Talmud - Arachin 22a ערכין כ״ב א׳

With regard to the duration of time for the proclamation, the Sages taught: One proclaims the appraisal of the property inherited by minor orphans for thirty days, and one proclaims the appraisal of consecrated property for sixty days. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: One proclaims the appraisal of the property of orphans for sixty days, and one proclaims the appraisal of consecrated property for ninety days. And the Rabbis say: Both this and that are proclaimed for sixty days. Rav Ḥisda says that Avimi says: The halakha is that one proclaims the appraisal of the property of orphans for sixty days.

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin was sitting and saying this halakha stated by Rav Ḥisda in the name of Avimi. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: Did you say that the proclamation is for sixty days or did you say that it is for thirty days? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: It is for sixty days. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continued: Is this the halakha with regard to the property of orphans or with regard to consecrated property? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: It applies to the property of orphans.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak persisted: Do you rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: I rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raised a difficulty: But Rabbi Meir says that the appraisal of the property of orphans is proclaimed for thirty days.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him that Rav Ḥisda said like this: I absorbed many blows [kulfei] from Avimi due to that halakha, i.e., Avimi would disparage me when I questioned his statement that according to Rabbi Meir one proclaims the appraisal of the property of orphans for sixty days, which is contradicted by the baraita. Avimi explained to Rav Ḥisda that if the court comes to proclaim the sale on consecutive days, then it is proclaimed for thirty days, in accordance with the baraita.

But if it is proclaimed only on Monday and on Thursday, when the markets are open, villagers gather in the city, and the courts sit in judgment, then it is proclaimed over the course of sixty days. And even though if Master counts the number of days on which there is actually a proclamation, there are only eighteen days, far fewer than the thirty of the consecutive days, since the matter extends over the course of sixty days, people will hear about the sale.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav Asi says: The court attends to the property of minor orphans,to sell it in order to pay a debt, only if the debt was accruing interest that consumes the property of the orphans, since if they delay payment of the debt, it will grow dramatically. In other cases the court delays payment until the orphans reach majority. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The court attends to their property either to pay a debt recorded in a promissory note that contains interest or to pay a wife’s marriage contract, due to the standing obligation of the orphans to provide sustenance for their father’s widow from his estate as long as she has not received payment of her marriage contract. It is therefore beneficial to the orphans that she should collect her marriage contract immediately.

The Gemara asks: And Rav Asi, what is the reason that he did not state that the court attends to their property for the purpose of paying the marriage contract of a wife? The Gemara responds: There is no financial loss to the orphans in such a case, because the Sages established for the late husband that as long as she receives sustenance from his estate, the orphans are entitled to her earnings. The Gemara asks: And the other, Rabbi Yoḥanan, in light of this fact why does he rule that the court attends to their property? The Gemara responds: Sometimes her earnings do not provide enough to reimburse the money spent on her sustenance.

The Gemara continues: We learned in the mishna that one proclaims the appraisal of the property inherited by orphans for thirty days and the appraisal of consecrated property for sixty days, and one proclaims it in the morning and in the evening. The Gemara asks: What case are we dealing with in the mishna? If we say that we are dealing with a gentile creditor, will he comply with the ruling of the Jewish court that payment be delayed for thirty days? Rather, it is obvious that we are dealing with a Jewish creditor. Now, if the mishna is dealing with a situation where the interest consumes the orphans’ property, do we leave a Jew to collect interest? But rather, it must be referring to a case where the interest does not consume the orphans’ property, and nevertheless the mishna teaches that the court attends to the property of orphans even when no interest accrues on the loan. This apparently contradicts the opinions of Rav Asi and Rabbi Yoḥanan.

Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan the mishna is not difficult, as he can establish it as referring to payment of the marriage contract of a wife. But according to the opinion of Rav Asi, that the court does not attend to the property of orphans in such a case, the mishna poses a difficulty. The Gemara responds: Rav Asi could say to you: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, does it work out well that the mishna requires thirty days of proclamation before the sale of the property? Do we leave aside the sustenance that the orphans certainly lose to the wife for the duration of the thirty days and take, i.e., implement, the proclamation, with regard to which we do not know if they will gain from it or if they will not gain, as it is uncertain that an offer matching the appraisal of the court will be made?

The Gemara rejects this argument: This is not difficult, as Rabbi Yoḥanan can explain that the mishna is referring to a widow who claims her marriage contract in court. And this is in accordance with a ruling that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A widow who claims payment of her marriage contract in court no longer receives sustenance from the estate of her husband.

The Gemara asks: If so, then we should not attend to her request to collect payment of her marriage contract at all. Rather, the court should delay payment until the orphans reach majority, as they incur no loss by delaying the payment. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: That is not appropriate; rather, since we attend to her initially, when she claims the payment of her marriage contract in court, we attend to her in the end as well, in order to collect payment from the orphans, despite the fact that the orphans will not lose money if they do not pay immediately.

The Gemara returns to its initial question: In any case, the mishna poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Asi, who maintains that the court attends to the property of orphans only in order to collect the payment of a loan that accrues interest, not for the payment of a marriage contract. If the mishna is dealing with a gentile creditor, he will not wait thirty days to collect payment, and if it is referring to a Jewish creditor, he is prohibited from charging interest in the first place. The Gemara responds: Actually, the mishna is referring to a gentile creditor, in the specific case of one who accepted upon himself to adjudicate in accordance with Jewish law. He therefore agrees to delay collection for thirty days.

The Gemara asks: If so, let him also not take interest, as it is prohibited to do so according to Jewish law. The Gemara responds: The mishna is dealing with a case where he accepted Jewish law upon himself for this matter, to delay collection for thirty days, but he did not accept it upon himself for that matter, not to collect interest.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a difficulty for the opinions of Rav Asi and Rav Yoḥanan from a mishna (Gittin 48b): A court can collect a father’s debt from the property of orphans only from land of the lowest quality. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with in this mishna? If we say that the mishna is referring to a gentile creditor, will he comply and accept inferior-quality land as payment? Rather, it is obvious that we are dealing with a Jewish creditor. Now, if the mishna is referring to a case where the interest consumes the orphans’ property, do we leave him to collect interest? Rather, it must be dealing with a case where the interest does not consume the orphans’ property, and yet it is taught in the mishna that the court attends to the property of orphans even when no interest accrues on the loan.

Once again, the Gemara states: Granted, the mishna is not difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as he can establish it as referring to payment of the marriage contract of a wife. But according to the opinion of Rav Asi, that the court does not attend to the property of orphans in such a case, the mishna poses a difficulty. The Gemara responds that Rav Asi could say to you: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, does the mishna work out well? If the mishna is referring to payment of a wife’s marriage contract, why does it discuss specifically a collection from orphans? Even in a case of a divorced woman who collects payment from the husband himself, she also receives only inferior-quality land.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as Rabbi Yoḥanan would reply that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A marriage contract of a wife is generally paid with intermediate-quality land, and if payment is collected from orphans, the marriage contract is paid with inferior-quality land.

The Gemara asks: In any case, the mishna poses a difficulty for the opinion of Rav Asi. The Gemara responds: Actually, the mishna is referring to a gentile creditor who accepted upon himself to adjudicate in accordance with Jewish law. He therefore agrees to accept payment from inferior-quality land. The Gemara asks: If so, let him also not take interest, which is prohibited according to Jewish law. The Gemara responds: The mishna is dealing with a case where he accepted Jewish law upon himself for this matter, to delay collection for thirty days, but he did not accept it upon himself for that matter, not to collect interest. The court therefore attends to the property of the orphans in order to minimize the interest owed to the creditor.

