Arakhin 22a — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: The appraisal of the orphans is thirty days, and the appraisal of consecrated property is sixty days, the words of Rabbi Meir,

as in our Mishna.

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

Rav Hisda said in the name of Avimi: The halakha is: The appraisal of the orphans is sixty days.

Rav Hiyya bar Avin was sitting and saying this teaching,

which Rav Hisda had said in the name of Avimi: “The halakha is: The appraisal of the orphans is sixty days,” and Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak was hearing him.

He said to him [he asked him],

[he asked him],

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak to Rav Hiyya bar Avin: “Sixty

days

did you say

in the name of Rav Hisda,

or thirty

days

did you say?” He said to him

Rav Hiyya:

“Sixty

days I said!”

They asked further: Concerning the appraisal

of orphans

did you say in the name of Rav Hisda that sixty days are required,

or concerning the appraisal

of

consecrated property?” He said to him

Rav Hiyya: Concerning the appraisal

of orphans!

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

according to Rabbi Meir,

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

or did he say, “The halakha is

did he say, “The halakha is

according to Rabbi Yehuda,

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

He said to him

Rav Hiyya: “The halakha is

according to Rabbi Meir,

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

And Rav Nahman expressed astonishment to Rav Hiyya:

But

in the beraita that we learned above,

Rabbi Meir says,

“thirty”

days —

he said —

so how did Rav Hisda say in the name of Avimi that Rabbi Meir said in the beraita, “The appraisal of the orphans is sixty days”?!

He said to him

Rav Hiyya:

This is what Rav Hisda said: When Avimi was teaching us that Rabbi Meir holds that it is sixty days, I would challenge him from the beraita here, which says that according to Rabbi Meir thirty days is sufficient, and

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 [A0180]]

[strong blows]

he would receive from Avimi concerning this teaching [that is, he would strike me when we were studying this teaching], because Avimi would explain to me that there was no difficulty from the beraita here; and when I forgot the answer, Avimi would strike me.

[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.

And this is how Avimi would answer: Sometimes thirty days is sufficient, and sometimes sixty days is required.

If he came to announce

all the days of the week

continuously ,

thirty

days are required — this is the beraita here, which says that in this manner the appraisal of the orphans is thirty days, and that of consecrated property is sixty days. But if he came to announce only

on Monday

and Thursday,

which are the days when the court sits and judges,

sixty

days are required. This is Avimi’s statement, that Rabbi Meir holds that they announce for sixty days.

And although, when you count them, sir, [A0211]]if you calculate

[if you calculate]

the days of announcement

literally, how many they are out of the sixty days,

they are only eighteen [A0215]]eightteen

[eighteen]

days,

for these are the Mondays and Thursdays included in an announcement of sixty days beginning on Monday and ending on Thursday, and they are fewer than the actual days of announcement in an announcement of thirty continuous days, nevertheless this is sufficient. The reason is:

since the matter continues [A0219]]the announcement reaches across the sixty days,

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

people hear it [A0221]]the announcement reaches people’s ears! [This teaching is explained according to Rashi in this passage and in Menahot 7a, and according to the explanation of the Rashash].

[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 in the name of Rav Asi: The court does not attend

to

the property of minor orphans

to sell it for a debt imposed upon their property on account of their father’s debt

unless interest is consuming it,

for they were obligated to a gentile for a debt upon which interest was accruing until it would be repaid, and there is a loss to the orphans if they do not sell from their property — to pay the creditor — until they grow up.

And

Rabbi Yohanan says: The court attends to the property of minor orphans

The court does attend to the property of minor orphans

either for a document containing interest, or

even

for a woman’s ketuba

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

because even in the case of a woman’s ketuba there is a loss to the orphans of

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 object:

And Rav Asi, for what reason did he not say

that the court attends even

for a woman’s ketuba

?

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

for indeed the Sages instituted for them [A0246]] [for the orphans — Rashash]

[for the orphans—Rashash]

the Sages

that

her handiwork

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

And we object:

But the other one,

namely, Rabbi Yohanan: Why does he hold that they collect her ketuba from them? Is there not no loss to them from the sustenance, since they have, corresponding to it, her handiwork?

