Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2019 | 讜壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Arakhin 23

One who dedicates all his property to the Temple and needs to pay his wife’s ketuba – do we need to be concerned about a conspiracy between him and his wife – they will divorce and then get remarried so that they can get the money back from the Temple? The same issue is raised with a guarantor. If dedicates all of one’s property but owes his wife money or owed money for a loan, is the property considered sanctified? How does one redeem it? On what does it depend?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讬讙专砖谞讛 讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讛注专讘 诇讗砖讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 诪讙专砖讛 讬讚讬专谞讛 讛谞讗讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 谞讻住讬诐 砖诇 讝讛 讜讬讞讝讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who consecrates his property and there was the outstanding debt of the marriage contract of his wife, for whose repayment one鈥檚 property is liened, Rabbi Eliezer says: When he divorces her, he shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him. This is to prevent collusion, by which he divorces her, she collects payment from the consecrated property, and he then remarries her. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He need not do so. On a similar note, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even in the case of the guarantor of a woman for her marriage contract, and her husband was divorcing her and could not pay the debt, the husband shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him, lest he and his wife engage in collusion [kinunya] and collect payment from the property of that guarantor, and then the husband will remarry his wife.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讛拽讚砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讛拽讚砖

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to a case where one consecrates his property and then divorces his wife. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer holds that a person would engage in collusion against even the Temple treasury, and for this reason he divorces his wife. The required vow serves to prevent such a possibility. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a person would not engage in collusion against the Temple treasury.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛拽讚讬砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 谞讗诪谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, consider that which Rav Huna says: If a person on his deathbed consecrated all of his property and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars that I owe him in my possession, his statement is deemed credible, as there is a presumption that a person does not engage in collusion against the Temple treasury. Let us say that Rav Huna stated this halakha with regard to a matter that is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诇讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讘专讬讗 讗讘诇 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讛拽讚砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讗 诇讜

The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree whether or not one colludes against the Temple treasury only with regard to a healthy person. But with regard to a person on his deathbed, everyone agrees that such a person does not engage in collusion against the Temple treasury. What is the reason? Since he will soon die, he does not stand to gain anything from his statement, and a person sins only for his own benefit, not for the benefit of others.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讘专讬讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 讜讛讻讗 讘谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

Some say that in the case of a healthy person, everyone agrees on the question of whether or not a person would engage in collusion against the Temple treasury, i.e., they agree that one must be concerned that a person may engage in collusion. And here, they disagree with regard to a vow administered in public, e.g., a vow administered by the court. One Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds that such a vow has the option of nullification. Consequently, there is no use in requiring the husband to take a vow even in public, as a halakhic authority can later dissolve it. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that such a vow does not have the option of nullification. Therefore, the court administers a vow in public to prevent collusion.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讜讛讻讗 讘谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone agrees that a vow administered in public has the option of nullification. And here, they disagree with regard to a vow administered based on the consent of the public, i.e., when the court says to the husband: You are taking a vow that benefit from your wife is forbidden to you based on our consent. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there is no option of nullification for such a vow, and therefore it is effective in preventing collusion, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that even such a vow can be nullified and is therefore ineffective in preventing collusion.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, consider that which Ameimar says: A vow that was taken in public has the option of nullification; if it was taken based on the consent of the public it does not have the option of nullification. Let us say that Ameimar stated this halakha with regard to a matter that is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehoshua says in the mishna that the husband need not take a vow. If his reason is that such a vow is ineffective, he should have stated: It is ineffective.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘砖讗诇讛 讚讛拽讚砖 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, here they disagree with regard to one鈥檚 ability to request the dissolution of a vow involving consecrated property. Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may not request the dissolution of a vow involving consecrated property. Accordingly, there is a concern that the husband might collude with his wife by divorcing her in order to extract the consecrated property from the Temple treasury, as he has no other means of releasing the property. In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that such a vow may be dissolved and therefore there is no reason for the husband to collude with his wife.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讙专砖讛 讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

The Gemara adds: And it is likewise taught in a baraita: In the case of one who consecrates his property and there was the outstanding debt of the marriage contract of his wife upon it, Rabbi Eliezer says: When he divorces her, he shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him, to prevent collusion. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He need not do so. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: This statement of Rabbi Eliezer is the same as the statement of Beit Shammai, and this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is the same as the statement of Beit Hillel.

砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖

As Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performed in error is effective as consecration. Consequently, one cannot request the dissolution of his consecration due to circumstances that unfolded on the grounds that he did not mean to make a vow. And Beit Hillel say: Consecration that one performed in error is not consecration, and one may therefore request the dissolution of his consecration.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 诪砖讛 讘专 注爪专讬 注专讘讗 讚讻诇转讬讛 讛讜讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讛 讜讚讞讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讬讻讗 讚谞住讘讬 注爪讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚诇讬讙专砖 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜转讬转讘注 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讜诇讛讚专讛 诪讬讛讚专讬

搂 The mishna teaches: On a similar note, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that even in the case of a guarantor for a woman for her marriage contract, he vows that benefit from her is forbidden to him, lest he and his wife engage in collusion. The Gemara relates that Moshe bar Atzrei was the guarantor for the marriage contract of his daughter-in-law, and Rav Huna, his son, was a Torah scholar and was hard-pressed for money. Abaye said: Is there no one who will advise Rav Huna that he should divorce his wife, and she should claim her marriage contract from his father, the guarantor of the marriage contract, and that he should then return and remarry her, and in this manner they will obtain money?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗谞谉 讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 转谞谉 讜讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讙专砖 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪讙专砖 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪诇转讗 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘转专 注谞讬讗 讗讝诇讗 注谞讬讜转讗

Rava said to Abaye: But we learned in the mishna that in such a case he shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him. If so, Rav Huna cannot remarry her. And the Gemara explains that Abaye would argue: Is that to say that anyone who divorces, divorces in court? Let Rav Huna divorce his wife outside the court, so that he will not be forced to take a vow and he will therefore be allowed to remarry her. The Gemara relates that ultimately it was revealed that Rav Huna was a priest, which means that if he had divorced his wife he would have been prohibited from remarrying her. Abaye said of this revelation: This is an example of the saying that poverty follows the poor, i.e., it is difficult to remove a poor person from a state of poverty.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬讝讛讜 专砖注 注专讜诐 讝讛 讛诪砖讬讗 注爪讛 诇诪讻讜专 讘谞讻住讬诐 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say this? Doesn鈥檛 Abaye say: Who is a wily, wicked person? This is one who advises another to sell property that he received from someone who stipulated that the property should pass to a second beneficiary upon the death of the first. And this is in accordance with the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains that the sale is valid and the second beneficiary may not remove the property from the possession of the buyer. If Abaye considers this individual as wicked for advising one to act against the intentions of a benefactor, how could he suggest that Rav Huna should extract money from the guarantor in the above case?

讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讜爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: When one is a guarantor for his son it is different, as he would forgive his son for acting in this manner, as the son will in any case inherit his property. And furthermore, when this is performed for the benefit of a Torah scholar it is different, as it is proper to assist him so that he may continue studying Torah.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚注专讘 讚讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚

The Gemara objects: And let Abaye deduce that such a course of action is ineffective, as a guarantor of a marriage contract is not legally responsible to pay the marriage contract.

拽讘诇谉 讛讜讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讘诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇诇讜讛 诪砖转注讘讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara responds: Moshe bar Atzrei was a guarantor who accepted unconditional responsibility [kablan] for the payment of the marriage contract. The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the one who says that with regard to a kablan, even though the debtor has no property at the time of the loan, nevertheless the kablan is responsible for payment. But according to the one who says that if the debtor has property then the kablan is responsible, but if he does not have property then the kablan does not agree to become responsible for the payment, what can be said? Since Rav Huna owned no property, how could payment of the marriage contract be collected from Moshe bar Atzrei?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讜讗讬砖转讚讜祝 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讘讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讘专讬讛 砖注讘讚讛 诪砖注讘讚 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that Rav Huna had property at the time that his father accepted upon himself to be a guarantor, and it became blighted. And if you wish, say instead that a father, with regard to his son, accepts responsibility upon himself even if his son owns no property.

