Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 22 for kids: When Should Courts Wait?

ערכין כ״ב

⚖️ This daf asks when a court may sell property belonging to young orphans to pay their father’s debts. It also asks how long the court must announce a sale before it happens.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 22a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 22b 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 22

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 22 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 22a, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. This teaching — the one stated by Rav Chisda.
  2. Hard blows — Avimi sharply rebuked me over this teaching. He taught me that, according to Rabbi Meir, orphans’ property is proclaimed for sixty days. I objected that Rabbi Meir says thirty days. He answered that if the proclamation is made on consecutive days, it lasts thirty days, whether for orphans’ property or for consecrated property.
  3. If one proclaims on Mondays and Thursdays — these are court days, so the appraisal period lasts sixty days, with eighteen days of proclamation. Eight weeks beginning on a Monday total fifty-six days and include sixteen Mondays and Thursdays. Add Monday through Thursday of the next week: sixty days in all, with eighteen days of proclamation.
  4. The court does not attend to the property of orphans — to sell it.
  5. Interest consumes their property — they owed a gentile money that bore interest.
  6. Because of her sustenance — as long as she has not collected her marriage contract, the orphans must support her from their estate, which costs them money.
  7. If you say it concerns a gentile creditor — who charges interest, which is why the court attends to the property.
  8. Would he comply — by waiting through our proclamation period without charging interest?
  9. When she claims her marriage contract in court — from then on she receives no sustenance, so the orphans lose nothing by waiting.
  10. Let the court not attend to her claim — to pay her marriage contract, since the orphans no longer owe her sustenance.
  11. Since the court attended to her claim at the outset — when she first claimed her marriage contract, causing her to lose her right to sustenance.
  12. The court attends to her claim at the end — to collect her marriage contract for her.
  13. This is not difficult: It follows Rabbi Meir, who says a woman’s marriage contract is collected from medium-quality land — when collecting from her husband himself, such as after a divorce. This teaches that from orphans it is collected from inferior land.
  14. As we explained — it concerns a gentile creditor.
  15. When the debtor admits it — their father acknowledged the debt at the time of his death.
  16. All of them, too, concern a case where the debtor admits it — and the creditor is Jewish.
  17. A divorced woman — she is not entitled to sustenance.
  18. That ruling of Rabbi Yochanan — that a woman’s marriage contract is collected from orphans.
  19. We explain it as being for the sake of marriage — so that men will find favor in women’s eyes and women will marry them. It therefore applies even to a divorced woman.
  20. After they leave it behind — let the orphans die like their father, who left them this money.
  21. They are not capable of performing a mitzva — because they are minors; rather, one should wait until they come of age.
  22. He gave him security — their father gave his creditor money, silver, or gold as collateral at the time of his death but did not manage to retrieve the promissory note.
  23. When the court placed him under a ban — it did so because he had not paid this debt, and he died while still under the ban. There is then no concern that he gave the creditor security: he would have paid only through the court so it would lift the ban.
  24. They sent word from there: When the court placed him under a ban and he died under it — this is how all the earlier teachings that say the court attends to orphans’ property can be understood.
  25. And the halakha follows Rav Huna — when the court did not place the father under a ban, there is concern that he gave the creditor security.
Tosafot on Arakhin 22a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. We learned that orphans’ property is appraised; what is the case? If the creditor is a gentile, will he comply? — Why challenge Rav Asi from the Mishnah rather than from his own statement that the court attends to orphans’ property only when interest consumes it? If the creditor is a gentile, will he wait until the orphans grow up? And if he is Jewish, would we allow him to collect interest? Rav Asi could be speaking of a gentile creditor who has not demanded payment. The court then leaves the property alone unless interest is consuming it; in that case, it acts even without a demand to keep the interest from growing. The Mishnah, however, must concern a creditor who has demanded payment, since the court is appraising the property. A gentile creditor would not wait for the proclamation to end while interest grows. If he will not wait, the delay might cost the orphans more than the proclamation gains them; as the Gemara says below, a proclamation is unnecessary when its benefit is uncertain.
  2. Rav Nachman said: At first we did not attend to orphans’ property; from then on we did — The law follows Rav Nachman in monetary matters: the court does attend to orphans’ property. This also appears in Ketubot, in the chapter HaKotev. The Mishnah there says that if a man dies leaving a wife, a creditor, and heirs, and others hold a loan or deposit owed to him, it is given to the one among them at greatest disadvantage. Rabbi Yochanan says it goes toward the wife’s marriage contract, for the sake of women’s favor. Thus, the court does attend to orphans’ property.
Rashi on Arakhin 22b, in English Tab translation (12)
  1. If you say it involves a gentile creditor — Since he will not wait until the orphans grow up, would he agree to wait through the days of public announcement?
  2. Come and hear — From the teaching cited above about announcing a sale, which says, “in order to give to a wife,” and so on.
  3. Would he agree — To wait through the days of public announcement?
  4. Rava said — This explains why the court does not attend to the property of minor orphans.
