Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Arakhin

Arakhin 23 for kids: Promises and Property

ערכין כ״ג

📜 What happens when someone gives his property to the Temple treasury but still owes money? This daf asks when a husband must make a vow, how the property is redeemed, and what someone paying a valuation may keep.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Arakhin 23a in Daf QuestOpen Arakhin 23b 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 23

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Arakhin 23 in simple English

Rashi on Arakhin 23a, in English Tab translation (15)
  1. He shall vow not to benefit from her — He must vow never to remarry her, lest he divorce her as a scheme to let her collect her marriage contract from the consecrated property and then remarry her.
  2. Collusion — A scheme.
  3. Shall we say his teaching follows a dispute among the tanna’im? — Rather than being accepted by all.
  4. Rather, in the case of a healthy person — Rabbi Eliezer says a person may scheme against the Temple treasury because whatever he takes from it will be his.
  5. But in the case of a person on his deathbed — He is close to death.
  6. A person does not sin without benefiting himself — He will not sin to profit someone else. Rabbi Eliezer holds that once the husband vows in public not to remarry her, the vow cannot be dissolved; it is therefore effective, and the court requires it.
  7. It can be dissolved — Therefore, he need not vow, since the vow would accomplish nothing.
  8. With the consent of the public — They tell him to take the vow on that basis.
  9. They disagree about dissolving a vow of consecration — Rabbi Eliezer holds that one cannot ask a sage to dissolve it. Even if he tells the sage, “I did not intend to make the vow under these circumstances; my consecration was a mistake,” the sage cannot release him. Thus, a man who regrets consecrating his property cannot have the vow dissolved and may scheme by divorcing his wife. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that consecration can be dissolved, so the husband need not vow not to benefit from her: if he wanted to scheme, he could ask to have his vow dissolved without divorcing her.
  10. And it is taught in a baraita — This supports the view that they disagree about dissolving the consecration.
  11. These are the words of Beit Shammai, and these are the words of Beit Hillel — Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua have the same dispute as Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel.
  12. Mistaken consecration is valid consecration — It cannot be dissolved. An example is someone who says, “The white ox that comes out of my house is consecrated,” but the ox turns out to be black.
  13. Does everyone divorce in court? — Even if the court would tell him to vow not to benefit from her, he could go somewhere private and divorce her.
  14. For he was a priest — Rav Huna could not remarry his wife if he divorced her.
  15. Like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel — In tractate Ketubot, a man says as he is dying, “My property is yours, and after you it goes to so-and-so.” The first recipient takes possession and sells it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says the second receives only what the first left. Here too, the one who does this is called cunning and wicked.
Tosafot on Arakhin 23a, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. When he divorces her, he shall vow not to benefit from her — Why must the husband take the vow? He does not want his wife to collect from consecrated property; if anyone should be penalized, it is she. But the concern is that he arranged the scheme against the Temple treasury, or against the guarantor he brought in for her. The Sages therefore did not penalize her. They required him to take the vow so that, if he meant to deceive, his plan would not succeed.
  2. If a dying man consecrated all his property and said, ‘I owe so-and-so one hundred dinars,’ he is believed — Elsewhere, Rav Huna’s ruling is limited to a creditor who holds a valid bond. Why, then, suspect collusion? Because without the dying man’s acknowledgment, the creditor would have to swear before collecting, even with the bond; his acknowledgment lets the creditor collect without an oath. The tractate Shevuot likewise discusses this possibility: ordinarily, one who collects from consecrated property must swear, since a healthy person might collude against the Temple treasury, though a dying person would not sin for someone else’s benefit. But that passage says a healthy person might collude, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua says here that he would not. The answer is that a healthy person might commit the lesser deception of sparing a creditor an oath, but would not divorce his wife as a scheme to remarry her. Rav Huna’s ruling is still a sound basis for the Gemara’s question: if a dying man would not collude even to spare someone an oath, all the more so would he not collude by divorcing his wife.