讚讗讬转诪专 注专讘 讚讻转讜讘讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 拽讘诇谉 讚讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪砖转注讘讚 注专讘 讚讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜拽讘诇谉 讚讻转讜讘讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬 诇诇讜讛 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖转注讘讚

The Gemara cites the aforementioned dispute in detail. As it was stated: Everyone agrees that an ordinary guarantor of a marriage contract does not resolve to become responsible for paying the marriage contract. Everyone also agrees that a kablan for a creditor is responsible for paying the debtor鈥檚 debt. By contrast, with regard to an ordinary guarantor of a debt owed to a creditor and a kablan for the payment of a marriage contract, the Sages disagree. There is one Sage who says: If the debtor or the husband has property then the guarantor becomes responsible, but if he does not have property then he does not become responsible. And there is another Sage who says: Even though the debtor or the husband does not have property, the guarantor becomes responsible for payment of the obligation.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讘专 诪注专讘 讚讻转讜讘讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讞住专讬讛

And the halakha in all of these cases is: Even though the principal does not have property of his own, the guarantor still becomes responsible for paying the obligation, except for the case of an ordinary guarantor of a marriage contract, with regard to which, even though the husband has property of his own when he draws up the marriage contract, the guarantor does not resolve to become responsible. What is the reason? He performs a mitzva, i.e., he agrees to be a guarantor only so that the woman will consent to the marriage but he does not actually resolve to become responsible. And furthermore, the woman did not lose anything in exchange for which the guarantor would have accepted responsibility, as the husband did not borrow money from her.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜拽讗 讙专砖讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 砖诇讞讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 注专讘 转谞谉 讛拽讚砖 转谞谉 诇讜拽讞 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讻讬 专讜讻诇讗 谞讬讞砖讬讘 讜谞讬讝讬诇

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold his property and later when he divorced his wife he had no property with which to pay the marriage contract. The wife therefore sought to collect payment from the buyers. Rav Yosef, son of Rava, sent the case before Rav Pappa: When a wife鈥檚 marriage contract is paid by a guarantor, we learned in the mishna that the husband vows that benefit from her is forbidden to him. Similarly, when she collects her marriage contract from consecrated property, we learned in the mishna that the husband takes such a vow. What is the halakha when she collects payment from a buyer? Rav Pappa said to him: Should the tanna have continued reckoning cases like a peddler, who announces all his wares? Obviously, the halakha is the same in the case of a buyer, as the identical reasoning applies despite the fact that the tanna neglected to mention this case.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讚转谞谉 转谞谉 讚诇讗 转谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞讛专讚注讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛拽讚砖 诪砖讜诐 专讬讜讞 讚讛拽讚砖 注专讘 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 讜诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讞住专讬讛

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: That which we learned in the mishna we learned, and that which we did not learn in the mishna we did not learn, i.e., the husband does not need to make the vow when the payment of the marriage contract is collected from buyers. Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reasoning of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃? Granted, when the payment of the marriage contract is collected from consecrated property the husband must make the vow due to the importance of maintaining the profit of the Temple treasury. In the case of a guarantor as well, the husband must make the vow, as the guarantor performed a mitzva and the woman did not lose anything, i.e., the guarantor received nothing from the wife, and he nevertheless accepted responsibility for the payment of the marriage contract. The husband therefore vows in order that others should not be discouraged from performing this mitzva.

讗诇讗 诇讜拽讞 诪讻讚讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞讬讝讘讜谉 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

