Arakhin 43

Chapter 43

א תנו רבנן שום היתומים שלשים יום ושום ההקדש ששים יום דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר שום היתומים ששים יום ושום ההקדש תשעים יום וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה ששים יום אמר רב חסדא אמר אבימי הלכה שום היתומים ששים יום
1 Our Rabbis taught: [The property] of orphans which has been valued [must be proclaimed for thirty days], and [that] of the Sanctuary which has been valued, for sixty days. This is the view of R'Meir. R'Judah says: [The property] of orphans that has been valued must be proclaimed for sixty days and [that] of the Sanctuary which has been valued for ninety days. But the Sages say: Both of them for sixty days. R'Hisda said in the name of Abimi: The halachah is: [The property] of orphans that has been valued must be proclaimed for sixty days. R'Hiyya B'Abin sat and reported this law. Said R'Nahman B'Isaac to him: Did you say 'sixty' or 'thirty'? He replied: 'Sixty'.'
ב יתיב רבי חייא בר אבין וקאמר להא שמעתא אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבי חייא בר אבין ששים קאמרת או שלשים קאמרת אמר ליה ששים דיתומים או דהקדש אמר ליה דיתומים
2 Of the orphans or of the Sanctuary? ' He answered: 'Of the orphans'.' In accord with R'Meir or with R'Judah'? He replied: 'With R'Meir'.' But R'Meir said "thirty days"? ' He answered: Thus did R'Hisda say: Many a beating did I receive from Abimi because of this [teaching]: If he is to proclaim on consecutive days, then [the period of proclamation] is thirty days; if on Mondays and Thursdays alone, then it is sixty days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until I learnt to understand its apparent contradictions. Abimi taught him that the property of orphans must be proclaimed on the view of R. Meir for sixty days. The disciple, however, knew the above cited Baraitha, that R. Meir limited it to thirty days and thus raised an objection against his Master's teaching. He had forgotten, however, the instruction offered by the same Master, according to which 'thirty days' referred to consecutive ones, whereas 'sixty days' were required if the proclamation took place only on Mondays and Thursdays. He could thus appreciate his colleague's bewilderment from his own experience of the difficulty.');"><sup>1</sup></span> And although if you, Sir, were to count the days [of actual proclamation] it will be only eighteen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In sixty days there are eight weeks, containing together sixteen Mondays and Thursdays. If the first week started with a Monday, the four remaining days would include one Monday and Thursday again, which would together amount to the eighteen days, during which the news of such proclamation is made.');"><sup>2</sup></span> still, since the matter is drawn out [over sixty days], people hear about it. Rab Judah said in the name of R'Assi: One must not distrain upon the property of orphans except if interest was consuming it. R'Johanan says: Either because of a document of indebtedness bearing interest, or because of the kethubah of a woman [so as to save from further payment] on account of her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which likewise consumes the orphans' property. As long as the widow does not collect her kethubah she receives her maintenance from the property of the orphans.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג כרבי מאיר או כרבי יהודה אמר ליה כרבי מאיר והא רבי מאיר שלשים קאמר
3 Why does not R'Assi say.' Because of a woman's kethubah'? - Because the Rabbis have arranged for them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So R. Gershom. Cur. edd.: for him, i.e., the husband].');"><sup>4</sup></span> to receive the work of her hands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the alimony does not constitute a loss, the earning of the widow making up for it.');"><sup>5</sup></span> And the other? - At times that may not be sufficient.
ד אמר ליה הכי אמר רב חסדא מאבימי קולפי טאבי בלעי עלה דהא שמעתא בא להכריז רצופים שלשים
4 We learnt: [THE PROPERTY] OF ORPHANS WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED [MUST BE PROCLAIMED FOR] THIRTY DAYS, AND [THE PROPERTY OF] THE SANCTUARY WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED [FOR] SIXTY DAYS; THE PROCLAMATION MUST BE MADE IN THE MORNING AND IN THE EVENING. What case are we dealing with?
ה בשני ובחמישי ששים ואע"ג דכי חשיב להו מר ליומי הכרזה לא הוו אלא תמניסר יומי כיון דמשכא מילתא שמעי אינשי
5 Would you say one with a heathen creditor?
ו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומים אלא אם כן היתה רבית אוכלת בהן ורבי יוחנן אומר או לשטר שיש בו רבית או לכתובת אשה משום מזוני
6 Would he agree [to wait]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the end of the period of the proclamation and forego in the meantime his charge of interest.');"><sup>6</sup></span> Hence it is self-evident that we are dealing with a case of an Israelite creditor. [But then] if he were to consume interest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he charged interest on the property.');"><sup>7</sup></span> would we permit him to do so? - Rather must you say that he is not consuming interest, and yet it is taught: We distrain upon [the orphans' property].