  3. One does not sin for someone else’s benefit — The dying man is therefore believed, and the creditor may collect without an oath. Normally, collecting from property subject to a lien, including consecrated property, requires an oath. But if we do not suspect the dying man of falsely acknowledging a debt, why suspect someone of divorcing his wife and remarrying her to take consecrated property? There is no evident reason to suspect collusion through divorce more than collusion by a dying man.
  4. One Sage holds that it can be dissolved — Even if the vow can be dissolved, must the person not tell the sage what he vowed, prompting the sage to refuse? He must state the wording of the vow, not why he made it. This differs from the case of a priest married to a woman forbidden to him: he vows not to benefit from her so that he may resume Temple service and then divorce her. When he tells a sage that vow, its wording reveals the prohibited marriage, so the sage will not dissolve it. Here, the wording alone would not prevent a sage from dissolving the vow.
  5. They disagree about requesting the dissolution of consecration — Rabbi Yehoshua holds that consecration can be dissolved. Thus, there is no need to make the husband vow when he divorces: we need not suspect that he divorced to help his wife collect from consecrated property, since he could instead have his consecration dissolved as mistaken. But we follow Beit Hillel, who hold that mistaken consecration is not valid. Why, then, does Rav Huna say a healthy person might collude against the Temple treasury rather than seek dissolution? As explained above, a healthy person might use the lesser deception of sparing a creditor an oath without seeking dissolution. He would not go so far as to divorce his wife intending to remarry her when he could instead seek dissolution of his consecration.
  6. But he is a guarantor anyway, etc. — Why does the Gemara not raise all these objections against the mishna itself? Because the answer there was obvious: the husband had assets, but they were subsequently lost.
Rashi on Arakhin 23b, in English Tab translation (25)
  1. He was a kablan — Rav Huna handed her movable property as security for her marriage contract, and she handed it over to his father. That made his father a kablan, a guarantor who personally handles the transaction.
  2. If he has no property — If the borrower has no property when the loan is made, the guarantor’s promise does not obligate him: he knows he cannot recover the money from the borrower, so he does not fully commit himself.
  3. As it was stated — This refers back to the Gemara’s earlier words, “This works out well according to the one who says that a kablan…”
  4. Everyone agrees that an ordinary guarantor of a marriage contract is not obligated — He is helping the couple marry, and the woman has lost nothing, since she did not hand over any money.
  5. And she has lost nothing — This is the correct reading of the text.
  6. The mishna teaches the case of a guarantor — We are concerned that the couple may conspire against him by having the husband vow not to benefit from his wife.
  7. What is the law for a buyer? — Are we concerned that the couple may conspire by having the wife seize land from the buyer, return it to her husband, and have him vow not to benefit from her?
  8. Should he go on counting like a peddler? — Like a merchant counting out his coins. The tanna listed these cases, and the same rule applies to a buyer.
  9. Should he go and buy? — This is a rhetorical question: Should he have bought the field?
  10. Mishna: And he owed his wife her marriage contract — The divorce preceded the consecration, so there is no concern about collusion.
  11. Rather, the one who redeems, redeems — The owners redeem the property from consecration for a dinar or another small sum so they can pay the debts. The consecration does not actually take hold of property subject to those debts, since it is not theirs to give. The small payment is a precaution, as the Gemara explains.
  12. Adds another dinar — The creditor lends this man one more dinar, with which the man redeems the property.
  13. Gemara: Why say, “The one who redeems, redeems”? — Let the wife and the creditor take the property without redemption. The consecration did not take hold of it, since a person cannot consecrate what is not his.
  14. Rabbi Abbahu’s explanation — This appears in the final chapter, later in Arakhin 33a.
  15. If his debt equals the value of what he consecrated, he redeems it — He redeems it for a small sum, as stated. In this case, we can say that the creditor originally lent him money expecting to collect from this property. But if the debt was not greater than the value of the consecrated property, he lent the money on the strength of the borrower’s trustworthiness, so he cannot collect from the consecrated property. Another reading says: “Otherwise, he does not redeem it”; instead, he takes it without redemption. I was taught the first reading, and it is the principal one.