And we answer:

Sometimes

it is not sufficient [sometimes it is insufficient] for her handiwork to make up for the loss of the orphans on account of her sustenance.

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

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

We learned: 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. And in what case are we dealing?

where the court attends to the property of orphans to announce and sell it?

If you say that it is a gentile creditor

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

will he listen? [will he heed our voice] not to add interest during the period of the announcement?! And since he will not listen, we should sell without an announcement and repay immediately, so that they will not incur the loss of paying interest.

[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, it is obvious

that our Mishna is speaking

of a Jewish creditor. And in what case are we dealing? If he is consuming interest [taking interest],

this Jewish creditor?

May we leave

him [and permit him] [A0276]]—are we permitted to transgress the prohibition of interest?!

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

But rather,

by force of necessity,

he is not consuming interest,

and there is no loss to the orphans if we do not attend to them until they grow up,

and

nevertheless

it teaches

in our Mishna that

the court attends

to the property of the orphans. And this is difficult, since there is no attendance when they have no loss.

And we explain our question:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan

who holds that one does resort to orphans in order to collect a woman’s ketובה, there is no difficulty from the Mishna, for

he establishes it

he establishes our Mishna]

as referring to a woman’s ketובה,

and therefore one does resort to them.

But according to Rav Asi,

who holds that one does not resort even for a woman’s ketובה, but only for a gentile creditor who takes interest,

it is difficult

from our Mishna: Why does one resort to them, since you are forced to say that it is referring to a creditor who does not take interest?!

Rabbi Asi could say to you: But according to Rabbi Yohanan, is it satisfactory

our Mishna?! For the answer that we gave according to his view—that our Mishna is referring to a woman’s ketובה—is impossible. For if so, why do they announce the sale and do not immediately give the woman [her payment] according to the appraisal of the court, and

do we leave it

and is it proper to leave] the orphans to provide

sustenance—

until the time of the announcement passes and the woman collects her ketובה—

which certainly causes a loss

to the orphans, while

we seize

and we seize] the profit that the orphans have through the

announcement, for we do not know whether we profit

by this that we announce

or whether we do not profit,

for perhaps no one will be found who adds to the court’s appraisal?!

And we answer according to Rabbi Yohanan:

This is not difficult,

for our Mishna is speaking

of a woman who claims

the woman

her ketובה in court,

and since this is so, she no longer has sustenance from the time of the claim [and there is no loss to the orphans through the announcement, but only a possible profit],

and it is as Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel, for Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A woman who claims her ketובה in court

afterward

no longer has sustenance.

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

that the orphans suffer no loss through delaying for the time of the announcement, then they likewise suffer no loss through delaying until they grow up, and if so,

resorting

to collect from their property while they are minors

also one does not resort to it,

and the question returns to its place even according to Rabbi Yohanan: Why does one resort in our Mishna to collecting from the property of minor orphans?!

And we answer: Our Mishna is understandable according to Rabbi Yohanan. Indeed, it is referring to collecting the woman’s ketובה from a woman who claimed her ketובה in court. And regarding what was difficult for us—that if so the orphans do not lose even if it is not collected while they are minors—

rather,

for this reason one resorts to the orphans,

since we resorted—

we, the court—

at the outset

to the woman in order to cause her to lose her sustenance because of her claim for the ketובה,

we resort to her

also

at the end

to collect her ketובה; that is to say: If we do not resort [to the orphans], she refrains from coming at the outset, and it emerges that she causes the orphans to lose sustenance—Ran, Ketubot 58, from the pages of the Rif.

And now we return to our question:

In any event, according to Rav Asi

who holds that one does not resort for a woman’s ketובה, and this is because he holds that the loss of sustenance is not considered a loss, since the orphans have the product of her labor. If so,

it is difficult

from our Mishna: Why does one resort at all to collecting from minor orphans?

And we answer:

In fact,

as we explained at the outset, one resorts to the property of the orphans in our Mishna because it is speaking

of a gentile creditor

who takes interest and the orphans suffer a loss. And regarding what we asked—why do they make an announcement, since the orphans suffer a loss, as the gentile will not listen to us to wait through the time of the announcement without interest? Here it is speaking of one

who accepted upon himself

the gentile

to be judged according to Jewish law, which includes making an announcement and, consequently, not taking interest during this time; therefore there is no loss through the announcement.

