## Arakhin Daf 23b

###### Arakhin 23b:1
[Arakhin 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:1)

קַבְּלָן הֲוָה. הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: קַבְּלָן, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ נְכָסִים לְלֹוֶה — מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִית לֵיהּ — מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, לֵית לֵיהּ — לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Arakhin 23b:2
[Arakhin 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:2)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַב הוּנָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ וְאִישְׁתְּדוּף, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אַבָּא לְגַבֵּיהּ בְּרֵיהּ שַׁעְבּוֹדֵי מְשַׁעְבֵּד נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 23b:3
[Arakhin 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:3)

דְּאִיתְּמַר: עָרֵב דִּכְתוּבָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, קַבְּלָן דְּבַעַל חוֹב — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, עָרֵב דְּבַעַל חוֹב וְקַבְּלָן דִּכְתוּבָּה — פְּלִיגִי. אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אִית לֵיהּ נִכְסֵי לְלֹוֶה — מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, לֵית לֵיהּ — לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ — מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד.

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


###### Arakhin 23b:4
[Arakhin 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:4)

וְהִלְכְתָא בְּכוּלְּהוּ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ נָמֵי מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד, לְבַר מֵעָרֵב דִּכְתוּבָּה, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ לָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִצְוָה קָעָבֵיד, וְלָא מִידֵּי חַסְּרֵיהּ.

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


###### Arakhin 23b:5
[Arakhin 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:5)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּזַבְּנִינְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ, וְקָא (גרשה) [מְגָרְשַׁהּ] לִדְבֵיתְהוּ. שַׁלְחַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: עָרֵב תְּנַן, הֶקְדֵּשׁ תְּנַן, לוֹקֵחַ מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּנָּא כִּי רוֹכְלָא נִיחַשֵּׁיב וְנֵיזִיל?

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


###### Arakhin 23b:6
[Arakhin 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:6)

נְהַרְדָּעֵי אָמְרִי: דִּתְנַן תְּנַן, דְּלָא תְּנַן לָא תְּנַן. אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דִּנְהַרְדָּעֵי? בִּשְׁלָמָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ — מִשּׁוּם רֶיוַח דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, עָרֵב נָמֵי — מִצְוָה הוּא דַּעֲבַד, וְלָאו מִידֵּי חַסְּרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **of Neharde’a 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’a? 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.


###### Arakhin 23b:7
[Arakhin 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:7)

אֶלָּא לוֹקֵחַ, מִכְּדֵי מִידָּע יָדַע דְּכֹל חַד וְחַד אִיכָּא עֲלֵיהּ כְּתוּבָּה, אַמַּאי נֵיזִיל וְנִיזְבּוֹן? אִיהוּ הוּא דְּאַפְסֵיד אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ!

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


###### Arakhin 23b:8
[Arakhin 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו, וְהָיְתָה עָלָיו כְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב — אֵין הָאִשָּׁה יְכוֹלָה לִגְבּוֹת כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְלֹא בַּעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ, אֶלָּא הַפּוֹדֶה פּוֹדֶה עַל מְנָת לִיתֵּן לְאִשָּׁה בִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ. הִקְדִּישׁ תִּשְׁעִים מָנֶה וְהָיָה חוֹבוֹ מֵאָה מָנֶה — מוֹסִיף עוֹד דִּינָר, וּפוֹדֶה אֶת הַנְּכָסִים הָאֵלּוּ עַל מְנָת לִיתֵּן לָאִשָּׁה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ וּלְבַעַל חוֹב אֶת חוֹבוֹ.

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


###### Arakhin 23b:9
[Arakhin 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** לְמָה לִי לְמֵימַר ״הַפּוֹדֶה פּוֹדֶה״? מִשּׁוּם דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna **to state** that **the one who redeems, redeems,** i.e., why isn’t 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.**


###### Arakhin 23b:10
[Arakhin 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:10)

מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה חוֹבוֹ כְּנֶגֶד הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ — פּוֹדֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 23b:11
[Arakhin 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:11)

וְאִם לָאו — אֵינוֹ פּוֹדֶה. וְרַבָּנַן, עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: עַד פַּלְגָא.

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


###### Arakhin 23b:12
[Arakhin 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ חַיָּיבֵי עֲרָכִין מְמַשְׁכְּנִין (אוֹתוֹ) [אוֹתָן], נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מְזוֹן שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, וּכְסוּת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, מִטָּה מוּצַּעַת, וְסַנְדָּלָיו, וּתְפִלָּיו — לוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ וּלְבָנָיו.

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


###### Arakhin 23b:13
[Arakhin 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:13)

אִם הָיָה אוּמָּן — נוֹתֵן לוֹ שְׁנֵי כְּלֵי אוּמָּנוּת מִכׇּל מִין וּמִין, חָרָשׁ — נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי מַעֲצָדִין וּשְׁנֵי מְגֵירוֹת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה אִיכָּר — נוֹתֵן לוֹ צִמְדּוֹ, חַמָּר — נוֹתֵן לוֹ חֲמוֹרוֹ.

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


###### Arakhin 23b:14
[Arakhin 23b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:14)

הָיָה לוֹ מִין אֶחָד מְרוּבֶּה וּמִין אֶחָד מוּעָט — אֵין אוֹמֵר לִמְכּוֹר אֶת הַמְרוּבֶּה וְלִיקַּח מִן הַמּוּעָט, אֶלָּא נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי מִינִין מִן הַמְרוּבֶּה וְכֹל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מִן הַמּוּעָט. הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו — מַעֲלִין לוֹ תְּפִילָּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Arakhin 23b:15
[Arakhin 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/23b:15)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא:

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