannot be attached by his creditors (Yebamot 7:1 Note 1). which the creditors could not seize. The case was decided following Rebbi Aḥa113Which establishes practice..