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

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

that the gentile accepted upon himself to be judged according to Jewish law, then he also accepts upon himself the Jewish law not to take interest during the time that he waits until they grow up, and if so,

this interest

of his

also he should not take,

and consequently there is no longer any reason to resort to the property of the orphans?

And we answer: It is referring to a gentile

who accepted this

to wait through the time of the announcement,

but did not accept this

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

We further raise a difficulty against Rav Asi:

Come and hear

from a Mishna in Gittin:

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

but from inferior-quality land one does resort to their property; and

with what are we dealing

that it should be possible to resort to their property?

If you say it is a gentile creditor

who takes interest and therefore one resorts to them,

will he listen

will he listen] to us not to take except from inferior-quality land?

Rather, it is obvious

that it is speaking of

a Jewish creditor!

And how is it speaking?

If

in a case

where the Jew eats

the

interest

and therefore one resorts to them,

do we leave him

to the Jew to violate the prohibition of interest?!

Rather,

it is certainly speaking

where he does not eat interest, and it teaches

that for inferior-quality land—

one resorts,

and this is difficult: Is it not the case that one does not resort to the property of minor orphans?

And we explain our question:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan

who holds that one also resorts for a woman’s ketובה, there is no difficulty, for

he establishes it

as referring to a woman’s ketובה.

But according to Rav Asi

who holds that one does not resort for a woman’s ketובה,

it is difficult

how does one resort?

Rav Asi could say to you: But according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that one resorts for a woman’s ketובה,

is the Mishna satisfactory

—that one resorts?! For it is impossible to establish it as referring to a woman’s ketובה, and

if

it is speaking of a

ketובה,

it is speaking,

why specifically

that one collects from inferior-quality land

“from orphans,”

since a woman’s ketובה

is even from his own property also from inferior-quality land, as is explained in the first clause of that Mishna in Gittin: “And a woman’s ketובה is from inferior-quality land”?! And we reject this:

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

for Rabbi Yohanan! It is possible to establish it as referring to a woman’s ketובה, and as for what the Mishna says—that from orphans one collects only from inferior-quality land—

it is Rabbi Meir, who says

in that Mishna:

A woman’s ketובה is 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 our question:

In any event, according to Rav Asi it is difficult

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

And we answer:

In fact,

as we explained at the outset, and this—that one resorts to the property of orphans in the Mishna in Gittin—is because it is speaking

of a gentile creditor

who takes interest and the orphans suffer a loss. And regarding what we asked—would the gentile listen to us to take only from inferior-quality land? Here it is speaking of one

who accepted upon himself to be judged according to Jewish law,

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

And we raise a difficulty:

If so,

that the gentile accepted upon himself to be judged according to Jewish law, then he also accepts upon himself the Jewish law not to take interest during this time, and consequently

the interest

for the time that he waits until they grow up

also he should not take,

and there is no loss if we wait; consequently, there is again no reason to resort to the property of the orphans?

And we answer: It is speaking of a gentile who

accepted

upon

himself this,

not to collect from orphans except from inferior-quality land,

but did not accept this,

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

We further raise a difficulty against Rav Asi:

Come and hear

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

on condition that he give the woman—

her ketובה, and to the creditor—

his debt.”

This field is being sold; it follows that one resorts to the property of orphans.

And we explain our question:

Granted,

this, which is demonstrated in the beraita—that one resorts in order to give payment to a

creditor—

is not difficult: Why does one resort, for

whether the Master

Rabbi Yohanan or

whether the Master

Rav Asi, they will establish it

as we answered

above: It is a gentile creditor who takes interest, and he accepted upon himself to wait through the time of the announcement and does not take interest during this time, but he did not accept upon himself to wait for the minors until they grow up, and he takes interest during this time; therefore the orphans suffer a loss if they do not pay immediately.

But

this that is written—that they announce in order to give the woman

her ketובה—

is difficult: Why does one resort?

We further explain our question:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who holds that one resorts for a woman’s ketובה,

it is satisfactory,

for one can say that it is speaking of a woman who claims her ketובה in court; since one resorts for her in order to cause her to lose her sustenance because of her claim for the ketובה, one resorts for her in order to collect her ketובה.

