Arakhin 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: The appraisal of orphans’ property is for thirty days, and the appraisal of consecrated property is for sixty days; these are the words of Rabbi Meir,

as in our Mishna.

Rabbi Yehuda says: The appraisal of orphans’ property is for sixty days, and the appraisal of consecrated property is for ninety days. And the Sages say: Both this one and that one are for sixty days.

Rav Ḥisda said that Avimi said: The halakha is: The appraisal of orphans’ property is for sixty days.

Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin was sitting and reciting this tradition,

that Rav Ḥisda had said in the name of Avimi: The halakha is that the appraisal of orphans’ property is for sixty days; and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was hearing him.

He said to him

[he asked him],

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: Did you say “sixty”

days

in the name of Rav Ḥisda,

or

did you say “thirty”

days

in the name of Rav Ḥisda? He said to him

Rav Ḥiyya:

I said “sixty”

days!

They asked him further: Did you say concerning the appraisal

of orphans

in the name of Rav Ḥisda that sixty days are required,

or

concerning the appraisal

of consecrated property? He said to him

Rav Ḥiyya: Concerning the appraisal

of orphans!

They asked him further: Did Rav Ḥisda say, “The halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who says that the appraisal of orphans’ property is for sixty days,”

or

did he say, “The halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that the appraisal of orphans’ property is for sixty days”?

He said to him

Rav Ḥiyya: “The halakha is

in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

who stated in the beraita: ‘The appraisal of orphans’ property is for sixty days’”—that is what Rav Ḥisda said!

Rav Naḥman expressed astonishment to Rav Ḥiyya:

But

in the beraita that we learned above,

Rabbi Meir

said “thirty

days,”

he said,

so how could Rav Ḥisda have said in the name of Avimi that Rabbi Meir stated in the beraita that the appraisal of orphans’ property is for sixty days?!

He said to him

Rav Ḥiyya:

This is what Rav Ḥisda said:

When Avimi was teaching us that Rabbi Meir holds that sixty days are required, I would challenge him from the beraita here, which says that according to Rabbi Meir thirty days are sufficient, and

good blows

[strong blows]

would be administered to me by Avimi concerning this tradition

[that is, he would strike me when we were studying this teaching], for Avimi would explain to me that the beraita here posed no difficulty; and when I forgot the answer, Avimi would strike me.

Avimi would explain as follows: Sometimes thirty days are sufficient, and sometimes sixty days are required.

If he comes to make announcements

every day of the week

consecutively ,

thirty

days are required—this is the beraita here, which states that in this manner the appraisal of orphans’ property is for thirty days, and that of consecrated property for sixty days. But if he comes to make announcements only

on Monday

and Thursday,

the days on which the court sits and judges,

sixty

days are required. This is the statement of Avimi, that Rabbi Meir holds that announcements are made for sixty days.

And although, when you count them

[if you calculate]

as actual announcement days,

how many there are within the sixty-day period,

there are only eighteen

[eighteen]

days,

for there are only Mondays and Thursdays during a sixty-day announcement period beginning on a Monday and ending on a Thursday—and this is fewer actual announcement days than the thirty consecutive days of announcement—nevertheless, this is sufficient. The reason is:

since the matter continues

[since the matter extends over time], for these eighteen days are spread over sixty days,

people hear of it

[the announcement reaches people’s ears]! [This teaching is explained according to Rashi in this passage and in Menahot 7a, and in accordance with the explanation of the Rashash.]

Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: The court does not attend

to

the property of minor orphans,

to sell it in order to pay a debt imposed upon their property on account of their father’s debt,

unless interest is consuming it,

because they owed a gentile a debt on which interest was accruing until it was repaid, and the orphans would suffer a loss if they did not sell their property—to pay the creditor—until they came of age.

And

Rabbi Yoḥanan says:

The court does attend to the property of minor orphans

either in the case of a document containing interest, or

even

in the case of their father’s ketuba,

which they are obligated to pay from property inherited from their father. The reason is

because

even in the case of a woman’s ketuba, the orphans suffer a loss with regard to

sustenance,

for until they pay her ketuba, the orphans are obligated to provide the woman’s sustenance.

And we challenge this:

And Rav Asi, what is the reason he did not say

that the court attends

even in the case of a woman’s ketuba

?

And we answer: Because the orphans suffer no loss if they do not pay her ketuba, even though they are obligated to provide her sustenance,

for, after all, the Sages instituted for them

[for the orphans—Rashash]

the Sages

that

her labor

belongs to them as long as she is being sustained by them.

And we challenge this:

But the other one,

why does Rabbi Yoḥanan hold that her ketuba is collected from them? Is it not the case that they suffer no loss from providing sustenance, since they receive her labor in return?