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a difficulty from a baraita: When one proclaims the appraisal of the property of orphans, he announces that the property is being sold in order to give the proceeds to a wife as payment of her marriage contract or in order to give a creditor payment of his debt. The Gemara explains: Granted, there is no difficulty in the ruling that one proclaims that the property is being sold in order to give a creditor payment of a debt, as whether according to this Sage or whether according to that Sage, i.e., Rav Asi or Rabbi Yoḥanan, the mishna is in accordance with that which we taught above, that it is dealing with a gentile creditor who collects interest but agrees to delay payment.

But with regard to the proclamation that the property is being sold in order to pay the wife’s marriage contract, granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who maintains that the court attends to the property of orphans in such a case, the baraita works out well. But according to the opinion of Rav Asi, that the court does not attend to their property in order to pay a marriage contract, the baraita poses a difficulty.

The Gemara responds: Here we are dealing with a case where the one who is obligated to pay admits that he has not yet paid, i.e., the father admitted before his death that he has not yet paid the obligation stated in the marriage contract. The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this response, it is no longer necessary to establish that the previous cases are referring to a gentile creditor. Rather, all of them are also dealing with Jewish creditors, as they are referring to situations where the one who is obligated to pay admits that he has not yet paid. In such cases, the court collects payment from the property of the orphans without delay.

§ With regard to the dispute between Rav Asi and Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Gemara relates that Mareimar collected the payment of a marriage contract for a divorced woman from the property of minor orphans. Ravina said to Ameimar: But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav Asi says that the court does not attend to the property of minor orphans unless interest was consuming it, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the court attends to their property either to pay a debt recorded in a promissory note that contains interest or to pay a wife’s marriage contract, due to the obligation of the orphans to provide her sustenance.

Ravina added: And even Rabbi Yoḥanan says that they attend to the property of minor orphans only in the case of a widow, as she causes loss to their property due to the sustenance she receives until she collects payment of her marriage contract. But in the case of a divorced woman, who does not receive sustenance from their property, Rabbi Yoḥanan agrees that the court does not collect payment of her marriage contract until the orphans reach majority.

Ameimar said to Ravina: We learned that this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the court attends to the property of minor orphans in order to collect the payment of a marriage contract, is for the sake of favor, i.e., the court collects payment of a wife’s marriage contract not due to the sustenance that consumes the property of the orphans, but in order that the wife will find favor in the eyes of men so that they will marry her. This reason is equally applicable in the cases of a widow and a divorced woman.

With regard to attending to the property of orphans, Rav Naḥman says: At first, I would not attend to the property of orphans in order to collect payment of a standard debt. Once I heard that which Rav Huna, our friend, said in the name of Rav: Orphans who consume that which is not theirs, let them follow their deceased parent to the graveyard, from that point forward I would attend to their property.

The Gemara asks: At the outset, what is the reason that Rav Naḥman would not collect payment from minor orphans? Rav Pappa says: The repayment of a creditor is a mitzva, and minor orphans are not obligated in performing that mitzva. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The reason is that we say there is a concern that the father might have transferred bundles of coins to the creditor before his death as collateral and we are unaware of such a payment. Therefore, the court delays payment until the orphans reach majority in order to allow them time to clarify whether such payment was in fact made.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them in a case where the one who is obligated to pay admits that he still owes the money, or in a case where the court excommunicated the father in order to force him to pay and he died in a state of excommunication. In such instances, there is no doubt that the debt must be paid. According to Rav Pappa, even in such cases the court does not collect payment from minor orphans, as they are not obligated in the performance of the mitzva, whereas Rav Huna would rule that the court collects payment even before they reach majority, as there is no doubt that the debt is unpaid.

The Gemara relates that they sent from there, Eretz Yisrael, a communication that all these cases cited above, in which the court collects payment of a debt from the property of minor orphans, are referring to situations where the court excommunicated the father and he died while under excommunication. And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Arachin 22a explores rabbinic disputes over how many days must elapse when publicly announcing the sale of orphans' or consecrated property.