  16. And according to the Rabbis, how much? — Up to what point do they hold that the creditor lent the money expecting to collect from this property?
  17. Up to half — But not if the debt is less than half the property’s value.
  18. Mishna: They take a pledge from him — The Temple treasurer enters his home and takes property against his will. For food, clothing, a bed, and phylacteries, if he does not have them, they leave him money to buy them.
  19. Of each kind — Of tools for a trade that requires four or five different tools.
  20. Adzes — This means adzes. A saw is a notched blade that cuts quickly, like one used by comb-makers.
  21. His team — A team of oxen is a tool of his trade.
  22. Many of one kind and few of another — If he has three adzes and one saw, he keeps two adzes, and the third goes to the treasurer.
  23. And all that he has of the kind he has fewer of — He keeps however many he has; we do not buy him another. Just as he managed with that number until now, he can manage with it now.
  24. One who consecrates his property — His phylacteries are included in his property.
  25. They assess the value of his phylacteries — And he redeems them.
Tosafot on Arakhin 23b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. We learned about a guarantor; we learned about consecrated property. What about a buyer? — My teacher asks: Is it not well known throughout the Talmud that a woman collects her marriage contract from buyers? And even according to the Sages of Neharde’a, who say she does not collect, why should she not collect from buyers? Perhaps the case is one in which the husband sold his property and immediately divorced her, raising concern that they were colluding. If he sold it long before the divorce, there would be no such concern.
  2. The one who redeems, redeems — Rashi appears to identify this with the later case in which a man consecrated property worth ninety dinars, owed one hundred, and an additional dinar is supplied. But the wording does not suggest that. Rather, here the property exceeds the debt—for example, he consecrated property worth one hundred maneh and owed ninety. Anyone may redeem it by paying the Temple treasury the surplus value. The entire property then appears to have been redeemed, although the consecration never took effect on the portion securing the debt. The redeemer pays the wife her marriage contract or the creditor his debt.
  3. Adds another dinar — Rashi explains that the creditor lends the debtor another dinar and himself redeems the property. But the Mishnah’s wording, ‘in order to give,’ does not suggest that the creditor redeems it. Rather, the debtor borrows another dinar and redeems the property so that he can pay his wife’s marriage contract and the creditor’s debt.
  4. Because of Rabbi Abbahu — Rashi cites this passage as evidence that Rava’s statement that consecration overrides a lien applies only to an object consecrated for sacrificial use, whose sanctity is more stringent, not to property consecrated for its monetary value. Here, the consecration does not legally take effect on encumbered property; redemption is needed only to prevent people from saying that consecrated property leaves the Temple treasury without redemption. My teacher was unsure whether consecration for monetary value takes effect if the debtor owns only movable property. A sale of such property is valid, and the creditor cannot recover it from the buyer, since his lien does not extend to movable property. But consecration may be different. Rashi’s explanation of Rava’s case of an ox designated as security and then consecrated does not settle this: that case could involve movable property pledged together with land, which the creditor can recover even from a buyer. The Mishnah appears to concern both land and movable property and to hold that consecration takes effect on neither; redemption is required only because of Rabbi Abbahu’s concern.
  5. Otherwise, he does not redeem — Rashi explains: If the debt exceeds the value of the consecrated property, the creditor did not lend on the understanding that he would have to redeem it, so he cannot collect from it. Rashi also gives another explanation: he takes the property without redeeming it, though Rashi prefers the first. But the Tosefta of this tractate supports the second, stating explicitly: ‘Otherwise, his consecration has no effect.’
  6. Up to half — This can be understood according to either explanation. On the first, if the property is worth less than half the debt, the creditor certainly did not lend on the understanding that he would have to redeem it. On the second, when the debt exceeds half the property’s value, the consecration does not take effect on it, so there is no concern that people will say consecrated property leaves without redemption.

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 23.