But in the case of a buyer, since he knows that each and every married man has upon him the potential obligation to pay a marriage contract, why should he go and purchase a field from the husband when there is a lien on it due to the marriage contract? Since it is he who caused himself to lose out, it is unreasonable to prevent the husband from remarrying his wife merely for the benefit of the buyer.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜转 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讛驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谉 诇讗砖讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讛拽讚讬砖 转砖注讬诐 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讛 讞讜讘讜 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诪讜住讬祝 注讜讚 讚讬谞专 讜驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛讗诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谉 诇讗砖讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗转 讞讜讘讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who consecrates his property and there was an outstanding debt of the marriage contract of his wife and of a creditor, the woman may not collect the payment of her marriage contract from the Temple treasury, nor may the creditor collect his debt. Rather, the one who redeems the property redeems it for a cheap price in order to give the woman her marriage contract payment and the creditor his debt. For example, if one consecrated property worth nine thousand dinars and his debt was ten thousand dinars, leaving no property for redemption, the creditor lends an additional dinar to the debtor and the debtor redeems the property with that dinar, in order to give the woman her marriage contract payment and the creditor his debt.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讗 驻讚讬讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state that the one who redeems, redeems, i.e., why isn鈥檛 the property given directly to the creditor without redemption? The Gemara answers: This is due to the explanation of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: The property is redeemed so that people will not say that consecrated property exits to non-sacred status without redemption.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讜讘讜 讻谞讙讚 讛拽讚砖讜 驻讜讚讛

The mishna teaches that if one consecrated property worth nine thousand dinars and his debt was ten thousand dinars, the creditor lends an additional dinar to the debtor for him to redeem the property. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If his debt corresponded to the value of his consecrated property, then the debtor redeems the property in the manner prescribed in the mishna.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 注讚 驻诇讙讗

But if the value of the consecrated property is not enough to cover the debt, he does not redeem the property in this manner. Instead, it must be redeemed in accordance with its value. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, up to what amount may the property be redeemed in the manner described in the mishna? Rav Huna bar Yehuda says that Rav Sheshet says: The consecrated property must be worth at least half of the debt. If the property is worth less, it may be redeemed only in accordance with its monetary value.

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注专讻讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻住讜转 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讟讛 诪讜爪注转 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜转驻诇讬讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讘谞讬讜

mishna Although the Sages said (21a): With regard to those obligated to pay valuations, the court repossesses their property to pay their debt to the Temple treasury; nevertheless, the treasurer gives him permission to keep food sufficient for thirty days, and garments sufficient for twelve months, and a bed made with linens, and his sandals, and his phylacteries. The treasurer leaves these items for him, but he does not leave items for his wife or for his children.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讜诪谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 讞专砖 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪爪注讚讬谉 讜砖谞讬 诪讙讬专讜转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬讻专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 爪诪讚讜 讞诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讞诪讜专讜

If the one obligated to pay was a craftsman, the treasurer gives him permission to keep two tools of his craft of each and every type, e.g., for a carpenter, the treasurer gives him permission to keep two adzes [matzadin] and two saws. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his pair of oxen with which he plows the field. If he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his donkey.

讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪专讜讘讛 讜诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讜注讟 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讛诪专讜讘讛 讜诇讬拽讞 诪谉 讛诪讜注讟 讗诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 诪谉 讛诪专讜讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪讜注讟 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬讜

If one had many tools of one type and few tools of one other type, e.g., three adzes and one saw, he may not say to the treasurer to sell one tool of the type of which he has many and to purchase for him one tool of the type of which he has few. Rather, the treasurer gives him two tools of the type of which he has many and he retains whatever he has of the type of which he has few. In contrast to one whose property is repossessed to pay valuations, from one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries, as they are included in the category of all his property.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗

gemara The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the treasurer leaves him with all of the tools mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara explains that the reason is that the verse states:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 23

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讬讙专砖谞讛 讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讛注专讘 诇讗砖讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜讛讬讛 讘注诇讛 诪讙专砖讛 讬讚讬专谞讛 讛谞讗讛 砖诪讗 讬注砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 谞讻住讬诐 砖诇 讝讛 讜讬讞讝讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who consecrates his property and there was the outstanding debt of the marriage contract of his wife, for whose repayment one鈥檚 property is liened, Rabbi Eliezer says: When he divorces her, he shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him. This is to prevent collusion, by which he divorces her, she collects payment from the consecrated property, and he then remarries her. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He need not do so. On a similar note, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even in the case of the guarantor of a woman for her marriage contract, and her husband was divorcing her and could not pay the debt, the husband shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him, lest he and his wife engage in collusion [kinunya] and collect payment from the property of that guarantor, and then the husband will remarry his wife.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讛拽讚砖 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 住讘专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讛拽讚砖

