Arakhin 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to Rav Pappa, who holds that the reason that one does not collect is because of the mitzva:

We learned

in our Mishna:

The appraisal of orphans’ property is for thirty days, and the appraisal of consecrated property is for sixty days, and announcements are made in the morning and in the evening,

which proves that one does collect from the property of minor orphans.

And with what are we dealing? If you say that it is with a gentile creditor

who does not wish to wait until they come of age, and for that reason one collects from the orphans,

will he obey

[that is, will he heed our instruction] and wait through the days of the announcement without collecting? If so, what purpose is there to an announcement?!

Rather, it is obvious

that the case is

a Jewish creditor.

If so, why does one collect from the property of minor orphans?

And we explain the objection:

Granted, according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,

who holds that the reason that one does not collect is because perhaps the father left bundles of money with the creditor,

he establishes it as a case where the debtor acknowledged

[that is, the orphans’ father]

and admitted

at the time of his death that he still owed the debt, and therefore one does collect from the orphans’ property!

But according to Rav Pappa,

who holds that the reason that one does not collect is because of the mitzva, and one does not collect even when it is certain that the debt was not repaid—

it is difficult!

And we answer:

Rav Pappa could say to you:

a.

If you wish, say

that our Mishna should be explained as referring to the collection of a

ketuba

from a woman, and a ketuba is collected

because of ḥina

—the favor that men find in the eyes of women—since a woman can collect her ketuba even from minor orphans.

b.

And if you wish, say

that our Mishna should be explained as we initially explained it:

with a gentile creditor

who is unwilling to wait until the orphans come of age, and for that reason one collects for him. And as for what we challenged—that if so, he would not wait even through the period of the announcement—here we are dealing with a case

in which the gentile accepted upon himself

the gentile

to submit to judgment according to Jewish law,

which requires an announcement, and therefore he is willing to wait through the entire period of the announcement.

And we challenge the latter resolution:

If

the case is one in which he

accepted upon himself

to submit to judgment according to Jewish law, then he also accepts the Jewish law that one does not collect from the property of minor orphans. If so,

let him wait until they come of age

[let him wait for the orphans until they come of age], and we should not collect from minor orphans?

And we answer: The case is that of a gentile creditor

who accepted this

—to wait through the period of the announcement—

but did not accept

this

—not to collect from the property of minor orphans—and therefore one does collect from it. [This explanation of the Gemara follows the meaning of Rashi and the Rosh in the Shita Mekubetzet.]

We again challenge Rav Pappa:

Come and hear

the earlier beraita: “And he says [the announcer], and so on:

In order to give the woman

her ketuba, and the creditor

his debt, this field belonging to orphans is being sold.” Thus, one does collect from the property of minor orphans in order to pay a creditor.

And with what are we dealing?

If you say that it is with a gentile creditor

who does not wish to wait until they come of age, and therefore one collects from the orphans,

will he obey

and wait through the period of the announcement without collecting? If so, what purpose is there to an announcement?!

Rather, it is obvious that it is with a Jewish creditor.

If so, why does one collect from the orphans?

And we explain the objection:

Granted, according to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, he establishes it as a case where the debtor acknowledged

that he still owed the debt!

But according to Rav Pappa,

who holds that one does not collect even when the debtor acknowledged the debt,

granted

that the statement in the beraita that one collects for a woman

her ketuba

from the orphans’ property presents no difficulty for Rav Pappa, because in the case of a ketuba one does collect

because of ḥina; but in the case of a creditor, it is difficult!

And we answer:

Actually,

it is as we initially explained it,

with a gentile creditor

who is unwilling to wait until the orphans come of age, and therefore one collects from the orphans. Rather,

it is a case in which he accepted upon himself to submit to judgment according to Jewish law,

which requires an announcement, and therefore an announcement is relevant.

And we challenge this:

If he accepted upon himself, let him wait

also

until they come of age

—the orphans—so why does one collect from them?

And we answer:

He accepted this

—the law requiring an announcement—

but did not accept this:

to wait until the orphans come of age, and therefore one collects from them!

