Arakhin

then if it is with the latter's [knowledge and] agreement, he has fulfilled his duty, but without his [knowledge and] agreement he has not fulfilled it. [If he said,] ‘I vow the burnt-offering or peace-offering of So-and-so’, then he has fulfilled his obligation, whether it was done with his knowledge or not?1 — Samuel will answer you: This was taught with regard to the time of the [obtainment of] atonement,2 he having agreed at the time the sacrifice was [designated] separated [for his purpose]; whereas I refer to [his agreement necessary] at the time of its being separated. Now this is in conflict with the view of ‘Ulla; for ‘Ulla said: They have made no distinction between burnt-offering and sin-offering except in this: the sin-offering requires the agreement [of the one who has to bring it] at the time of its designation, whereas the burnt-offering needs no such agreement. But as for the time of the atonement, in the case of either: If with his agreement he has fulfilled his duty, if not with his agreement, he has not fulfilled his duty. An objection was raised: [If he says:] ‘I vow the sin.offering, guilt-offering, burnt-offering, or peace-offering due from So-and-so’ then [if they are offered] with the latter's agreement, he has ful filled his obligation. without the latter's agreement. he has not done so? — Samuel refers this teaching to the time of the designation. ‘Ulla to that of the atonement. R. Papa said: The two Baraithas3 do not contradict one another; one refers to the time of the atonement, the other to that of the designation. Nor do they contradict the Amoraim, Samuel interpreting the first as referring to the time of the atonement, and the second as dealing with the time of the designation; whereas ‘Ulla interprets them inversely. The Amoraim, however, surely differ. But that is self-evident? You might have said: When Samuel says that he refers it to ‘the time of the designation’,4 he means, ‘Also to the time of the designation’, although thereby the first Baraitha would be contradicting him,5 therefore we are informed [otherwise].6 THUS ALSO IS IT THE CASE WITH A DOCUMENT OF DIVORCE: ONE COERCES HIM etc. R. Shesheth said: If one utters a protest with regard to a document of divorce,7 then his protest is valid. Is not that self-evident? — No. It is necessary to state that for the case where he was first coerced and then agreed thereto. You might have said he has [by his agreement] cancelled his protest, therefore we are informed his protest stands. For [if it were not so] let [the Mishnah] state: [One coerces him] ‘Until he gives it’. What is the meaning of UNTIL HE SAYS? [Hence it means,] Until he cancels his protest [expressly]. MISHNAH. [THE PROPERTY] OF ORPHANS WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED8 [MUST BE PROCLAIMED FOR] THIRTY DAYS, AND [THE PROPERTY OF] THE SANCTUARY WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED [FOR] SIXTY DAYS; THE PROCLAMATION MUST BE MADE IN THE MORNING AND IN THE EVENING. GEMARA. Why in the morning and in the evening? — Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: At the time when the labourers leave [work] and at the time when they enter [upon their work]. ‘At the time when the labourers leave’, for there may be someone desirous of buying, who would say to them: ‘Go and examine it for me’. ‘At the time when they enter [upon their work]’, so that he may remind himself of what he had told them and ask them. Thus was it also taught: [The property] of orphans which has been valued [must be proclaimed] for thirty days, that of the Sanctuary for sixty days, the proclamation to be made in the morning and in the evening, at the time when the labourers leave, and at the time when they enter. [The proclaimer] says, The field of So-and-so, of these characteristics and boundaries, is of such and such quality,9 and is valued at so much. Let whosoever wants to buy it come and buy it for the purpose of paying a woman her kethubah10 or a creditor his debt. Why is it necessary to state ‘for the purpose of paying a woman her kethubah or a creditor his debt’? Because there are some who would prefer dealing with a creditor who is lenient with regard to the coins,11 while others prefer dealing with a woman, who will take it also in instalments. whether that offering had come with or without his knowledge; and the other teaching that in every case knowledge of him on whose behalf they were offered was indispensable. (and agreed) or not. fact that he is forced to give it. Such a protest would invalidate the document. the debt contracted by the father. become thin. Such would be looked upon with misgiving by the widow, but not by the merchant, who would know whether the depreciation is too serious for him to accept them. On the other hand, he will insist on full payment, whilst the widow, who uses the money for her own needs, rather than for investment in business enterprise, will be willing to accept payment by instalments, thus allowing the purchaser to use the capital for himself in the interval.