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua with regard to a case where one consecrates his property and then divorces his wife. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer holds that a person would engage in collusion against even the Temple treasury, and for this reason he divorces his wife. The required vow serves to prevent such a possibility. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that a person would not engage in collusion against the Temple treasury.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讛拽讚讬砖 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诪专 诪谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讘讬讚讬 谞讗诪谉 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, consider that which Rav Huna says: If a person on his deathbed consecrated all of his property and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars that I owe him in my possession, his statement is deemed credible, as there is a presumption that a person does not engage in collusion against the Temple treasury. Let us say that Rav Huna stated this halakha with regard to a matter that is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

诇讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讘讘专讬讗 讗讘诇 讘砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛讛拽讚砖 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讞讜讟讗 讜诇讗 诇讜

The Gemara responds: No, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree whether or not one colludes against the Temple treasury only with regard to a healthy person. But with regard to a person on his deathbed, everyone agrees that such a person does not engage in collusion against the Temple treasury. What is the reason? Since he will soon die, he does not stand to gain anything from his statement, and a person sins only for his own benefit, not for the benefit of others.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘讘专讬讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜砖讛 拽讬谞讜谞讬讗 注诇 讛拽讚砖 讜讛讻讗 讘谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

Some say that in the case of a healthy person, everyone agrees on the question of whether or not a person would engage in collusion against the Temple treasury, i.e., they agree that one must be concerned that a person may engage in collusion. And here, they disagree with regard to a vow administered in public, e.g., a vow administered by the court. One Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, holds that such a vow has the option of nullification. Consequently, there is no use in requiring the husband to take a vow even in public, as a halakhic authority can later dissolve it. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that such a vow does not have the option of nullification. Therefore, the court administers a vow in public to prevent collusion.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讜讛讻讗 讘谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone agrees that a vow administered in public has the option of nullification. And here, they disagree with regard to a vow administered based on the consent of the public, i.e., when the court says to the husband: You are taking a vow that benefit from your wife is forbidden to you based on our consent. According to Rabbi Eliezer, there is no option of nullification for such a vow, and therefore it is effective in preventing collusion, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that even such a vow can be nullified and is therefore ineffective in preventing collusion.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讗诪专讛 诇砖诪注转讬讛 讜转讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讬诇 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if so, consider that which Ameimar says: A vow that was taken in public has the option of nullification; if it was taken based on the consent of the public it does not have the option of nullification. Let us say that Ameimar stated this halakha with regard to a matter that is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehoshua says in the mishna that the husband need not take a vow. If his reason is that such a vow is ineffective, he should have stated: It is ineffective.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘砖讗诇讛 讚讛拽讚砖 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

Rather, here they disagree with regard to one鈥檚 ability to request the dissolution of a vow involving consecrated property. Rabbi Eliezer holds that one may not request the dissolution of a vow involving consecrated property. Accordingly, there is a concern that the husband might collude with his wife by divorcing her in order to extract the consecrated property from the Temple treasury, as he has no other means of releasing the property. In contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that such a vow may be dissolved and therefore there is no reason for the husband to collude with his wife.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 诪讙专砖讛 讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇

The Gemara adds: And it is likewise taught in a baraita: In the case of one who consecrates his property and there was the outstanding debt of the marriage contract of his wife upon it, Rabbi Eliezer says: When he divorces her, he shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him, to prevent collusion. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He need not do so. And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: This statement of Rabbi Eliezer is the same as the statement of Beit Shammai, and this statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is the same as the statement of Beit Hillel.

砖讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖

As Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performed in error is effective as consecration. Consequently, one cannot request the dissolution of his consecration due to circumstances that unfolded on the grounds that he did not mean to make a vow. And Beit Hillel say: Consecration that one performed in error is not consecration, and one may therefore request the dissolution of his consecration.

讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 诪砖讛 讘专 注爪专讬 注专讘讗 讚讻诇转讬讛 讛讜讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 讛讜讛 讜讚讞讬拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讬讻讗 讚谞住讘讬 注爪讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚诇讬讙专砖 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 讜转讬转讘注 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讘讜讛 讜诇讛讚专讛 诪讬讛讚专讬

搂 The mishna teaches: On a similar note, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that even in the case of a guarantor for a woman for her marriage contract, he vows that benefit from her is forbidden to him, lest he and his wife engage in collusion. The Gemara relates that Moshe bar Atzrei was the guarantor for the marriage contract of his daughter-in-law, and Rav Huna, his son, was a Torah scholar and was hard-pressed for money. Abaye said: Is there no one who will advise Rav Huna that he should divorce his wife, and she should claim her marriage contract from his father, the guarantor of the marriage contract, and that he should then return and remarry her, and in this manner they will obtain money?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗谞谉 讬讚讜专 讛谞讗讛 转谞谉 讜讗讘讬讬 讗讟讜 讻诇 讚诪讙专砖 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诪讙专砖 诇住讜祝 讗讬讙诇讗讬 诪诇转讗 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘转专 注谞讬讗 讗讝诇讗 注谞讬讜转讗

Rava said to Abaye: But we learned in the mishna that in such a case he shall vow that benefit from her is forbidden to him. If so, Rav Huna cannot remarry her. And the Gemara explains that Abaye would argue: Is that to say that anyone who divorces, divorces in court? Let Rav Huna divorce his wife outside the court, so that he will not be forced to take a vow and he will therefore be allowed to remarry her. The Gemara relates that ultimately it was revealed that Rav Huna was a priest, which means that if he had divorced his wife he would have been prohibited from remarrying her. Abaye said of this revelation: This is an example of the saying that poverty follows the poor, i.e., it is difficult to remove a poor person from a state of poverty.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬讝讛讜 专砖注 注专讜诐 讝讛 讛诪砖讬讗 注爪讛 诇诪讻讜专 讘谞讻住讬诐 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara asks: And did Abaye actually say this? Doesn鈥檛 Abaye say: Who is a wily, wicked person? This is one who advises another to sell property that he received from someone who stipulated that the property should pass to a second beneficiary upon the death of the first. And this is in accordance with the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who maintains that the sale is valid and the second beneficiary may not remove the property from the possession of the buyer. If Abaye considers this individual as wicked for advising one to act against the intentions of a benefactor, how could he suggest that Rav Huna should extract money from the guarantor in the above case?

讘专讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讜爪讜专讘讗 诪专讘谞谉 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara answers: When one is a guarantor for his son it is different, as he would forgive his son for acting in this manner, as the son will in any case inherit his property. And furthermore, when this is performed for the benefit of a Torah scholar it is different, as it is proper to assist him so that he may continue studying Torah.

讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚注专讘 讚讻转讜讘讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚

The Gemara objects: And let Abaye deduce that such a course of action is ineffective, as a guarantor of a marriage contract is not legally responsible to pay the marriage contract.

拽讘诇谉 讛讜讛 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讘诇谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇诇讜讛 诪砖转注讘讚 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara responds: Moshe bar Atzrei was a guarantor who accepted unconditional responsibility [kablan] for the payment of the marriage contract. The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the one who says that with regard to a kablan, even though the debtor has no property at the time of the loan, nevertheless the kablan is responsible for payment. But according to the one who says that if the debtor has property then the kablan is responsible, but if he does not have property then the kablan does not agree to become responsible for the payment, what can be said? Since Rav Huna owned no property, how could payment of the marriage contract be collected from Moshe bar Atzrei?

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讜讗讬砖转讚讜祝 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讘讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讘专讬讛 砖注讘讚讛 诪砖注讘讚 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that Rav Huna had property at the time that his father accepted upon himself to be a guarantor, and it became blighted. And if you wish, say instead that a father, with regard to his son, accepts responsibility upon himself even if his son owns no property.

