Our Gemara on Amud Aleph delves into the complex topic of guarantees in Jewish monetary law. It presents a scenario where a person who volunteers as a guarantor on a kesuba (marriage contract) is exempted from financial responsibility. Typically, a guarantor assumes a commitment due to their respected and wealthy status (See Bava Basra 173b where the prestige of becoming a guarantor and the exchange of money creates an obligation based on receipt of benefit.). However, in the case of a kesuba, where there is no direct financial loss (as the woman did not lend money per se,) the rabbis consider the guarantor's role more as a gesture of encouragement than a binding legal obligation.

This exception arises because the woman, as the recipient of the kesuba, did not contribute any of her own money. The reassurance provided by the guarantor serves as an incentive for her to agree to the marriage. While the guarantor should still keep his word, the rabbis did not see it as creating a legal contractual obligation. It is important to distinguish between the moral obligation to honor one's word and the strict financial liability.

To illustrate this point, imagine a scenario where friends are about to have dinner, and one casually says, "Don't worry, I'll pay for dinner." At that moment, there is no direct benefit incurred that would create a legal obligation. However, once they start eating and the person hosting the dinner receives the benefit of the food and the prestige of hosting, an obligation is created. Similarly, in the case of the kesuba guarantor, they were making a gesture to promote a positive outcome but were not fully committed financially.

The Gemara explains the reasoning behind this distinction: the intention of the guarantor is to facilitate a mitzvah by encouraging the woman to consent to the marriage. However, the guarantor does not genuinely intend to obligate himself, and the woman does not suffer any loss that would justify the guarantor accepting responsibility. Therefore, the Sages established that the guarantor does not become personally responsible for payment.

This legal principle has implications beyond guarantees in loans. The Sefer Dover Yesharim raises a question about Yehuda's promise to his father to bring back Binyamin from Egypt. Yehuda's statement is framed as being a guarantor, and the Gemara sees it as proof that one can create an obligation by agreeing to be a guarantor. The Gemara (Bava Basra 173b) states:

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִנַּיִן לְעָרֵב דְּמִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד דִּכְתִיב אָנֹכִי אֶעֶרְבֶנּוּ מִיָּדִי תְּבַקְשֶׁנּוּ

Rav Huna said: From where is it derived that a guarantor becomes obligated to repay a loan he has guaranteed? As it is written that Judah reassured his father concerning the young Benjamin: “I will be his guarantor; of my hand shall you request him” (Genesis 43:9). This teaches that it is possible for one to act as a guarantor that an item will be returned to the giver.

However, Dover Yesharim questions why Yehuda's assurance should be legally binding since the risk involved in his case is not comparable to that of a lender. The entire family faced starvation, and the guarantee did not expose Binyamin to additional risk. Hence, according to strict legal reasoning, Yehuda's obligation should not be binding.

Dover Yesharim suggests that Yehuda's obligation arose due to Reuven's prior statement, where the food had not yet run out. By offering to be a guarantor at that time, Reuven had set a precedent, and Yehuda's assurances would naturally be no less. The logical conclusion is that they needed to provide additional assurances to convince their father to allow Binyamin to go with them.

Moreover, I would like to suggest a different answer. We can draw a distinction between Yehuda's case and the kesuba guarantor in our Gemara. While both scenarios lack a direct loss to the party being guaranteed, there is a crucial difference. In Yehuda's case, their entire family faced the imminent threat of starvation, creating a life-threatening situation. Thus, Yehuda's assurances carried greater intensity and sincerity, akin to the case of Sikrikon (which we see on 55b), where a forced acquisition is considered valid due to the extreme circumstances of mortal danger. The absence of such circumstances in our Gemara leads to a different legal outcome.

Reflecting on Yakov's seemingly irrational refusal to send Binyamin can be seen as an example of intuition clashing with logic. While Yehuda presents a logical argument, Yaakov's intuition, fueled by his subconscious awareness of his sons' past actions, prevents him from easily accepting the proposed solution. Yaakov cannot bring himself to believe explicitly that his sons had homicidal tendencies, yet deep down he knew it. The verse states (42:36):

“וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֲלֵהֶם֙ יַעֲקֹ֣ב אֲבִיהֶ֔ם אֹתִ֖י שִׁכַּלְתֶּ֑ם יוֹסֵ֤ף אֵינֶ֙נּוּ֙ וְשִׁמְע֣וֹן אֵינֶ֔נּוּ וְאֶת־בִּנְיָמִ֣ן תִּקָּ֔חוּ עָלַ֖י הָי֥וּ כֻלָּֽנָה׃

Their father Jacob said to them, “It is always me that you cause to bereave: Joseph is no more and Simeon is no more, and now you would take away Benjamin. These things always happen to me!”

Does this sound like somebody who is afraid that an accident will happen? His words betray more. He all but accuses the brothers of causing him to lose two children (Yosef and Shimon), and now he is incredulous that they want to take a third child? 

It is important to recognize that intuition, although often difficult to articulate or rationalize, can provide valuable insights and guide our decision-making processes.

In our own lives, there may be instances where we feel strongly about a particular course of action, even if it goes against conventional wisdom or logical reasoning. While it is essential to exercise critical thinking and consider all available information, we should also acknowledge the power of intuition. Sometimes our gut feelings, informed by our subconscious mind, can alert us to potential risks, hidden truths, or underlying motives that may not be immediately apparent.

In the pursuit of balance between intuition and logic, it is crucial to cultivate self-awareness and emotional intelligence. By paying attention to our instincts and carefully examining our thoughts and feelings, we can develop a more comprehensive understanding of ourselves and the world around us. This self-awareness enables us to make better decisions and navigate complex situations with greater clarity.

Ultimately, the interplay between intuition and logic is a dynamic process that varies from person to person and situation to situation. Both intuition and logic have their strengths and limitations. By acknowledging and integrating both aspects into our decision-making processes, we can enhance our ability to navigate life's challenges and make choices that align with our values and goals.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)