But according to Rav Asi,

who holds that one does not resort for a woman’s ketובה,

it is difficult

why does one resort to give the woman her ketובה?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case where he was obligated and

when the father of the orphans]

admitted

before his death that he still owed the woman her ketובה [and as Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua will say below: when the debtor admits, one resorts], and in such a case one resorts even to the property of minor orphans.

Now that you have arrived at this,

that we establish it as a case where the debtor admits, let us retract what we said above in answering why one resorts—that it is speaking of a gentile creditor. Rather,

all of them also

can be answered in another manner: It is speaking

when the debtor admits,

and therefore one resorts even to minor orphans.

Marimar collected a divorced woman’s ketובה

when the divorcer died

from the property of orphans

who were minors!

And we raise a difficulty:

Ravina said to Amemar, but Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Asi: One does not resort to the property of minor orphans

minor

unless interest was eating them, and Rabbi Yohanan says: Either for a document that contains interest, or for a woman’s ketובה because of

the loss of

sustenance.

And now it is difficult: How did he collect a ketובה for a divorced woman,

and

after all,

even Rabbi Yohanan did not say

that one resorts for a ketובה except

for a widow,

because

she suffers the loss

for the orphans

of sustenance

if she does not collect immediately;

but a divorced woman,

who has no sustenance at all—

no,

one does not resort; and how did he collect a ketובה for a divorced woman?

And we answer:

He said to him

Amemar to Ravina: We did not accept that the reason of Rabbi Yohanan, that one resorts for a woman’s ketובה, is because of sustenance, so that it should be said that they collect only for a widow. Rather,

we

[understand] that statement

of Rabbi Yohanan as referring to the reason of favor, we teach it

that we accepted that the reason is favor—that the men should find favor in the eyes of women, through the fact that she collects her ketובה even when the orphans are minors, and they will wish to marry them]; therefore even a divorced woman collects from minor orphans.

Rav Naḥman said: At first

at the beginning]

I would not resort to the property of orphans

minor orphans in order to collect from them, but

once I heard this which Rav Huna, our colleague, said

our colleague]:

Orphans

who eat

that which is not theirs,

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

let them go after their bequeather

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 this point onward I resort

even to the property of minor orphans, so that they should not eat property that is not theirs.

And we explain:

Initially, what is the reason that they do not

collect from the property of minor orphans?

Rav Pappa said: Repayment of a debt is a mitzva

for it is a mitzva incumbent upon him to repay his debt and make his words true, as it is written: “Yes shall be just,” so that your yes shall be just, and your no shall be just — Rashi, Ketubot 86.

And orphans

minor

are not capable of performing a mitzva

.

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said

another reason:

Perhaps he handed him bundles

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

And we explain:

What is the difference between them,

between Rav Pappa, who holds that the reason they do not collect is on account of a mitzva, and Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, who holds that the reason they do not collect is because of the concern for collateral?

There is a difference between them:

a.

When he was obligated

[when the father of the orphans]

admits

before his death that he still owed his debt: according to Rav Pappa, they do not collect even in this case; but according to Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, they do collect.

b.

Alternatively: when they placed him under a ban

[they excommunicated the father of the orphans] because he was not paying his debt, and he did not have his ban released,

and he died while under his ban

[and died while still under the ban]. For there is no concern that he handed over collateral to the creditor without the knowledge of the court, since if he had repaid him, he would have done so in court, so that they would release his ban. In such a case, according to Rav Pappa, they do not collect; but according to Rav Huna, they do collect, since there is no concern that he handed over collateral.

They sent word from there

[from the Land of Israel]:

a. The Mishna and the beraita here, and the Mishna in Gittin above, which imply that they collect from a creditor to repay him from the property of minor orphans, the reason for this is that it is speaking of

when they placed him under a ban

and he died while under his ban,

and the halakha follows Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua, that in such a case they collect.

b.

And the halakha follows Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua,

that they do not collect from the property of minor orphans unless they placed him under a ban and he died while under his ban, and not like Rav Nahman, who holds that they always collect from the property of minor orphans [Maaseh Hoshev in understanding Rashi].