And we answer:

Sometimes

it is insufficient

[sometimes her labor is insufficient] to offset the orphans’ loss resulting from providing her sustenance.

And we challenge Rav Asi, who holds that the court does not attend to collecting a ketuba from orphans, from our Mishna:

We learned: The appraisal of orphans’ property is for thirty days, and the appraisal of consecrated property is for sixty days, and they announce in the morning and in the evening. And with what are we dealing

when the court attends to orphans’ property, announcing and selling it?

If you say that it concerns a gentile creditor

who lent money with interest, and therefore the court attends to the orphans’ property,

will he heed us

[will he listen to our instruction] not to add interest during the period of the announcement?! Since he will not listen, we should sell the property without an announcement and repay him immediately, so that the orphans will not incur a loss by having to pay interest.

Rather, obviously,

our Mishna is dealing

with an Israelite creditor. And with what are we dealing? If he is consuming interest

[if this Israelite creditor is taking interest],

may we leave

him

[are we permitted to instruct him to violate the prohibition against interest]?!

But rather,

necessarily,

he is not consuming interest,

and the orphans suffer no loss if the court does not attend to their property until they come of age.

And

nevertheless,

it teaches

in our Mishna that the court

does attend

to the orphans’ property. This is difficult, since the court does not attend to it when they suffer no loss.

And we explain the objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan

who holds that one does attend to orphans’ property in order to collect a woman’s ketuba, there is no difficulty from the Mishna, as

he establishes it [that is, he establishes our Mishna]

as referring to

a woman’s ketuba,

and therefore one does attend to the orphans’ property.

But according to Rav Asi,

who holds that one does not attend even to collect a woman’s ketuba, but only for a creditor who charges interest,

it is difficult

from our Mishna: Why does one attend to the orphans’ property, since you are forced to say that it is referring to a creditor who does not charge interest?!

Rabbi Asi could say to you: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, is it satisfactory

to explain our Mishna in this way?! But what we answered according to his opinion—that our Mishna is referring to a woman’s ketuba—is impossible. For if so, why do they announce the sale, rather than immediately giving the woman the amount established by the court’s appraisal? And

do we leave it [is it appropriate to allow]

the orphans to provide

sustenance—

until the period of the announcement passes and the woman collects her ketuba—

when she will certainly cause a loss

to the orphans, while

we seize [we take hold of]

the profit that the orphans might gain through

the announcement, when we do not know whether we will profit

by making this announcement

or whether we will not profit,

since it is possible that no one will be found who offers more than the court’s appraisal?!

And we answer according to Rabbi Yoḥanan:

This is not difficult,

for our Mishna is speaking

of a woman claiming

her

ketuba in court.

And since this is the case, she no longer has a right to sustenance from the time of her claim [and the announcement causes no loss to the orphans, but only the possibility of profit],

and this is in accordance with what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, for Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: One who claims her ketuba in court

thereafter

no longer has a right to sustenance.

And we raise an objection:

If so,

if the orphans suffer no loss from waiting through the period of the announcement, then they likewise suffer no loss from waiting until they grow up. And if so,

attending

to collect from their property while they are minors

also should not be done,

and the objection returns to its place, even according to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Why does our Mishna say that one attends to collect from the property of minor orphans?!

And we answer: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, our Mishna is understandable. Indeed, it is referring to collection of a woman’s ketuba by a woman who claimed her ketuba in court. And as for the difficulty we raised—that if so the orphans suffer no loss even if the collection is not carried out while they are minors—

rather,

it is for this very reason that one attends to the orphans’ property:

since we attended—

we, the court—

at the outset

to the woman, causing her to lose her sustenance because she claimed her ketuba,

we attend to her

also

at the end

to collect her ketuba. That is, if we did not attend to the matter, she would initially refrain from coming, and as a result the orphans would lose the sustenance payments—Ritva, Ketubot 58, from the pages of the Rif.

And now we return to the objection:

Nevertheless, according to Rav Asi,

who holds that one does not attend to collect a woman’s ketuba, because he holds that the loss of sustenance is not considered a loss, since the orphans have the value of her labor,

it is difficult

from our Mishna: Why does one attend at all to collect from minor orphans?

And we answer:

Actually,

as we initially explained, the reason one attends to the property of the orphans in our Mishna is that it is referring to

a gentile creditor

who charges interest, thereby causing the orphans a loss. And as for what we asked—why do they make an announcement, since this causes a loss to the orphans, as the gentile will not agree to wait through the period of the announcement without interest—the case here is

that he accepted upon himself

the gentile

to be judged according to Jewish law,

which includes making an announcement and, consequently, his not charging interest during that period; therefore, the announcement causes no loss.