  5. Because of a receipt — Their father may have had a receipt showing that he paid this debt, and the orphans do not know where it is.
  6. A woman who collects in his absence — For example, her husband sent her a bill of divorce from overseas.
  7. They taught this only — The court collects from a person’s property in his absence only for a wife’s marriage contract, to help her prospects for marriage. A creditor must wait until the debtor returns.
  8. And if he said — If their father said, “Give it,” the court attends to the property.
  9. This field or these hundred dinars — If the father said, “Give this field to so-and-so toward his debt,” or “Give him these hundred dinars,” the court gives it to him without appointing a guardian for the orphans.
  10. A field or a hundred dinars, unspecified: the court attends and appoints a guardian — The guardian chooses a favorable portion for the orphans and pays the creditor from inferior land.
  11. But if a field in the orphans’ possession is found not to have belonged to their father, but to have been stolen — The court removes the stolen field from their possession without appointing a guardian.
  12. In all cases — Even when the father specified this field or these hundred dinars, the court attends and appoints a guardian. The exception is a field found not to have been his: it is removed from the orphans’ possession immediately, without a guardian, because we do not presume the witnesses who testify that it was stolen are lying.
Tosafot on Arakhin 22b, in English Tab translation (7)
  1. Rava said: Because of a receipt — Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, worries that the father may have given the creditor money toward the debt; Rava worries that the father may have paid it and received a receipt. The difference is a case where the father gave all his documents to someone before witnesses and declared that he had no others. There is then no reason to suspect a receipt: had he had one, he would have handed it over. But he still might have given the creditor money.
  2. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: Are we concerned about a receipt? Did we not learn that a woman may collect in her husband’s absence? — If a receipt is a concern, why is it not a concern there too? One might ask why Rav Huna does not likewise worry that the husband gave her money. He evidently understood that this concern cannot prevent collection in the debtor’s absence; otherwise, someone could take another person’s money and move overseas. He had not thought that the same answer applied to a receipt, so Rava gave him that answer.
  3. If he said, ‘Give,’ the court attends to the property — At first, this seems to mean, ‘Pay the debt,’ as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says the court acts when the debtor admits the debt. Why, then, use ‘Give’ rather than ‘the debtor admits’? Perhaps because ‘Give’ applies to both debts and gifts. If the father instructed the orphans to give a gift while properly distributing his property, whether all or part of it, and made a formal act of acquisition, they give it. The later mention of ‘this field’ and ‘this sum of money’ also suggests a gift.
  4. If he said, ‘Give,’ the court attends to the property — Why need say this if he has already given it as a gift? Rabbi Yitzhak says the ruling that the court acts is needed; ‘Give’ is used because the passage goes on to mention ‘this field’ and ‘this sum of money.’ It also covers an unsolicited admission of debt, which needs ‘Give’ or ‘You are my witnesses.’ Bava Batra says that if a dying man says, ‘Give a hundred to so-and-so,’ they give it, but without ‘Give’ they do not: he may have meant only to make his children seem less wealthy. If someone demanded payment and he admitted the debt, however, they give it even without those words, because a person does not jest at the time of death.
  5. And they do not appoint a guardian — Since he specified ‘this field’ or ‘this sum of money,’ the court need not appoint a guardian. But why not appoint one to check whether he paid, find a receipt among his belongings, or find evidence that he gave the creditor money? One might also ask: if he said ‘Give,’ should they not give it even if he owed nothing, treating it as a deathbed gift? The answer is that he intended to pay a debt, not make a gift. It must therefore go only to someone he owes. Likewise, Bava Batra says that by saying ‘Give’ he validated the creditor’s document, indicating payment of a debt, not a gift.
  6. The Sages of Neharde’a say: In all these cases the court acts and appoints a guardian — ‘All these cases’ means both ‘this field’ and ‘this sum of money.’
  7. Rav Ashi said: Therefore, as for attending to the property … for Rava said the law is that the court does not attend to it — Ordinarily, when there is reason to suspect that the father gave the creditor money, the court does not attend to orphans’ property. But where it does act, as with ‘this field’ or ‘this sum of money,’ we do not follow Rava’s view that no guardian is appointed. We follow the Sages of Neharde’a and appoint one. The exception is a field shown never to have belonged to the father: the court acts without a guardian, since it does not treat the witnesses as liars. Why, then, does Bava Kamma refuse to hear witnesses who say Rabbi Yirmeya held a field during the orphan’s father’s lifetime, on the ground that testimony is not heard in a party’s absence? There the field originally belonged to the father; he may have permitted Rabbi Yirmeya to hold it. Here witnesses testify that the father stole the field. We do not suppose they are lying or that he later bought it: its wrongful entry into his possession is established. The court may therefore hear them despite the minor’s absence. Bava Kamma likewise allows a field to be taken from a minor who seized it without any established claim through his father. Thus, when witnesses heard a father admit an oral debt, the court may hear them and collect from the orphans: his admission is clear. But for a claim arising from the orphans’ own property, the court does not hear testimony in their absence even when it is certain the father gave no money toward it. Rabbi Yitzhak explains that this is why the minor orphan’s ox that caused damage incurs no collectible liability, although that concern about money given to a creditor does not apply.

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 22.