Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 21 for kids: When Does It Count?

ערכין כ״א

📣 This daf asks who can consecrate rent and when someone must agree to an offering brought for him. It also explains how to announce property sales so buyers can learn about them.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 21a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 21b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Arakhin 21

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 21 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 21a, in English Tab translation (10)
  1. If the one living in it consecrated it — The Gemara initially assumes that the tenant consecrated the house.
  2. The rent becomes non-sacred — I think the word “rent” should be omitted. Read instead: “Since he misused it, it becomes non-sacred.” Once he benefits from using the house, he misuses consecrated property and the house becomes non-sacred. As the Mishnah teaches, there is no second act of misuse after a first act of misuse, except with consecrated animals and Temple service vessels. He owes the principal and an additional fifth, but not rent to the Temple treasury. Misuse changes an item from consecrated to non-sacred, just as the Israelites’ breach of faith against the Lord is described as their worship of the Baals.
  3. When the rent comes to me, it shall be consecrated — He consecrated the rent, not the house.
  4. Mishnah: The court takes collateral from them — This refers to burnt offerings and peace offerings. Although a peace offering atones for neglecting a positive commandment, because it is not obligatory, he may delay bringing it. Therefore, the court takes collateral.
  5. Gemara: After one of the three — Any one of the sin offering, burnt offering, or peace offering, all three of which are prescribed for a nazirite. The Sifrei teaches that “afterward the nazirite may drink wine” means after a single sacrificial rite.
  6. In the case of a woman’s burnt offering after childbirth — She may not eat sacrificial food until she brings it.
  7. What is it that Scripture placed first? — Why say that her burnt offering prevents her from eating sacrificial food? Is it because Scripture mentions the burnt offering before the sin offering, saying, “She shall bring a year-old lamb for a burnt offering,” and so forth?
  8. But didn’t Rava say that Scripture placed it first only for reading — It is mentioned first in the verse, not offered first, as explained in the chapter “All That Is More Frequent” in Tractate Zevachim.
  9. Which another person set aside for him — This person owed a burnt offering, and another person set one aside from his own property to atone for him. Samuel says the person receiving atonement must be informed.
  10. From his own property — For example, when the court takes collateral from him, he must say, “I want to bring it.”
Tosafot on Arakhin 21a, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. If the landlord consecrated it, the occupant pays rent to the Temple treasury — This suggests that a landlord can consecrate a house after renting it out, even though the tenant has rights to it. Yet Ketubot implies that someone who has mortgaged a field can consecrate it only from the time he redeems it, not immediately. On the other hand, Bava Metzia describes a borrower selling a mortgaged house, so why could he not consecrate it immediately? Rabbi Yitzchak answers that he can immediately sell or consecrate the value beyond the debt. In Ketubot, he wanted to consecrate the whole field; in Bava Metzia, he sold the excess value. Here, the landlord can consecrate that excess, and the tenant pays rent to the Temple treasury because the treasury has a share in the house that cannot be separated out. Others distinguish a borrower from a landlord: a borrower must pay to recover mortgaged property, whereas a landlord gets the property back without payment when the lease ends. But that does not explain the sale in Bava Metzia. Moreover, elsewhere we find that a borrower can sell or consecrate mortgaged property, though the creditor can take it from the buyer or the Temple treasury to collect an otherwise uncollectible debt. Until then, the sale or consecration stands. If the landlord can consecrate the house here, he can likewise forbid its use to the tenant. The Gemara also seems to say that the tenant cannot consecrate it. But the Tosefta says that a tenant can consecrate rented property. The tenant can indeed consecrate it, or forbid anyone to use it, for the duration of the lease. The Gemara asks only how the tenant could consecrate it in a way that would require him to pay rent to the Temple treasury, since the house is not his to consecrate in that way. Still, the Tosefta says that a landlord's consecration does not take effect until the property returns to him. It states: If a tenant sublets a field, the owner may insist on dealing only with the original tenant. If the owner sells the field, the rent is settled with the owner. If the owner consecrates it, the consecration does not take effect until it returns to him, though the benefit he derives from it is consecrated. If the tenant consecrates it, the consecration lasts until it leaves his possession, and he pays rent to the Temple treasury. The distinction is whether the tenant paid rent in advance: the Tosefta addresses a prepaid lease, whereas our passage addresses one that was not prepaid. The Jerusalem Talmud makes this distinction explicitly.
  2. By living there, he misuses consecrated property — Misuse occurs even without damage, as the Mishnah teaches: one who benefits from consecrated property to the value of a peruta is liable even if he has not damaged it. Although misuse does not apply to something attached to the ground, this passage must follow Rav, who holds that something built from detached materials retains the status of detached property. Thus he says that bowing to a house as an idol renders it forbidden, and that misuse occurs once consecrated materials have been built into a structure.
  3. Read: Once he misuses it, the rent becomes non-sacred — This is the reading in most manuscripts. It means that the rent, not the house, loses its consecrated status. The landlord consecrated the house without the tenant's knowledge; when the tenant lives there, he unwittingly misuses consecrated property, and the rent becomes non-sacred through that misuse. It should not be read, as Rashi explains, to mean that the house becomes non-sacred. The reference to Rabbi Meir concerns the Tosefta's case in which one person chops with a consecrated axe and then two others do so in turn: all three are liable for misuse. The Mishnah says that repeated misuse of the same consecrated item occurs only with an animal offering or a service vessel, whose intrinsic sanctity is not removed by misuse, unlike property consecrated for its monetary value. An axe is not a service vessel; it is consecrated for its monetary value. Although service vessels are treated as intrinsically sacred partly because they confer intrinsic sanctity on other things, that reasoning does not make this axe intrinsically sacred.