And we challenge this:

If so,

if the gentile accepted upon himself to be judged according to Jewish law, then he also accepts upon himself the Jewish law prohibiting him from charging interest during the period that he waits until the orphans grow up. And if so,

this interest

also

he should not collect,

and consequently there is again no reason to attend to the orphans’ property?

And we answer: The case is that the gentile

accepted this—

to wait through the period of the announcement—

but did not accept this:

to wait for the minors until they grow up without charging interest.

We again challenge Rav Asi:

Come and hear

from a Mishna in Gittin:

One does not collect from the property of orphans except from inferior-quality land,

yet one does attend to their property when it is inferior-quality land. And

in what case are we dealing

that it is possible to attend to their property?

If you say it is a gentile creditor

who charges interest and therefore one attends to the property,

will he listen

[would he listen] to us and agree to collect only from inferior-quality land?

Rather, it is obvious

that it is referring to

an Israelite creditor!

And how are we to understand this?

If

it is in a case

where the Israelite eats

the

interest,

and therefore one attends to the property,

do we leave him

to violate the prohibition against interest?!

Rather,

it certainly refers to a case

where he does not take interest, and it teaches

that with regard to inferior-quality land

—one attends,

which is difficult, since one does not attend to the property of minor orphans?

And we explain the objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who holds that one also attends to collect a woman’s ketuba, there is no difficulty, as

he establishes

this Mishna

as referring to a woman’s ketuba! But according to Rav Asi,

who holds that one does not attend to collect a woman’s ketuba,

it is difficult: How can one attend to the property?

Rav Asi could say to you: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who holds that one attends in the case of a woman’s ketuba,

is the Mishna satisfactory

when it states that one attends?! But it is impossible to establish it as referring to a woman’s ketuba. For

when it says that the court takes action? After all, it is impossible to establish it as referring to a woman’s marriage contract.

if

it is referring to a

ketuba,

then

why specifically

does it say that one collects from inferior-quality land

“from orphans”,

when a woman’s ketuba

is collected even from his own property from inferior-quality land,

as is stated in the first clause of that Mishna in Gittin: “A woman’s ketuba is collected from inferior-quality land”?! And we reject this:

This is not difficult

according to Rabbi Yoḥanan! It is possible to establish the Mishna as referring to a woman’s ketuba, and the statement that from orphans one collects only from inferior-quality land is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Meir, who says

in that Mishna:

A woman’s ketuba is collected from intermediate-quality land

from the husband himself, but

from orphans

the law changes, and one collects only

from inferior-quality land.

And now we return to the objection:

Nevertheless, according to Rav Asi it is difficult

from the Mishna in Gittin: Why does one attend to the property of minor orphans in order to collect even from inferior-quality land?

And we answer:

Actually,

as we initially explained, the reason one attends to the property of orphans in the Mishna in Gittin is that it is referring to

a gentile creditor

who charges interest and thereby causes the orphans a loss. And as for what we asked—will the gentile listen to us and agree to collect only from inferior-quality land?—the case here is

that he accepted upon himself to be judged according to Jewish law,

which provides that one collects from orphans only from inferior-quality land.

And we ask:

If so,

if the gentile accepted upon himself to be judged according to Jewish law, then he also accepts upon himself the Jewish law not to charge interest during this period. Consequently,

the interest

for the period during which he waits until the orphans grow up

he should likewise not collect,

and there is no loss if we wait; once again, there is no reason to attend to the orphans’ property?

And we answer: The case is one involving a gentile who

accepted

upon

this

that he would collect from orphans only from inferior-quality land,

but did not accept this,

to wait for the minors until they grow up without charging interest.

We again challenge Rav Asi:

Come and hear

from the beraita above: “And he [the auctioneer] says, etc.,

on condition that he will give the woman—

her ketuba, and the creditor—

his debt.””

This field is sold. Thus, one attends to the property of orphans.

And we explain the objection:

Granted,

the fact established by the beraita that one attends in order to pay

the creditor

does not present a difficulty as to why one attends, for

both the Master

Rabbi Yoḥanan and

the Master

Rav Asi will establish it

as we answered

above: It is referring to a gentile creditor who charges interest, who accepted upon himself to wait through the period of the announcement and does not charge interest during that period, but did not accept upon himself to wait for the minors until they grow up, and charges interest during that period. The orphans suffer a loss if the debt is not paid immediately.

But

the statement that they announce the sale in order to pay a woman

her ketuba—

this is difficult: Why does one attend?

We further explain the objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who holds that one attends in the case of a woman’s ketuba,

it is satisfactory,

for it may be said that the case is one involving a woman who claimed her ketuba in court. Since one attends to her case in order to cause her to lose her sustenance on account of her claim for the ketuba, one attends in order to collect her ketuba.

But according to Rav Asi,

who holds that one does not attend to collect a woman’s ketuba,

it is difficult

why one attends in order to pay the woman her ketuba.