ז ורב אסי מ"ט לא אמר לכתובת אשה דהא תקינו ליה רבנן מעשה ידיה ואידך זימנין דלא ספקה
7 Now this will be right in accord with R'Johanan who will interpret it as referring to the case of a woman's kethubah; but according to R'Assi it is a difficulty? - R'Assi will answer you: But even according to R'Johanan, is it in order? How do we continue to allow her the alimony,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' During the period.');"><sup>8</sup></span> which definitely causes them loss, and take up the proclamation, concerning which we do not know if it will show profit or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it will fetch a higher price than that valued. Why not then sell the property immediately without waiting for the period of proclamation to expire?');"><sup>9</sup></span> - This is no difficulty: the case speaks of one who demands her kethubah in court,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' She loses her alimony on making such a claim, therefore the orphans suffer no loss during the period of waiting for the payment of her kethubah, due to the effort to sell their property through proclamation.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ח תנן שום היתומים שלשים יום ושום ההקדש ששים יום ומכריזין בבקר ובערב במאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל חוב עובד כוכבים מי ציית אלא פשיטא בבעל חוב ישראל אי דקאכיל ריביתא מי שבקינן ליה ואלא דלא קאכיל ריביתא וקתני נזקקין
8 in accord with Rab Judah in the name of Samuel. For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: One who claims her kethubah before the court receives no more alimony. If so, we should not attend to her at all? - Since we attended to her at the beginning, we attend to her at the end as well.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is but fair that since we took care to see that as a consequence of her having presented her claim for the kethubah, she loses her alimony, thus benefitting the orphans, we should also help her in obtaining her kethubah, because of the claim of which she lost the alimony.');"><sup>11</sup></span> But at any rate, on the view of R'Assi [our Mishnah] presents a difficulty? [No!] Indeed I can maintain that the case is one of a heathen creditor, but the reference is to one who accepted to have his case dealt with in accord with Israelite law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently be willing to wait for the end of the proclamation period.');"><sup>12</sup></span> If that is so,let him not take interest. He accepted [Jewish Law] in the one respect, but not in the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in regard to the taking of interest.');"><sup>13</sup></span> Come and hear: One may not collect from the property of orphans except the worst land.
ט בשלמא לרבי יוחנן מוקי לה בכתובת אשה אלא לרב אסי קשיא אמר לך רב אסי ולרבי יוחנן מי ניחא מי שבקינן מזוני דודאי קא מפסדא ונקטינן הכרזה דלא ידעינן אי מרווחינן אי לא מרווחינן
9 What case are we dealing with here? Would you say that the creditor is a heathen, he surely would not agree to this!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To collect his debt only from the worst property.');"><sup>14</sup></span> Hence you must say it deals with an Israelite creditor. [But then] if he consumes interest, how could we permit him to do so?
י הא לא קשיא בתובעת כתובתה בב"ד כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל התובעת כתובתה בב"ד אין לה מזונות
10 Hence you must say that he did not consume interest; and nevertheless we are taught that we distrain upon [the orphans' property]? It will be right for R'Johanan, for he will interpret it as referring to woman's kethubah. But according to R'Assi, it will present a difficulty? - R'Assi will tell you: But even according to R'Johanan is it right?
יא אי הכי איזדקוקי לא מיזדקקינן לה אלא כיון דאיזדקקינן לה מעיקרא מיזדקקין לה לבסוף
11 If it refers to a kethubah, why does he speak of [the property of] orphans, even if it were his own, it could be collected only from the worst land? - That is no difficulty. It will be in accord with R'Meir who holds that a woman's kethubah is collectable from a land of average quality, but if from orphans' property, only from worst land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 21b.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יב מ"מ לרב אסי קשיא לעולם בבעל חוב עובד כוכבים שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל
12 At any rate, according to R'Assi, the difficulty stands! [No indeed I can maintain that we deal with the case of a heathen creditor, but it refers to one who has accepted upon himself that the case be dealt with according to Jewish law. Then let him not take interest either? - The case is that he accepted [the law] in respect of the one thing, but not in respect of the other.
