Arakhin 45

Chapter 45

א <big>מתני׳</big> המקדיש נכסיו והיתה עליו כתובת אשה ר"א אומר כשיגרשנה ידור הנאה רבי יהושע אומר אינו צריך כיוצא בדבר ארשב"ג אף הערב לאשה בכתובתה והיה בעלה מגרשה ידירנה הנאה שמא יעשה קינוניא על נכסים של זה ויחזיר את אשתו:

1 <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF A MAN DEDICATES HIS POSSESSIONS TO THE SANCTUARY WHILST STILL LIABLE FOR HIS WIFE'S KETHUBAH, R'ELIEZER SAYS WHEN HE DIVORCES HER HE MUST VOW1 THAT HE WILL NOT DERIVE ANY FURTHER BENEFIT FROM HER'R'JOSHUA SAYS, HE NEED NOT DO SO. LIKEWISE SAID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL: ALSO IF ONE GUARANTEES A WOMAN'S KETHUBAH AND HER HUSBAND DIVORCES HER, THE HUSBAND MUST VOW TO DERIVE NO BENEFIT FROM HER'LEST HE MAKE A CONSPIRACY2 AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THAT MAN [THE GUARANTOR] AND TAKE HIS WIFE BACK AGAIN.3 <big>GEMARA: </big>Wherein do they differ?

ב <big>גמ׳</big> במאי קמיפלגי רבי אליעזר סבר אדם עושה קינוניא על ההקדש ורבי יהושע סבר אין אדם עושה קינוניא על ההקדש

2 R'Eliezer holds: A man will engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary. But R'Joshua holds that a man will not engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary. But what of the ruling of R'Huna: If a person dangerously ill dedicated all his possessions to the Sanctuary and said, I owe So-and-so a maneh, he is believed, because of the presumption that nobody will engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary. Shall we say that he gave a ruling concerning which Tannaim are conflicting? - No! They dispute only the case of a healthy person, but with regard to one dangerously ill all agree that he would not engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary.

ג ואלא הא דאמר רב הונא שכיב מרע שהקדיש כל נכסיו ואמר מנה לפלוני בידי נאמן חזקה אין עושה קינוניא על הקדש לימא כתנאי אמרה לשמעתיה

3 Why? Because no man will sin where he does not stand to benefit [thereby]. Some there are who say: With regard to a healthy person there is a general agreement that one [he] would engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary; but here they differ with regard to a vow made in the presence of many, one Master [R'Joshua] holding such a vow can be annulled,4

ד לא עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בבריא אבל בשכיב מרע דברי הכל אין אדם עושה קינוניא על ההקדש מ"ט אין אדם חוטא ולא לו

4 while the other Master [R'Eliezer] holds it cannot be annulled. Or, if you like, say: All agree that a vow made in the presence of many can be remitted, and they differ here as to a vow made on the authority of many.5

ה איכא דאמרי בבריא דכ"ע לא פליגי (דאין) אדם עושה קינוניא על הקדש והכא בנדר שהודר ברבים קמיפלגי מר סבר יש לו הפרה ומ"ס אין לו הפרה

5 But then what of Amemar's statement that 'A vow made in the presence of many can be annulled. whereas one made on the authority of many cannot be annulled', are we to say that he made a statement concerning which Tannaim are of divided opinion? Furthermore how explain: R'JOSHUA SAYS: HE NEED NOT DO SO. He should have said: 'It would be useless'?6 - Rather, they are disputing here on the principle as to whether absolution from consecration of an object may be obtained;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer holds that no vow to the Treasury can be nullified by a plea of error, hence he might resort to a conspiracy by divorcing his wife. But R. Joshua holds that a plea of error would be admitted, whence there is no need for him to engage in a conspiracy wherefore he need not deny himself by vow the benefit of her company.');">7

ו ואיבעית אימא דכ"ע נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה והכא בנדר שהודר על דעת רבים קמיפלגי

6 and thus it was taught: If a man dedicates his possessions to the Sanctuary whilst still liable for his wife's kethubah, R'Eliezer says. When he divorces her he must vow that he will not derive any further benefit from her, whilst R'Joshua says: He need not do so.

ז ואלא הא דאמר אמימר נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה לימא כתנאי אמרה לשמעתיה ותו רבי יהושע אומר אינו צריך אינו מועיל מיבעי ליה

7 And R'Eleazar B'Simeon said: These are [respectively] the very views of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, for Beth Shammai holds: A consecration [to the Sanctuary] made In error is [valid] consecration, whilst Beth Hillel holds it is not valid consecration. LIKEWISE DID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAY etc. Moses B'Azri was the guarantor for [the kethubah of] his daughter-in-law. Now R'Huna, his son, was a young scholar but in strait circumstances. Said Abaye: Is there no one to advise R'Huna to divorce his wife so that she might claim her kethubah from her father-in-law, and he [R'Huna] might then take her back?

ח אלא הכא בשאלה דהקדש קמיפלגי

8 Said Raba to him: But we learnt: HE MUST VOW THAT HE WILL NOT DERIVE ANY FURTHER BENEFIT FROM HER?

ט והתניא המקדיש נכסיו והיתה עליו כתובת אשה ר"א אומר כשהוא מגרשה ידור הנאה רבי יהושע אומר אינו צריך וא"ר אלעזר ברבי שמעון הן הן דברי בית שמאי הן הן דברי ב"ה

9 And Abaye?8 - Does every one who divorces his wife do so before a court?9 In the end it became known that he [R'Huna] was a priest.10 Whereupon Abaye exclaimed: poverty pursues the poor!11 But how could Abaye say thus?12 Did not Abaye say: 'Who is a cunningly wicked man?

י שב"ש אומרים הקדש טעות הקדש וב"ה אומרים הקדש טעות אינו הקדש:

10 He who offers advice to sell property in accord with Rabban Simeon B'Gamaliel'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Keth. 95b. If some one said whilst dying. 'My property (I give) to you, and after you, to So-and-so', and the first went and sold or consumed it, then according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, the second may have only what the first left over. That kind of trick Abaye denounced, how then could he offer kindred advice?');">13 - It is different in the case of one's son, and it is different also in the cas a young scholar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A son would anyway inherit his father's possessions. And a young scholar's support is a mizwah (good deed, command, to enable to study) , hence Abaye had two legitimate reasons for what otherwise would have been improper advice.');">14

יא וכן היה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר וכו': משה בר עצרי ערבא דכלתיה הוה ורב הונא בריה צורבא מרבנן הוה ודחיקא ליה מילתא אמר אביי ליכא דנסבי עצה לרב הונא דליגרש לדביתהו ותיתבע כתובתה מאבוה ולהדרה מיהדרי

11 But derive it from the fact that the guarantor for a kethubah is not held responsible?

יב א"ל רבא והאנן ידור הנאה תנן ואביי אטו כל דמגרש בבי דינא מגרש לסוף איגלאי מלתא דכהן הוה אמר אביי בתר עניא אזלא עניותא

יג ומי אמר אביי הכי והאמר אביי איזהו רשע ערום זה המשיא עצה למכור בנכסים כרבן [שמעון בן] גמליאל

יד בריה שאני וצורבא מרבנן שאני

טו ותיפוק ליה דערב דכתובה לא משתעבד

Previous Chapter Next Chapter