And we answer:

In what case are we dealing here? When the father was liable [when the orphans’ father]

before his death

acknowledged

that he still owed the woman her ketuba [as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, will state below: when the debtor acknowledges the debt, one attends to the matter]. In such a case, one attends even to the property of minor orphans.

Now that you have arrived at this

understanding—that the case is one in which the debtor acknowledged the debt—we retract what we said above in explaining why one attends, namely, that it is referring to a gentile creditor. Rather,

all of them as well

should be explained differently: The case is one

in which the debtor acknowledged the debt,

and therefore one attends even to the property of minor orphans.

Mirmar collected a divorcee’s ketuba

after her divorcing husband died,

from the property of orphans,

who were minors!

And we ask:

Ravina said to Ameimar: But did Rav Yehuda not say in the name of Rav Asi: One does not attend to the property of

minor

orphans unless interest is consuming it, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Either for a document that contains interest, or for a woman’s ketuba because of the loss of

sustenance

payments?

And now it is difficult: How did he collect the ketuba of a divorcee,

for

after all,

even Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say

that one attends to collect a ketuba except in the case of

a widow,

because

she causes the orphans to lose

their

sustenance

if she does not collect immediately.

But a divorcee,

who has no right at all to sustenance—

one does not

attend to the matter. How, then, did he collect the ketuba of a divorcee?

And we answer:

He said to him,

Ameimar said to Ravina: We did not accept that the reason for Rabbi Yoḥanan’s ruling—that one attends to a woman’s ketuba—is sustenance, such that we would say that collection is performed only for a widow. Rather,

we

understand

that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan as being taught because of favor [that we accepted that the reason is favor]: so that men will find favor in the eyes of women—because their ketuba is collected even when the orphans are minors—and women will wish to marry them. Therefore, even a divorcee collects from minor orphans.

Rav Naḥman said: At first [initially]

I would not attend to the property of minor orphans

in order to collect from it, but

once I heard this statement that Rav Huna, our colleague

said [our colleague]:

Orphans

who consume

that which is not theirs,

such as minor orphans who do not pay what is owed to a creditor from their property,

should follow their inheritance [they should follow their deceased benefactor, who left them this money], meaning: He was cursing them that they should not live long, but should follow their father to death, since they consume something that is not theirs [Rabbeinu Gershom].

From this point onward, I attend

even to the property of minor orphans, so that they will not consume property that is not theirs.

let them go after their inheritor, who left them this money], that is to say: He was cursing them that they should not live long, but should follow their father to death, since they eat something that is not theirs [Rabbeinu Gershom]!

From that point onward I do take action

even against the property of minor orphans, so that they will not consume property that does not belong to them.

And we explain:

What is the reason initially that they do not

collect from the property of minor orphans?

Rav Pappa said: Repayment of a debt is a mitzva

for it is incumbent upon him to repay his debt and to fulfill his word, as it is written: “A true measure”; that your yes shall be truthful, and your no shall be truthful — Rashi, Ketubot 86.

And orphans

who are minors

are not capable of performing a mitzva

.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said

another reason:

Perhaps he handed him collateral

[perhaps the father, before his death, handed the creditor bundles of coins, or silver and gold] as security, and the orphans are not required to pay the debt.

And we explain:

What difference is there between them,

between Rav Pappa, who holds that the reason one does not resort to collection is that repayment is a mitzva, and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who holds that the reason one does not resort to collection is the concern that collateral had been handed over?

There is a difference between them:

1.

When he acknowledged

[when the orphans’ father]

before his death

that he was still liable for his debt: according to Rav Pappa, one does not resort to collection even in this situation; but according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, one does resort to collection.

2.

Alternatively: when they excommunicated him

[they excommunicated the father of the orphans because he did not pay his debt, and he did not have his excommunication annulled]

and he died under his excommunication

[he died while still excommunicated]. In such a case, there is no concern that he handed collateral to the creditor without the knowledge of the court, for had he paid him, he would have done so before the court in order that they annul his excommunication. In such a case, according to Rav Pappa one does not resort to collection, but according to Rav Huna one does resort to collection, since there is no concern that he handed over collateral.

They sent from there

[from the Land of Israel]:

1. The Mishna and the beraita here, and the Mishna above in Gittin, which imply that one does resort to collection from the property of minor orphans in order to repay a debt, are referring to a case

where they excommunicated him

and he died under his excommunication,

and the halakha follows Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, that in such a case one does resort to collection.

2.

And the halakha follows Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

that one does not resort to collection from the property of minor orphans unless they excommunicated him and he died under his excommunication, and not according to Rav Naḥman, who holds that one always resorts to collection from the property of minor orphans, [Ma’aseh Hoshev in understanding Rashi].