יג אי הכי רבית נמי לא לישקול שקיבל עליו לזו ולא קיבל עליו לזו
13 Come and hear: 'For the purpose of paying a woman her kethubah or a creditor his debt'. Now this will be right in the case of a creditor, whether according to one Master or to the other Master,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Assi or R. Johanan.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יד ת"ש אין נפרעין מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית במאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל חוב עובד כוכבים מי צאית אלא פשיטא בבעל חוב ישראל אי אכיל ריביתא מי שבקינן ליה אלא דלא אכיל ריביתא וקתני נזקקין
14 as we have answered it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the reference is to a heathen creditor who charges interest. Therefore both agree that to protect the orphans we sell their property.');"><sup>17</sup></span> But as for the case of the kethubah, that will be right according to R'Johanan. but on the view of R'Assi it will present a difficulty! - [We speak here of the case] where the debtor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father of the orphans admitted the debt on his deathbed and charged the children to pay it.');"><sup>18</sup></span> admitted [the debt]. Now that you have come to this [explanation], all the other [teachings]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cited above in objection to R. Assi.');"><sup>19</sup></span> may also be explained as referring to the case that the debtor admitted it. Meramar collected the kethubah of a divorced woman from the orphans' property, whereupon Rabina said to him: But Rab Judah has said in the name of R'Assi: One must not distrain upon the property of orphans, except if interest was consuming it. R'Johanan says: Either because of a document of indebtedness bearing interest, or because of the kethubah of a woman [so as to save from further payment] on account of her alimony.
טו בשלמא לרבי יוחנן מוקי לה בכתובת אשה אלא לרב אסי קשיא אמר לך רב אסי ולרבי יוחנן מי ניחא אי כתובה מאי איריא מיתמי אפילו מיניה דידיה נמי בזיבורית
15 And even R'Johanan was including only [the case of] a widow, because her alimony causes them loss, but not in the case of a divorce?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who does not receive any alimony. so that the orphans suffer no loss.');"><sup>20</sup></span> - He replied: [The reason for] that ruling of R'Johanan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the property of orphans is distrained upon for the sake of the kethubah.');"><sup>21</sup></span> we explain to be 'for favour's sake'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to render men attractive to women, so that the latter will agree to marry them.');"><sup>22</sup></span> R'Nahman said: At first I would not distrain upon the property of orphans. But when I heard the statement of our colleague, R'Huna in the name of Rab: As for orphans who enjoy what does not belong to them, let them follow him who left them! from that time on I distrain upon it.
טז הא לא קשיא ר"מ היא דאמר כתובת אשה בבינונית ומיתמי בזיבורית
16 Why not at first? - R'Papa said: The paying of a debt is a commandment and [minor] orphans are not obliged to fulfil the commandment. R'Huna the son of R'Joshua said: We say he might have left bundles as security.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father gave the creditor bundles of valuables as security, whereof his orphans would not, or need not, know.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יז מ"מ לרב אסי קשיא לעולם בבעל חוב עובד כוכבים שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל א"ה רבית נמי לא נישקול שקיבל לזו ולא קיבל עליו לזו
17 What is the [practical] difference between them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether we accept the reason of R. Papa or R. Huna's.');"><sup>24</sup></span> - When he who owes admitted the debt, or if he was excommunicated and dies in the state of excommunication.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The court excommunicated the orphans' father for failure to pay his debts, he died whilst still excommunicated. There is no reason for suspecting his having secured the creditor's debt with a bundle of valuables, for if he had been willing to pay he would rather have done it through the court in order to win cancellation of his excommunication. The orphans in this case would have to pay, though on the first reason they would still be exempt.');"><sup>25</sup></span> They sent from there [Palestine]: [The reference is]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all the teachings cited above, the rule that the property of orphans is distrained upon.');"><sup>26</sup></span> to one excommunicated who died in the state of excommunication.
יח ת"ש ע"מ ליתן לאשה כתובתה ולבעל חוב חובו בשלמא בעל חוב בין מר ובין מר כדשנין
18 And the law is in accord with R'Huna the son of R'Joshua. We learnt:
יט אלא כתובתה בשלמא לר' יוחנן ניחא אלא לרב אסי קשיא
19 
כ הכא במאי עסקינן כשחייב מודה השתא דאתית להכי כולהו נמי כשחייב מודה
20 
כא מרימר אגבי כתובתה לגרושה מנכסי דיתמי א"ל רבינא לאמימר והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומין אלא א"כ היתה רבית אוכלת בהן רבי יוחנן אומר או לשטר שיש בו רבית או לכתובת אשה משום מזוני
21 
כב ואפי' רבי יוחנן לא קאמר אלא באלמנה דקמפסדא מזוני אבל גרושה לא
22 
כג אמר ליה הא אנן דרבי יוחנן משום חינא מתנינן לה
23 
כד אמר רב נחמן מרישא לא הוה מיזדקיקנא לנכסי יתמי כיון דשמענא להא דרב הונא חברין משמיה דרב יתמי דאכלי דלא דידהו ליזלו בתר שיבקייהו מכאן ואילך מיזדקקנא
24 
כה מעיקרא מאי טעמא לא אמר רב פפא פריעת בעל חוב מצוה ויתמי לא בני מיעבד מצוה נינהו רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר אימר צררי אתפסיה
25 
כו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו בשחייב מודה אי נמי שמתוה ומת בשמתיה
26 
כז שלחו מתם דשמתוה ומית בשמתיה והלכתא כרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע
27