Rashi on Arakhin 21b, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. With consent — he informed the person for whom the offering brings atonement.
  2. When that baraita is taught — its statement that the owner’s consent is not needed when the offering is sacrificed applies when he was informed as the animal was set aside and agreed to it.
  3. And when I said — consent is required when the animal is set aside. Shmuel requires consent then, but not when the offering brings atonement.
  4. Disagrees with Ulla — Ulla says the opposite.
  5. Without consent, he has not fulfilled his obligation — this shows that consent is required for all the offerings, a difficulty for both Shmuel and Ulla.
  6. The baraitot do not contradict each other — the earlier baraita says that a person fulfills his obligation for another’s burnt offering or peace offering with or without that person’s consent, while the later one says that without consent he does not fulfill his obligation for any of the offerings. One concerns the time the offering brings atonement, and the other the time the animal is set aside, as Ulla and Shmuel each explain them.
  7. Even when the animal is set aside — on this reading, Shmuel requires consent both then and when the offering brings atonement. The first baraita, which says a burnt offering needs no consent, would refute him, and the Gemara’s earlier answer that it concerns the time of atonement would not stand. Rav Pappa therefore teaches that the baraitot do not challenge the sages: Shmuel places the first at the time of atonement, showing that he does not require consent then and that the earlier answer stands.
  8. They coerced him — afterward.
  9. And he agreed — to give the bill of divorce, but he did not cancel his earlier declaration.
  10. Lest you say — that by giving the bill of divorce he implicitly canceled his earlier declaration. Rav Sheshet teaches that he did not. He infers this from the mishna: otherwise, it could have said simply that they coerce him until he gives it.
  11. The valuation of orphans’ property — when a court sells land belonging to orphans to pay a creditor, it appraises the land and announces the sale for thirty days so that anyone who wants to buy it may come and do so.
  12. The valuation of consecrated property — the sale of consecrated land by the Temple treasurer.
  13. They inspected it for him — they checked whether it was good land.
  14. So that he remembers — at night, the instructions the landowner gave the workers that morning.
  15. And ask them — whether the land is good.
  16. This is its quality — it produces such-and-such an amount of grain.
  17. This is its valuation — the court appraised it at such-and-such a price.
  18. And buy it on condition — that the buyer pay the woman or the creditor.
  19. Why is it necessary — to announce that the buyer must pay them?
  20. Little by little — some buyers prefer to pay the creditor in installments, because the creditor is lenient about accepting worn or underweight coins, unlike merchants, who are particular about them.
Tosafot on Arakhin 21b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. Shmuel could tell you: That baraita concerns the time of atonement — while the other baraita concerns the time the offering is set aside. Why, then, does Shmuel disagree with Ulla? Why not say that Shmuel spoke about atonement and the baraita about setting the offering aside? Because Shmuel’s statement refers to the mishna, which appears to discuss setting an offering aside: it says that those obligated to bring burnt offerings are not compelled to provide them, and that question arises at that stage.
  2. What does it mean that Shmuel spoke about the time the offering is set aside? That consent is needed even then — But if so, Shmuel still disagrees with Ulla: Shmuel would require consent when the offering is set aside and, all the more so, at atonement, while Ulla requires it only at atonement. The answer is that this would not be the disagreement between them described here. Rabbi Yitzhak explains their reasoning: Shmuel holds that a person does not want atonement through an offering that is not his own, so a burnt offering or peace offering needs his consent when it is set aside. At the time of atonement, his consent is not needed for the laying on of hands, since these offerings do not atone for his sin. A sin offering or guilt offering, however, does atone for sin and requires confession when hands are laid on it, so his consent is needed at atonement. Ulla holds that a person wants to fulfill the commandment of laying on hands even for a burnt offering or peace offering, so his consent is needed at atonement. When the offering is set aside, he requires consent only for a sin offering: a person does not want atonement through something that is not his own. Burnt offerings and peace offerings are not primarily for atonement, so his consent is not needed then.
  3. One who makes a declaration in advance invalidating a bill of divorce: his declaration is valid — Therefore, the practice is to cancel every such declaration, including any declaration that might follow from an earlier one, both when the bill is written and when it is delivered, out of concern that he may have invalidated the bill.
  4. Mishna: The property of orphans is appraised for thirty days — Why specify orphans? When a court takes anyone’s property to pay a woman’s marriage settlement or a debt, it must also conduct a thirty-day appraisal, as indicated by the question, ‘When may the creditor eat the produce?’ and the answer, ‘When the days of public announcement are complete.’ The mishna specifies orphans to teach that, despite what one might think, their property is not treated like consecrated property, which requires sixty days. The same thirty-day period applies to everyone.
  5. When workers leave and when workers enter — This means when they leave work and when they arrive at work. That reverses the mishna’s morning-then-evening order, but Rav Yehuda explains evening first, then morning. The owner asks the workers in the evening, ‘Inspect it for me,’ so as not to interrupt their work. The next morning, remembering that request, he asks what they saw. Otherwise, why wait until evening to ask them? Nor can ‘leave’ mean leaving home and ‘enter’ mean returning home: that does not fit this practice or the wording of the text. I discuss this at length elsewhere and cite Rav Asi’s statement: a worker’s journey to work is on his own time, and his journey home is on the employer’s time.
  6. This is its value — It can produce a stated amount of grain and fruit and is appraised at a stated price. If the creditor wants to keep it at the court’s valuation, no public announcement is needed; the court immediately places it in his possession.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Arachin, Erchin 21.