Rava said

a third reason for the law that one does not collect from the property of minor orphans:

because of a receipt

—that is, we are concerned that perhaps the promissory note was paid, and the creditor gave the orphans’ father a receipt as evidence that the debt had been repaid, but the orphans do not know where it is. Therefore, one does not collect from them.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Are we concerned about a receipt?!

But we learned:

A divorced woman

who collects

her ketuba from her husband’s property

not in his presence,

as, for example, when he sent her a bill of divorce from overseas,

may collect only by means of an oath

that she has not already collected her ketuba; and in any event, by means of an oath, she collects.

And

concerning this Mishna,

Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira

[that was his title]

said: “An incident came before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa in Antioch, and he said: They taught

in this Mishna that she collects by means of an oath, and the court descends upon a person’s property in his absence,

only with regard to a woman’s ketuba, because of ḥina!

So that men will find favor in the eyes of women—since a woman can collect her ketuba even in her husband’s absence—and women will marry them.

But a creditor

who comes to collect from the property of one who owes him, even by means of an oath,

may not

collect, and the court does not descend upon his property until he returns.

And Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman

disagreeing:

Even a creditor as well

may collect [by means of an oath] in the debtor’s absence.

And now we challenge this:

And if you are concerned

when a creditor comes to collect from the property of minor orphans

about a receipt,

and therefore one does not collect from their property even by means of an oath,

there as well—

in the case of a creditor who comes to collect from the property of the one who owes him, in that person’s absence—

let us be concerned

about repayment, and let us be concerned that he has a receipt in his possession testifying that the debt was repaid. Why, then, did Rava say in the name of Rav Naḥman that he collects, by means of an oath, in the debtor’s absence?

And we answer:

He said to him

Rava said to Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua:

There

—when a creditor comes to collect in the debtor’s absence, and we said that he collects and we are not concerned about repayment and a receipt—

it is as we stated the reason: “Otherwise, everyone could take his fellow’s money

as a loan

and go and sit overseas”

[and you would be locking the door in the face of borrowers—Gemara, Ketubot 88].

Rava said: The halakha is that one does not collect from the property of orphans

who are minors, except when the debtor acknowledged the debt or when the court excommunicated him and he died under his excommunication, because we are concerned about a receipt.

And if he said

the father before his death:

Give

so-and-so payment of my debt!

One collects,

as this is a case where the debtor acknowledged the debt.

If the father said: Give

this field and this maneh

[or a maneh]

this

to so-and-so toward my debt!

One collects

to pay him,

and

also

one does not appoint a guardian,

to investigate whether, despite the father’s saying “Give,” he may already have repaid the debt and merely forgotten. Since the father designated this particular field and this particular maneh, it is certainly clear that he knew that he had not repaid the debt, and there is no concern.

But if the father said: Give

an unspecified field and an unspecified maneh

to so-and-so toward my debt!

One collects and appoints a guardian,

because we are concerned that the father may already have repaid the debt before witnesses or written him a receipt, and now forgotten. Therefore, a guardian is appointed to investigate the matter. And Rashi explained: A guardian is appointed so that he will select a choice portion for the orphans and arrange for the creditor to be paid from inferior-quality land.

The Sages of Nehardea said,

disagreeing with Rava:

In all of these cases,

even in the case of this particular maneh and this particular field,

one collects and appoints a guardian, except

[other than]

when there is found

for the orphans

a field that is not his

[their father’s], since once the witnesses testify that it is stolen property in his possession, it is removed from him, and one does not appoint a guardian to seek witnesses who will contradict these witnesses.

For

since they now testify that it is stolen property,

we do not establish witnesses as liars

[that is, we do not presume witnesses to be lying]

!

Rav Ashi said: Therefore, regarding collecting

from the property of minor orphans,

we do not collect, for Rava stated the halakha: One does not collect!

And if we do collect

[and when we do collect]—for example, when the debtor acknowledged the debt, or when the court excommunicated him and he died under his excommunication, or when he said “Give,” whether he specified a particular field or referred to an unspecified field—

we appoint

[we establish]

a guardian, as the Sages of Nehardea said: In all of these cases one collects and appoints a guardian, except when there is found a field that is not his, for we do not establish witnesses as liars!

[This is explained according to the Ran, Ketubot 59a in the pages of the Rif.]