Arakhin 21b — the Talmud in English

[meitivi]:

One who says:

“The sin-offering and guilt-offering of so-and-so are upon me”

to bring them, if he sacrificed them

with the knowledge of

the one who attains atonement,

he has fulfilled

that so-and-so’s obligation of atonement. But if he sacrificed them

without the knowledge of

the one who attains atonement,

he has not fulfilled it.

And if he said:

“The burnt-offering and peace-offerings of so-and-so are upon me,”

[who came to exempt his fellow from the obligation of his vow that he vowed concerning a burnt-offering and peace-offerings],

whether

he sacrificed it

with the knowledge of

his fellow

or whether without the knowledge of

his fellow,

he has fulfilled

his fellow’s vow. And this is difficult for Shmuel, who said: A burnt-offering requires knowledge.

And we answer:

Shmuel can say to you: When that was taught

that he fulfilled it, it is speaking of a case where

at the time of atonement

there was no knowledge, but the consecration was with his knowledge. Since

he was willing at the time of consecration,

surely he is also comfortable with it now. [And concerning a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, even if the consecration was with his knowledge, he does not attain atonement without his knowledge. For perhaps he is not agreeable that it be sacrificed by his fellow, since by this he loses the mitzva of laying on of hands. But concerning a burnt-offering, he does not care about this, since it does not come to atone for the sin (Tosafot).]

“When I said”

that the knowledge of the one who attains atonement is required,

I meant at the time of consecration.

I said.

And it differs

Shmuel

with Ulla. For Ulla said: They did not distinguish between a sin-offering and a burnt-offering; rather, a sin-offering requires knowledge at the time of consecration

when his fellow consecrates it on his behalf, and without this it is not consecrated,

but a burnt-offering does not require knowledge at the time of consecration. [

For Ulla holds that since a sin-offering comes for atonement, a person is not comfortable with atonement that is not his. But a burnt-offering does not come for atonement for the sin, and he does not care about this. Tosafot.]

But at the time of atonement, in both cases, with the knowledge

of the one who attains atonement,

he has fulfilled it; without his knowledge, he has not fulfilled it. [

For in both cases it is possible that he is not comfortable with it, because he wishes to fulfill the mitzva of laying on of hands. Tosafot.]

[Meitivi]: “

One who says

‘The sin-offering, guilt-offering, burnt-offering, and peace-offerings of so-and-so are upon me’—with his knowledge he has fulfilled it; without his knowledge he has not fulfilled it.”

And this contradicts the first beraita, which distinguishes between a sin-offering and guilt-offering and a burnt-offering and peace-offerings, in this matter.

And we answer:

Shmuel establishes

this beraita

as referring to the time of consecration,

when in all of them knowledge is required, for perhaps he is not comfortable attaining atonement through something that is not his. And the first beraita, which distinguishes between them, is speaking of the time of atonement, as explained.

And Ulla establishes

this beraita

as referring to the time of atonement,

when in all of them knowledge is required because of the laying on of hands, while the beraita above is speaking of the time of consecration.

Rav Pappa said:

These

two teachings do not contradict one another. This one is at the time of atonement; that one is at the time of consecration,

as we explained.

And for the amoraim as well,

according to both of them,

there is no difficulty. For Shmuel establishes the first one as referring to the time of atonement and the latter one as referring to the time of consecration; and Ulla establishes them in the opposite manner. The amoraim

[Shmuel and Ulla]

certainly disagree.

For Shmuel holds that a burnt-offering requires knowledge at the time of consecration but not at the time of atonement, while Ulla holds the opposite.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious;

what is Rav Pappa informing us?

And we answer:

You might have said: What is the “time of consecration” that Shmuel says

requires knowledge concerning a burnt-offering?

Even at the time of consecration

is what he means. And all the more so, knowledge is required at the time of atonement, and in this he agrees with Ulla.

And even though if

we were to say so,

this

beraita

the first

would remain

a refutation of him

according to his position,

Rav Pappa informs us

that this is not so; rather, according to Shmuel, knowledge is required specifically at the time of consecration, and the beraita is resolved even according to his position.

We learned in the Mishna:

And similarly, concerning bills of divorce, they compel

him until he says, “I am willing.”

Rav Sheshet said: One who delivers a declaration of annulment concerning a bill of divorce

before he divorced with it [saying: The bill of divorce that I am writing for my wife is annulled. Rambam, chapter 6 of the Laws of Divorce],

his declaration of annulment is a declaration of annulment,

and it is effective to invalidate the bill of divorce.

