Arakhin

MISHNAH. IF A MAN DEDICATES HIS POSSESSIONS TO THE SANCTUARY WHILST STILL LIABLE FOR HIS WIFE'S KETHUBAH, R. ELIEZER SAYS WHEN HE DIVORCES HER HE MUST VOW1 THAT HE WILL NOT DERIVE ANY FURTHER BENEFIT FROM HER. R. JOSHUA SAYS, HE NEED NOT DO SO. LIKEWISE SAID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL: ALSO IF ONE GUARANTEES A WOMAN'S KETHUBAH AND HER HUSBAND DIVORCES HER, THE HUSBAND MUST VOW TO DERIVE NO BENEFIT FROM HER. LEST HE MAKE A CONSPIRACY2 AGAINST THE PROPERTY OF THAT MAN [THE GUARANTOR] AND TAKE HIS WIFE BACK AGAIN.3 GEMARA. Wherein do they differ? R. Eliezer holds: A man will engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary. But R. Joshua holds that a man will not engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary. But what of the ruling of R. Huna: If a person dangerously ill dedicated all his possessions to the Sanctuary and said, I owe So-and-so a maneh, he is believed, because of the presumption that nobody will engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary. Shall we say that he gave a ruling concerning which Tannaim are conflicting? — No! They dispute only the case of a healthy person, but with regard to one dangerously ill all agree that he would not engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary. Why? Because no man will sin where he does not stand to benefit [thereby]. Some there are who say: With regard to a healthy person there is a general agreement that one [he] would engage in a conspiracy against the Sanctuary; but here they differ with regard to a vow made in the presence of many, one Master [R. Joshua] holding such a vow can be annulled,4 while the other Master [R. Eliezer] holds it cannot be annulled. Or, if you like, say: All agree that a vow made in the presence of many can be remitted, and they differ here as to a vow made on the authority of many.5 But then what of Amemar's statement that ‘A vow made in the presence of many can be annulled. whereas one made on the authority of many cannot be annulled’, are we to say that he made a statement concerning which Tannaim are of divided opinion? Furthermore how explain: R. JOSHUA SAYS: HE NEED NOT DO SO. He should have said: ‘It would be useless’?6 — Rather, they are disputing here on the principle as to whether absolution from consecration of an object may be obtained;7 and thus it was taught: If a man dedicates his possessions to the Sanctuary whilst still liable for his wife's kethubah, R. Eliezer says. When he divorces her he must vow that he will not derive any further benefit from her, whilst R. Joshua says: He need not do so. And R. Eleazar b. Simeon said: These are [respectively] the very views of Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, for Beth Shammai holds: A consecration [to the Sanctuary] made In error is [valid] consecration, whilst Beth Hillel holds it is not valid consecration. LIKEWISE DID RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAY etc. Moses b. Azri was the guarantor for [the kethubah of] his daughter-in-law. Now R. Huna, his son, was a young scholar but in strait circumstances. Said Abaye: Is there no one to advise R. Huna to divorce his wife so that she might claim her kethubah from her father-in-law, and he [R. Huna] might then take her back? Said Raba to him: But we learnt: HE MUST VOW THAT HE WILL NOT DERIVE ANY FURTHER BENEFIT FROM HER? And Abaye?8 — Does every one who divorces his wife do so before a court?9 In the end it became known that he [R. Huna] was a priest.10 Whereupon Abaye exclaimed: poverty pursues the poor!11 But how could Abaye say thus?12 Did not Abaye say: ‘Who is a cunningly wicked man? He who offers advice to sell property in accord with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel’?13 — It is different in the case of one's son, and it is different also in the case of a young scholar.14 But derive it from the fact that the guarantor for a kethubah is not held responsible? on which the kethubah had the first lien. by divorcing his wife. But R. Joshua holds that a plea of error would be admitted, whence there is no need for him to engage in a conspiracy wherefore he need not deny himself by vow the benefit of her company. went and sold or consumed it, then according to Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, the second may have only what the first left over. That kind of trick Abaye denounced, how then could he offer kindred advice? command, to enable to study), hence Abaye had two legitimate reasons for what otherwise would have been improper advice.