Arakhin 22

תנו רבנן שום היתומים שלשים יום ושום ההקדש ששים יום דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר שום היתומים ששים יום ושום ההקדש תשעים יום וחכמים אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה ששים יום אמר רב חסדא אמר אבימי הלכה שום היתומים ששים יום

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.

יתיב רבי חייא בר אבין וקאמר להא שמעתא אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבי חייא בר אבין ששים קאמרת או שלשים קאמרת אמר ליה ששים דיתומים או דהקדש אמר ליה דיתומים

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.

כרבי מאיר או כרבי יהודה אמר ליה כרבי מאיר והא רבי מאיר שלשים קאמר

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.

אמר ליה הכי אמר רב חסדא מאבימי קולפי טאבי בלעי עלה דהא שמעתא בא להכריז רצופים שלשים

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.

בשני ובחמישי ששים ואף על גב דכי חשיב להו מר ליומי הכרזה לא הוו אלא תמניסר יומי כיון דמשכא מילתא שמעי אינשי

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.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומים אלא אם כן היתה רבית אוכלת בהן ורבי יוחנן אומר או לשטר שיש בו רבית או לכתובת אשה משום מזוני

§ 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.

ורב אסי מאי טעמא לא אמר לכתובת אשה דהא תקינו ליה רבנן מעשה ידיה ואידך זימנין דלא ספקה

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.

תנן שום היתומים שלשים יום ושום ההקדש ששים יום ומכריזין בבקר ובערב במאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל חוב גוי מי ציית אלא פשיטא בבעל חוב ישראל אי דקאכיל ריביתא מי שבקינן ליה ואלא דלא קאכיל ריביתא וקתני נזקקין

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.

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן מוקי לה בכתובת אשה אלא לרב אסי קשיא אמר לך רב אסי ולרבי יוחנן מי ניחא מי שבקינן מזוני דודאי קא מפסדא ונקטינן הכרזה דלא ידעינן אי מרווחינן אי לא מרווחינן

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?

הא לא קשיא בתובעת כתובתה בבית דין כדרב יהודה אמר שמואל דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל התובעת כתובתה בבית דין אין לה מזונות

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.

אי הכי איזדקוקי לא מיזדקקינן לה אלא כיון דאיזדקקינן לה מעיקרא מיזדקקין לה לבסוף

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.

מכל מקום לרב אסי קשיא לעולם בבעל חוב גוי שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל

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.

אי הכי רבית נמי לא לישקול שקיבל עליו לזו ולא קיבל עליו לזו

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.

תא שמע אין נפרעין מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית במאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל חוב גוי מי צאית אלא פשיטא בבעל חוב ישראל אי אכיל ריביתא מי שבקינן ליה אלא דלא אכיל ריביתא וקתני נזקקין

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.

בשלמא לרבי יוחנן מוקי לה בכתובת אשה אלא לרב אסי קשיא אמר לך רב אסי ולרבי יוחנן מי ניחא אי כתובה מאי איריא מיתמי אפילו מיניה דידיה נמי בזיבורית

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.

הא לא קשיא רבי מאיר היא דאמר כתובת אשה בבינונית ומיתמי בזיבורית

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.

מכל מקום לרב אסי קשיא לעולם בבעל חוב גוי שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל אי הכי רבית נמי לא נישקול שקיבל לזו ולא קיבל עליו לזו

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.

תא שמע על מנת ליתן לאשה כתובתה ולבעל חוב חובו בשלמא בעל חוב בין מר ובין מר כדשנין

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.

אלא כתובתה בשלמא לרבי יוחנן ניחא אלא לרב אסי קשיא

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.

הכא במאי עסקינן כשחייב מודה השתא דאתית להכי כולהו נמי כשחייב מודה

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.

מרימר אגבי כתובתה לגרושה מנכסי דיתמי אמר ליה רבינא לאמימר והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסי אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומין אלא אם כן היתה רבית אוכלת בהן רבי יוחנן אומר או לשטר שיש בו רבית או לכתובת אשה משום מזוני

§ 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.

ואפילו רבי יוחנן לא קאמר אלא באלמנה דקמפסדא מזוני אבל גרושה לא

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.

אמר ליה הא אנן דרבי יוחנן משום חינא מתנינן לה

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.

