Arakhin

Our Rabbis taught: [The property] of orphans which has been valued [must be proclaimed for thirty days], and [that] of the Sanctuary which has been valued, for sixty days. This is the view of R. Meir. R. Judah says: [The property] of orphans that has been valued must be proclaimed for sixty days and [that] of the Sanctuary which has been valued for ninety days. But the Sages say: Both of them for sixty days. R. Hisda said in the name of Abimi: The halachah is: [The property] of orphans that has been valued must be proclaimed for sixty days. R. Hiyya b. Abin sat and reported this law. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac to him: Did you say ‘sixty’ or ‘thirty’? He replied: ‘Sixty’. ‘Of the orphans or of the Sanctuary?’ He answered: ‘Of the orphans’. ‘In accord with R. Meir or with R. Judah’? He replied: ‘With R. Meir’. ‘But R. Meir said "thirty days"?’ He answered: Thus did R. Hisda say: Many a beating did I receive from Abimi because of this [teaching]: If he is to proclaim on consecutive days, then [the period of proclamation] is thirty days; if on Mondays and Thursdays alone, then it is sixty days.1 And although if you, Sir, were to count the days [of actual proclamation] it will be only eighteen,2 still, since the matter is drawn out [over sixty days], people hear about it. Rab Judah said in the name of R. Assi: One must not distrain upon the property of orphans except if interest was consuming it. R. Johanan says: Either because of a document of indebtedness bearing interest, or because of the kethubah of a woman [so as to save from further payment] on account of her.3 Why does not R. Assi say. ‘Because of a woman's kethubah’? — Because the Rabbis have arranged for them4 to receive the work of her hands.5 And the other? — At times that may not be sufficient. We learnt: [THE PROPERTY] OF ORPHANS WHICH HAS BEEN VALUED [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. What case are we dealing with? Would you say one with a heathen creditor? Would he agree [to wait]?6 Hence it is self-evident that we are dealing with a case of an Israelite creditor. [But then] if he were to consume interest,7 would we permit him to do so? — Rather must you say that he is not consuming interest, and yet it is taught: We distrain upon [the orphans’ property]. Now this will be right in accord with R. Johanan who will interpret it as referring to the case of a woman's kethubah; but according to R. Assi it is a difficulty? — R. Assi will answer you: But even according to R. Johanan, is it in order? How do we continue to allow her the alimony,8 which definitely causes them loss, and take up the proclamation, concerning which we do not know if it will show profit or not?9 — This is no difficulty: the case speaks of one who demands her kethubah in court,10 in accord with Rab Judah in the name of Samuel. For Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: One who claims her kethubah before the court receives no more alimony. If so, we should not attend to her at all? — Since we attended to her at the beginning, we attend to her at the end as well.11 But at any rate, on the view of R. Assi [our Mishnah] presents a difficulty? [No!] Indeed I can maintain that the case is one of a heathen creditor, but the reference is to one who accepted to have his case dealt with in accord with Israelite law.12 If that is so,let him not take interest. He accepted [Jewish Law] in the one respect, but not in the other. 13 Come and hear: One may not collect from the property of orphans except the worst land. What case are we dealing with here? Would you say that the creditor is a heathen, he surely would not agree to this!14 Hence you must say it deals with an Israelite creditor. [But then] if he consumes interest, how could we permit him to do so? Hence you must say that he did not consume interest; and nevertheless we are taught that we distrain upon [the orphans’ property]? It will be right for R. Johanan, for he will interpret it as referring to a woman's kethubah. But according to R. Assi, it will present a difficulty? — R. Assi will tell you: But even according to R. Johanan is it right? If it refers to a kethubah, why does he speak of [the property of] orphans, even if it were his own, it could be collected only from the worst land? — That is no difficulty. It will be in accord with R. Meir who holds that a woman's kethubah is collectable from a land of average quality, but if from orphans’ property, only from worst land.15 At any rate, according to R. Assi, the difficulty stands! [No,] indeed I can maintain that we deal with the case of a heathen creditor, but it refers to one who has accepted upon himself that the case be dealt with according to Jewish law. Then let him not take interest either? — The case is that he accepted [the law] in respect of the one thing, but not in respect of the other. Come and hear: ‘For the purpose of paying a woman her kethubah or a creditor his debt’. Now this will be right in the case of a creditor, whether according to one Master or to the other Master,16 as we have answered it.17 But as for the case of the kethubah, that will be right according to R. Johanan. but on the view of R. Assi it will present a difficulty! — [We speak here of the case] where the debtor18 admitted [the debt]. Now that you have come to this [explanation], all the other [teachings]19 may also be explained as referring to the case that the debtor admitted it. Meramar collected the kethubah of a divorced woman from the orphans’ property, whereupon Rabina said to him: But Rab Judah has said in the name of R. Assi: One must not distrain upon the property of orphans, except if interest was consuming it. R. Johanan says: Either because of a document of indebtedness bearing interest, or because of the kethubah of a woman [so as to save from further payment] on account of her alimony. And even R. Johanan was including only [the case of] a widow, because her alimony causes them loss, but not in the case of a divorce?20 — He replied: [The reason for] that ruling of R. Johanan21 we explain to be ‘for favour's sake’.22 R. Nahman said: At first I would not distrain upon the property of orphans. But when I heard the statement of our colleague, R. Huna in the name of Rab: As for orphans who enjoy what does not belong to them, let them follow him who left them! from that time on I distrain upon it. Why not at first? — R. Papa said: The paying of a debt is a commandment and [minor] orphans are not obliged to fulfil the commandment. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said: We say he might have left bundles as security.23 What is the [practical] difference between them?24 — When he who owes admitted the debt, or if he was excommunicated and dies in the state of excommunication.25 They sent from there [Palestine]: [The reference is]26 to one excommunicated who died in the state of excommunication. And the law is in accord with R. Huna the son of R. Joshua. We learnt: proclaimed on the view of R. Meir for sixty days. The disciple, however, knew the above cited Baraitha, that R. Meir limited it to thirty days and thus raised an objection against his Master's teaching. He had forgotten, however, the instruction offered by the same Master, according to which ‘thirty days’ referred to consecutive ones, whereas ‘sixty days’ were required if the proclamation took place only on Mondays and Thursdays. He could thus appreciate his colleague's bewilderment from his own experience of the difficulty. a Monday, the four remaining days would include one Monday and Thursday again, which would together amount to the eighteen days, during which the news of such proclamation is made. maintenance from the property of the orphans. the period of proclamation to expire? the payment of her kethubah, due to the effort to sell their property through proclamation. she loses her alimony, thus benefitting the orphans, we should also help her in obtaining her kethubah, because of the claim of which she lost the alimony. sell their property. There is no reason for suspecting his having secured the creditor's debt with a bundle of valuables, for if he had been willing to pay he would rather have done it through the court in order to win cancellation of his excommunication. The orphans in this case would have to pay, though on the first reason they would still be exempt.