讚讗讬转诪专 注专讘 讚讻转讜讘讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 拽讘诇谉 讚讘注诇 讞讜讘 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪砖转注讘讚 注专讘 讚讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜拽讘诇谉 讚讻转讜讘讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞讻住讬 诇诇讜讛 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诪砖转注讘讚

The Gemara cites the aforementioned dispute in detail. As it was stated: Everyone agrees that an ordinary guarantor of a marriage contract does not resolve to become responsible for paying the marriage contract. Everyone also agrees that a kablan for a creditor is responsible for paying the debtor鈥檚 debt. By contrast, with regard to an ordinary guarantor of a debt owed to a creditor and a kablan for the payment of a marriage contract, the Sages disagree. There is one Sage who says: If the debtor or the husband has property then the guarantor becomes responsible, but if he does not have property then he does not become responsible. And there is another Sage who says: Even though the debtor or the husband does not have property, the guarantor becomes responsible for payment of the obligation.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讘讻讜诇讛讜 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诪砖转注讘讚 诇讘专 诪注专讘 讚讻转讜讘讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪砖转注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讜诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讞住专讬讛

And the halakha in all of these cases is: Even though the principal does not have property of his own, the guarantor still becomes responsible for paying the obligation, except for the case of an ordinary guarantor of a marriage contract, with regard to which, even though the husband has property of his own when he draws up the marriage contract, the guarantor does not resolve to become responsible. What is the reason? He performs a mitzva, i.e., he agrees to be a guarantor only so that the woman will consent to the marriage but he does not actually resolve to become responsible. And furthermore, the woman did not lose anything in exchange for which the guarantor would have accepted responsibility, as the husband did not borrow money from her.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜拽讗 讙专砖讛 诇讚讘讬转讛讜 砖诇讞讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 注专讘 转谞谉 讛拽讚砖 转谞谉 诇讜拽讞 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讻讬 专讜讻诇讗 谞讬讞砖讬讘 讜谞讬讝讬诇

搂 The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold his property and later when he divorced his wife he had no property with which to pay the marriage contract. The wife therefore sought to collect payment from the buyers. Rav Yosef, son of Rava, sent the case before Rav Pappa: When a wife鈥檚 marriage contract is paid by a guarantor, we learned in the mishna that the husband vows that benefit from her is forbidden to him. Similarly, when she collects her marriage contract from consecrated property, we learned in the mishna that the husband takes such a vow. What is the halakha when she collects payment from a buyer? Rav Pappa said to him: Should the tanna have continued reckoning cases like a peddler, who announces all his wares? Obviously, the halakha is the same in the case of a buyer, as the identical reasoning applies despite the fact that the tanna neglected to mention this case.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讚转谞谉 转谞谉 讚诇讗 转谞谉 诇讗 转谞谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪砖专砖讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚谞讛专讚注讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛拽讚砖 诪砖讜诐 专讬讜讞 讚讛拽讚砖 注专讘 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讚 讜诇讗讜 诪讬讚讬 讞住专讬讛

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: That which we learned in the mishna we learned, and that which we did not learn in the mishna we did not learn, i.e., the husband does not need to make the vow when the payment of the marriage contract is collected from buyers. Rav Mesharshiyya said: What is the reasoning of the Sages of Neharde鈥檃? Granted, when the payment of the marriage contract is collected from consecrated property the husband must make the vow due to the importance of maintaining the profit of the Temple treasury. In the case of a guarantor as well, the husband must make the vow, as the guarantor performed a mitzva and the woman did not lose anything, i.e., the guarantor received nothing from the wife, and he nevertheless accepted responsibility for the payment of the marriage contract. The husband therefore vows in order that others should not be discouraged from performing this mitzva.