אמר רב נחמן מרישא לא הוה מיזדקיקנא לנכסי יתמי כיון דשמענא להא דרב הונא חברין משמיה דרב יתמי דאכלי דלא דידהו ליזלו בתר שיבקייהו מכאן ואילך מיזדקקנא

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.

מעיקרא מאי טעמא לא אמר רב פפא פריעת בעל חוב מצוה ויתמי לא בני מיעבד מצוה נינהו רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר אימר צררי אתפסיה

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.

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו בשחייב מודה אי נמי שמתוה ומת בשמתיה

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.

שלחו מתם דשמתוה ומית בשמתיה והלכתא כרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע

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.

תנן שום היתומים שלשים יום ושום ההקדש ששים יום ומכריזין בבקר ובערב במאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל חוב גוי מי צאית אלא פשיטא בבעל חוב ישראל

The Gemara attempts to determine the correct reason why the court does not attend to the property of minor orphans: We learned in the mishna that one proclaims the appraisal of the property of minor orphans that is being sold for thirty days, and one proclaims the appraisal of consecrated property for sixty days, and one proclaims it in the morning and in the evening. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with here? If we say that the mishna is dealing with a gentile creditor who is unwilling to wait until the orphans reach majority, will he comply with the court’s directive that the appraisal of the property be proclaimed for thirty days before it is sold? Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is dealing with a Jewish creditor.

בשלמא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מוקי לה בשחייב מודה אלא לרב פפא קשיא

The Gemara concludes its proof: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who says that the court does not attend to the property of minor orphans due to a concern that their father might have left bundles of coins with the creditor, he can establish the mishna as referring to a case where the one obligated to pay, i.e., the father, admits before his death that he has not paid. In such a case, the court does not wait to collect payment until the orphans reach majority. But according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, that the court does not attend to the property of minor orphans because they are not obligated in the mitzva to repay a loan, the mishna poses a difficulty.

אמר לך רב פפא אי בעית אימא כתובה משום חינא ואי בעית אימא בבעל חוב גוי שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל

The Gemara explains that Rav Pappa could say to you: If you wish, say that the mishna is referring to a case where the court sells the property of the orphans in order to collect payment for a marriage contract, which the court does for the sake of favor, i.e., in order that the wife will own property and be desirable for marriage. And if you wish, say instead that the mishna is dealing with a gentile creditor who accepted upon himself to adjudicate in accordance with Jewish law. He therefore agrees to delay collection for thirty days.

אי קיבל עליו לינטר להו עד דגדלי שקיבל עליו לזו ולא קיבל עליו לזו

The Gemara objects: If he accepted Jewish law upon himself, then let him wait for the orphans until they reach majority before demanding payment of the loan. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to 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, to wait until they reach majority.

תא שמע על מנת ליתן לאשה כתובתה ולבעל חוב חובו במאי עסקינן אילימא בבעל חוב גוי מי ציית אלא פשיטא בבעל חוב ישראל

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof 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 asks: What are we dealing with in the baraita? If we say that the baraita is referring to a gentile creditor who is unwilling to wait until the orphans reach majority, will he comply with the court’s directive that the appraisal of the property is proclaimed for thirty days before it is sold? Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is referring to a Jewish creditor.

בשלמא לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מוקי לה בשחייב מודה אלא לרב פפא בשלמא כתובה משום חינא אלא בעל חוב קשיא

The Gemara continues: Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, he can establish the mishna as referring to a case where the one obligated to pay admits before his death that he has not paid. But according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, granted, the court collects payment of a marriage contract for the sake of favor; but the fact that they sell the property in order to pay a creditor poses a difficulty.

לעולם בבעל חוב גוי וכגון שקיבל עליו לדון בדיני ישראל אי קיבל עליו לינטר להו עד דגדלי שקיבל עליו לזו ולא קיבל עליו לזו

The Gemara responds: Actually, the baraita is dealing with a gentile creditor, and is it referring to a case where he accepted upon himself to adjudicate in accordance with Jewish law. He therefore agrees to delay collection for thirty days. The Gemara objects: If he accepted Jewish law upon himself, then let him wait for the orphans until they reach majority before demanding payment of the loan. The Gemara again explains: The baraita 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, to wait until they reach majority.