And he asks:

It is obvious

that it is not a bill of divorce, for he revealed his intention that he does not wish to divorce.

And we answer:

It is necessary

but

that he was compelled

[that the court compelled him after the declaration]

and became willing,

that he agreed to divorce and gave the bill of divorce.

You might have said

that since he agreed after the court compelled him, surely

he annulled the declaration of annulment.

It informs us

that this does not constitute annulment of the declaration until he annuls it explicitly.

And this is inferred from the Mishna:

If so,

if this is considered an annulment,

let it teach

in the Mishna: “They compel him

until he gives it,”

and it would be obvious that if he gave it, he certainly became willing.

What is the meaning of “until he says

‘I am willing’”? Rather, because we are concerned that perhaps he delivered a declaration of annulment, therefore we compel him

until

he says

that he annuls his declaration of annulment,

that is, he says, “I am willing,” and with this statement he retracts what he initially revealed—that he does not wish to divorce.

We have completed the chapter “One Who Says: My Valuation Is Upon Me”

Mishna:

The appraisal of the orphans

A court that was required to sell from the property of orphans in order to collect for a creditor must appraise the value of the property and announce: “Anyone who wishes to take, let him come and take!” So that people will hear and come to take, and each one will increase the price of the property over his fellow. And if they do not find anyone who increases the court’s appraisal, they give it to the creditor according to the court’s appraisal [according to most of the Rishonim]. And they announce concerning it

for thirty days. And the appraisal of consecrated property

when the treasurer sells land belonging to consecrated property, the time of the announcement is

sixty days.

And they announce

both with orphans and with consecrated property

in the morning and in the evening.

Gemara:

What is different about the morning and the evening?

And we explain:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

They announce in the evening, which is

at the time of sending out the laborers

by the householder from their work to their homes.

And

they announce in the morning, which is

at the time of bringing in the laborers

to their work.

And we explain: The reason that they announce in the evening

at the time of sending out the laborers

is:

there is

a householder

who is pleased to buy [who wants to buy], and since his workers are with him,

[who wants to purchase], and since his workers are with him,

he says to them [he will say to them]

[he will say to them]

to the laborers: “Go and inspect it for me” [go and see the land for me],

whether it is good to buy, and they will answer him the next day, when they are with him at his work. And the reason that they announce in the morning

at the time of bringing in the laborers

to work is: So that

he will remember that he said to them [so that the householder will remember that he told his laborers] to see the field, and

[that the homeowner told his workers] to inspect the field, and

“let us go and ask them” [he will go and ask his laborers]

whether it is good.

And we support this:

It was also taught so: The appraisal of the orphans is thirty days, and the appraisal of consecrated property is sixty days,

and

they announce in the morning and in the evening, at the time of sending out the laborers

from their work to their homes,

and at the time of bringing in the laborers

to their work.

And how do they announce?

He says,

the announcer:

“A certain field, by its identifying marks” [whose identifying marks are]

such and such,

“and by its boundaries” [and whose boundaries are]

there and there;

“so

and so

it is good

for producing grain, and for so and so

it is appraised” [appraised] by the court;

[it was appraised] by the court;

“anyone who wishes

to take, let him come and take.”

And this land is being sold

“in order to give to a woman” —

the money that will be paid —

her ketuba, and to a creditor [or to a creditor]

[or to a creditor]

his debt,

according to the matter.

And we object:

Why do I need

the announcer

to say

in his announcement

“in order to give to a woman” —

her ketuba, and to a creditor —

his debt?

What do the purchasers care, for what purpose it is being sold?!

And we explain: Because

there is

a purchaser

who is pleased

specifically

with a creditor

for whom it is sold for his debt,

because he is lenient with coins

accepting, as payment for the land, also broken and deficient coins, with which merchants do not trade — for they are the creditors — are particular about this.

And there is — on the other hand — a purchaser

on the other hand—

who is pleased

specifically

with a woman, for she takes

the money for the land

a little at a time [little by little], since she does not need all the money at once. Because she does not know how to engage in business with money, and needs it only for expenses, she is not particular if she is not paid all at once [Ran].

[in small amounts], as she does not need all the money at once. Since she does not know how to engage in business with money, and needs it only for expenditures, she does not mind if she is not paid all at once [Ran].