## Arakhin Daf 22a

###### Arakhin 22a:1
[Arakhin 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:1)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוּם הַיְּתוֹמִים שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְשׁוּם הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שׁוּם הַיְּתוֹמִים שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם, וְשׁוּם הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ תִּשְׁעִים יוֹם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: הֲלָכָה שׁוּם הַיְּתוֹמִים שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Arakhin 22a:2
[Arakhin 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:2)

יָתֵיב רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין וְקָאָמַר לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: שִׁשִּׁים קָאָמְרַתְּ אוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים קָאָמְרַתְּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁשִּׁים. דִּיתוֹמִים אוֹ דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דִּיתוֹמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Arakhin 22a:3
[Arakhin 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:3)

כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְהָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר שְׁלֹשִׁים קָאָמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:4
[Arakhin 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֵאֲבִימִי קוּלְפֵי טָאבֵי בְּלַעִי עֲלַהּ דְּהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא, בָּא לְהַכְרִיז רְצוּפִים — שְׁלֹשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*.


###### Arakhin 22a:5
[Arakhin 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:5)

בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי, שִׁשִּׁים, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּכִי חָשֵׁיב לְהוּ מָר לְיוֹמֵי הַכְרָזָה לָא הָווּ אֶלָּא תְּמָנֵיסַר יוֹמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּמָשְׁכָא מִילְּתָא שָׁמְעִי אִינָשֵׁי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:6
[Arakhin 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:6)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אֵין נִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה רִבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בָּהֶן. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אוֹ לִשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית, אוֹ לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה מִשּׁוּם מְזוֹנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Arakhin 22a:7
[Arakhin 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:7)

וְרַב אַסִּי מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה? דְּהָא תַּקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וְאִידַּךְ? זִימְנִין דְּלָא סָפְקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:8
[Arakhin 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:8)

תְּנַן: שׁוּם הַיְּתוֹמִים שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וְשׁוּם הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ שִׁשִּׁים יוֹם, וּמַכְרִיזִין בַּבֹּקֶר וּבָעֶרֶב. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹי, מִי צָיֵית? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּבַעַל חוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִי דְּקָאָכֵיל רִיבִּיתָא, מִי שָׁבְקִינַן לֵיהּ? וְאֶלָּא דְּלָא קָאָכֵיל רִיבִּיתָא, וְקָתָנֵי: נִזְקָקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:9
[Arakhin 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:9)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מוֹקֵי לַהּ בִּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה, אֶלָּא לְרַב אַסִּי קַשְׁיָא. אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִי נִיחָא? מִי שָׁבְקִינַן מְזוֹנֵי דְּוַדַּאי קָא מַפְסְדָא, וְנָקְטִינַן הַכְרָזָה דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי מַרְוְוחִינַן אִי לָא מַרְוְוחִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Arakhin 22a:10
[Arakhin 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:10)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, בְּתוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית דִּין, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַתּוֹבַעַת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ בְּבֵית דִּין אֵין לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:11
[Arakhin 22a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:11)

אִי הָכִי, אִיזְדְּקוֹקֵי לָא מִיזְדַּקְקִינַן לַהּ, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּאִיזְדַּקְקִינַן לַהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא, מִיזְדַּקְקִינַן לַהּ לְבַסּוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:12
[Arakhin 22a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:12)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, לְרַב אַסִּי קַשְׁיָא! לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹי, שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לָדוּן בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:13
[Arakhin 22a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:13)

אִי הָכִי, רִבִּית נָמֵי לָא לִישְׁקוֹל! שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לָזוֹ, וְלֹא קִיבֵּל עָלָיו לָזוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:14
[Arakhin 22a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּיבּוּרִית״. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹי — מִי צָאֵית? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא בְּבַעַל חוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִי אָכֵיל רִיבִּיתָא — מִי שָׁבְקִינַן לֵיהּ? אֶלָּא דְּלָא אָכֵיל רִיבִּיתָא, וְקָתָנֵי: נִזְקָקִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:15
[Arakhin 22a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:15)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מוֹקֵי לַהּ בִּכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה, אֶלָּא לְרַב אַסִּי קַשְׁיָא. אָמַר לְךָ רַב אַסִּי: וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִי נִיחָא? אִי כְּתוּבָּה, מַאי אִירְיָא מִיַּתְמֵי? אֲפִילּוּ מִינֵּיהּ דִּידֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּזִיבּוּרִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:16
[Arakhin 22a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:16)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּבֵינוֹנִית, וּמִיַּתְמֵי בְּזִיבּוּרִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:17
[Arakhin 22a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:17)

מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, לְרַב אַסִּי קַשְׁיָא! לְעוֹלָם בְּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹי, שֶׁקִּיבֵּל עָלָיו לָדוּן בְּדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אִי הָכִי, רִבִּית נָמֵי לָא נִישְׁקוֹל! שֶׁקִּיבֵּל לְזוֹ, וְלֹא קִיבֵּל עָלָיו לָזוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:18
[Arakhin 22a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:18)

תָּא שְׁמַע: עַל מְנָת לִיתֵּן לָאִשָּׁה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹב חוֹבוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּעַל חוֹב, בֵּין מָר וּבֵין מָר — כִּדְשַׁנִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:19
[Arakhin 22a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:19)

אֶלָּא כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַב אַסִּי קַשְׁיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Arakhin 22a:20
[Arakhin 22a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:20)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה. הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי כְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:21
[Arakhin 22a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:21)

מָרִימָר אַגְבֵּי (כתובתה) [כְּתוּבָּה] לִגְרוּשָׁה מִנִּכְסֵי דְּיַתְמֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְאַמֵּימָר: וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: ״אֵין נִזְקָקִין לְנִכְסֵי יְתוֹמִין אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הָיְתָה רִבִּית אוֹכֶלֶת בָּהֶן״. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אוֹ לִשְׁטָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רִבִּית, אוֹ לִכְתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה מִשּׁוּם מְזוֹנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Arakhin 22a:22
[Arakhin 22a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:22)

וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא בְּאַלְמָנָה, דְּקָמַפְסְדָא מְזוֹנֵי, אֲבָל גְּרוּשָׁה לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:23
[Arakhin 22a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:23)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא אֲנַן דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם חִינָּא מַתְנִינַן לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:24
[Arakhin 22a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:24)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מֵרֵישָׁא לָא הֲוָה מִיזְדְּקִיקְנָא לְנִכְסֵי יַתְמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁמַעְנָא לְהָא דְּרַב הוּנָא חַבְרִין מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: ״יַתְמֵי דְּאָכְלִי דְּלָא דִּידְהוּ לֵיזְלוּ בָּתַר שִׁיבְקַיְיהוּ״, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ מִיזְדְּקִקְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:25
[Arakhin 22a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:25)

מֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: פְּרִיעַת בַּעַל חוֹב מִצְוָה, וְיַתְמֵי לָא בְּנֵי מֶיעְבַּד מִצְוָה נִינְהוּ. רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אָמַר: אֵימַר צְרָרֵי אַתְפְּסֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:26
[Arakhin 22a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:26)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ בְּשֶׁחַיָּיב מוֹדֶה, אִי נָמֵי שַׁמְּתוּהּ וּמִית בְּשַׁמְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 22a:27
[Arakhin 22a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/22a:27)

שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם, דְּשַׁמְּתוּהּ וּמִית בְּשַׁמְתֵּיהּ, וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**