Commentary for Arakhin 12:34

ת"ל

What principle are they disputing? - R'Joseph said: They are disputing whether an oral<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An obligation arising from the law of the Torah has the character of an orally admitted debt. Hence, even if no definite decision had been made by the court on the question of his damage, a delay in his execution would be considered unnecessary, hence prohibited. Nevertheless the debt arising from the law of the Torah is considered an oral debt.');">¹⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Arakhin 12:34. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.