讗诇讗 诇讜拽讞 诪讻讚讬 诪讬讚注 讬讚注 讚讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 讗讬讻讗 注诇讬讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬讝讬诇 讜谞讬讝讘讜谉 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

But in the case of a buyer, since he knows that each and every married man has upon him the potential obligation to pay a marriage contract, why should he go and purchase a field from the husband when there is a lien on it due to the marriage contract? Since it is he who caused himself to lose out, it is unreasonable to prevent the husband from remarrying his wife merely for the benefit of the buyer.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬转讛 注诇讬讜 讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讙讘讜转 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谉 讛讛拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讗诇讗 讛驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谉 诇讗砖讛 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讜诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗转 讞讜讘讜 讛拽讚讬砖 转砖注讬诐 诪谞讛 讜讛讬讛 讞讜讘讜 诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诪讜住讬祝 注讜讚 讚讬谞专 讜驻讜讚讛 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讛讗诇讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谉 诇讗砖讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讗转 讞讜讘讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who consecrates his property and there was an outstanding debt of the marriage contract of his wife and of a creditor, the woman may not collect the payment of her marriage contract from the Temple treasury, nor may the creditor collect his debt. Rather, the one who redeems the property redeems it for a cheap price in order to give the woman her marriage contract payment and the creditor his debt. For example, if one consecrated property worth nine thousand dinars and his debt was ten thousand dinars, leaving no property for redemption, the creditor lends an additional dinar to the debtor and the debtor redeems the property with that dinar, in order to give the woman her marriage contract payment and the creditor his debt.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讛驻讜讚讛 驻讜讚讛 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讗 驻讚讬讜谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state that the one who redeems, redeems, i.e., why isn鈥檛 the property given directly to the creditor without redemption? The Gemara answers: This is due to the explanation of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: The property is redeemed so that people will not say that consecrated property exits to non-sacred status without redemption.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚转谞讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讞讜讘讜 讻谞讙讚 讛拽讚砖讜 驻讜讚讛

The mishna teaches that if one consecrated property worth nine thousand dinars and his debt was ten thousand dinars, the creditor lends an additional dinar to the debtor for him to redeem the property. The Gemara notes: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If his debt corresponded to the value of his consecrated property, then the debtor redeems the property in the manner prescribed in the mishna.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 驻讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 注讚 驻诇讙讗

But if the value of the consecrated property is not enough to cover the debt, he does not redeem the property in this manner. Instead, it must be redeemed in accordance with its value. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, up to what amount may the property be redeemed in the manner described in the mishna? Rav Huna bar Yehuda says that Rav Sheshet says: The consecrated property must be worth at least half of the debt. If the property is worth less, it may be redeemed only in accordance with its monetary value.

诪转谞讬壮 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讞讬讬讘讬 注专讻讬谉 诪诪砖讻谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 诪讝讜谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讻住讜转 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪讟讛 诪讜爪注转 讜住谞讚诇讬讜 讜转驻诇讬讜 诇讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜诇讘谞讬讜

mishna Although the Sages said (21a): With regard to those obligated to pay valuations, the court repossesses their property to pay their debt to the Temple treasury; nevertheless, the treasurer gives him permission to keep food sufficient for thirty days, and garments sufficient for twelve months, and a bed made with linens, and his sandals, and his phylacteries. The treasurer leaves these items for him, but he does not leave items for his wife or for his children.

讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讜诪谉 谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 讞专砖 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪爪注讚讬谉 讜砖谞讬 诪讙讬专讜转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬讻专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 爪诪讚讜 讞诪专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 讞诪讜专讜

If the one obligated to pay was a craftsman, the treasurer gives him permission to keep two tools of his craft of each and every type, e.g., for a carpenter, the treasurer gives him permission to keep two adzes [matzadin] and two saws. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his pair of oxen with which he plows the field. If he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him permission to keep his donkey.

讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪专讜讘讛 讜诪讬谉 讗讞讚 诪讜注讟 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讻讜专 讗转 讛诪专讜讘讛 讜诇讬拽讞 诪谉 讛诪讜注讟 讗诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 诪谉 讛诪专讜讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪讜注讟 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬讜

If one had many tools of one type and few tools of one other type, e.g., three adzes and one saw, he may not say to the treasurer to sell one tool of the type of which he has many and to purchase for him one tool of the type of which he has few. Rather, the treasurer gives him two tools of the type of which he has many and he retains whatever he has of the type of which he has few. In contrast to one whose property is repossessed to pay valuations, from one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries, as they are included in the category of all his property.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗

gemara The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the treasurer leaves him with all of the tools mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara explains that the reason is that the verse states:

Scroll To Top