רבא אמר משום שובר אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבא ומי חיישינן לשובר והתנן הנפרעת שלא בפניו לא תפרע אלא בשבועה

Rava says: The court does not collect payment from the property of minor orphans due to the concern that there might be a receipt, i.e., perhaps their father repaid the loan and received a receipt attesting to his payment and the orphans are unaware of its existence. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rava: But are we concerned for the existence of a receipt? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ketubot 87a): A woman who collects the payment of her marriage contract from the property of her husband when not in his presence, e.g., if her husband is overseas, may collect only by means of an oath that she has not yet received payment.

ואמר רבי אחא שר הבירה מעשה בא לפני רבי יצחק נפחא לאנטוכיא ואמר לא שנו אלא כתובת אשה משום חינא אבל בעל חוב לא ורבה אמר רב נחמן אפילו בעל חוב נמי

And Rabbi Aḥa Sar HaBira says: An incident came before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa in Antioch, and he issued a ruling and said: They taught this halakha, that she may collect the payment of her marriage contract in her husband’s absence, only with regard to the wife’s marriage contract, for the sake of favor. But a creditor does not have the right to collect the debt that is owed to him in the debtor’s absence. And Rabba says that Rav Naḥman says: Even a creditor may collect a payment by means of an oath in the debtor’s absence.

ואי חיישת לשובר התם נמי ניחוש אמר ליה התם כדאמרינן טעמא שלא יהא כל אחד נוטל מעותיו של חבירו והולך ויושב לו במדינת הים

Rav Huna explains the difficulty: And if you are concerned for the existence of a receipt, then in that case there as well, where the obligated party is overseas, let us be concerned that he has in fact paid the debt and received a receipt. Rava said to him: In that case there, one is not concerned about the existence of a receipt, in accordance with the reason that we say: It is in order that there should not be a situation where every person will take the money of another and go and reside in a country overseas, to prevent the creditor from collecting the money from his property.

אמר רבא הלכתא אין נזקקין לנכסי יתומין ואם אמר תנו נזקקין שדה זו ומנה זו נזקקין ואין מעמידין אפוטרופוס שדה סתם ומנה סתם נזקקין ומעמידין אפוטרופוס

§ Rava says: The halakha is that the court does not attend to the property of minor orphans in order to pay the debts owed by their father. But if their father said before his death: Give so-and-so the payment of my debt, the court attends to their property. Specifically, if the father said: Give this field to so-and-so, or: Give this one hundred dinars to so-and-so, then the court attends to their property to collect payment, and the court does not install a steward [apotropos] to negotiate with the creditor on their behalf. If he said: Give a field to so-and-so, i.e., an unspecified field, or: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, i.e., unspecified dinars, then the court attends to the property of the orphans and they install a steward to act on their behalf, to ensure that the best fields remain in their possession.

אמרי נהרדעי בכולהו נזקקין ומעמידין אפוטרופוס לבד מנמצאת שדה שאינה שלו דאחזוקי סהדי בשקרי לא מחזקינן

By contrast, the Sages of Neharde’a say: In all of these cases where the father told his children before his death to give an item, the court attends to the property of the orphans and they install a steward to act on their behalf, except for a situation where a field is found in their possession with regard to which witnesses have testified that it is not their father’s, but is in fact stolen. In such a case, the stolen field is seized and returned to its owner without recourse to a steward, as we do not presume that witnesses are liars.

אמר רב אשי הלכך אזדקוקי לא מזדקקינן דהא אמר רבא הלכתא אין נזקקין ואי מזדקקינן מוקמינן אפוטרופוס דאמרי נהרדעי בכולהו נזקקין ומעמידין אפוטרופוס לבד מנמצאת שדה שאינה שלו דאחזוקי סהדי בשקרי לא מחזקינן

Rav Ashi says: Therefore, we do not attend to the property of minor orphans in order to repay a standard loan, as Rava says: The halakha is that the court does not attend to their property. And if we attend to their property, e.g., in a case where the father told his children to repay the debt, we install a steward to act on behalf of the orphans, as the Sages of Neharde’a say: In all of the cases, the court attends to the property of minor orphans and installs a steward, except for a situation where a field is found in their possession that is not the father’s, as we do not presume that witnesses are liars.