Comentário sobre Arachin 6:8

שום היתומים –([the proclamation of the sale of goods of] orphans evaluated [by the court to meet the father’s debt]) – a Jewish court that goes down into the property of orphans to sell them to cause to be collected to the creditor, we estimate the property/land and announce it thirty consecutive days one after another: “all who wish to take it should come and take.” But if they wanted, they announce for sixty days every Monday and Thursday, and this is more preferable. For even though that they considered every Monday and Thursday that are part of the sixty days from the beginning of the second day of the first public announcement, they did not find other than eighteen days; nevertheless, this is preferable since the matter drags on/stretches a lot more than they know and hear about.

Introduction Chapter six deals with the consequences of dedicating one’s property to the Temple. How is the money collected? How does his dedication effect his other obligations? These and other questions are addressed in this mishnah and in the subsequent ones.

ושום הקדש – a person who dedicates an acquired field [to the Temple] which is redeemed with money according to what it is worth.

[The property] of orphans which has been evaluated [must be proclaimed for] thirty days. Occasionally the court needs to sell orphans’ property in order to pay back their father’s debts. When they do so, they proclaim that the property is for sale for thirty days in order to get the best offer.

בבוקר ובערב – at the time when the workers go out [to work] and at the time when they go home. For if there those who desire to sell it, he tells the workers at the time they go out [to work]: “See for me a particular field if it is nice,” and at the time when they go home, when he hears the public announcement, he recalls and goes and asks them. But when they make the announcement, they say: “This particular field – that such-and-such are its signs/marks [of identification], such and such are its pathways, such is how it makes grain and such the Jewish court has provided an estimate of it. And if they sell it for the [payment of] the Ketubah of his wife, they state: “The purchaser will buy it on the condition that he (i.e., the seller) will give the monies for the Ketubah of his wife.” But if they sell it for the creditor, they state: “On the condition that he gives the monies to the creditor.” Because there is a purchaser that it is pleasant for him to purchase it in order to pay the woman that he married bit by bit, and there is a case where it is more pleasant for him to pay the creditor who takes defective and broken Zuzim (i.e., coins), for it is not the manner of merchants to be so exacting in this. But even though we hold that the Jewish court does not require the property of orphans to sell them, and here (i.e., in this Mishnah) it is taught that “[the proclamation of the sale of goods of] orphans evaluated [by the court to meet the father’s debt] is thirty days,” that implies that the Jewish court does sell the property of orphans. But we state that only for three things does the Jewish court need to sell the property of orphans: a heathen creditor that their father owed him, and that interest [payments] eat up [their settlement], and on the Ketubah of a wife because there is ample provision for the orphans when she collects her Ketubah/marital settlement, for all the while that she didn’t collect her Ketubah settlement she has provisions/alimentation from the orphans; once she collects her Ketubah settlement, she no longer has alimentation. And on a debt that their father admitted to/acknowledged at the time of his death that someone has [a claim] of a Maneh, or that the Jewish court excommunicated him on this debt and he died in his being excommunicated, or that the time had not yet arrived at the time of his death for repayment of the debt, for a person does not act in the midst of its time, and when the Jewish court needs the property of the orphans for these things, they appoint for them an administrator (or guardian) and they sell it through public announcement, as is taught in our Mishnah. But these words apply with regard to land, but regarding movables, now that we hold that movables of orphans can be mortgaged to a creditor, the creditor needs to take an oath and collect his lien from the movables and there is no need for public announcement, for we don’t make public announcements on either slaves nor on documents nor on movable properties.

And [the property of] the Sanctuary which has been evaluated, [for] sixty days. When a person dedicates a piece of land to the Temple, the Temple treasury proclaims that the land is for sale for sixty days. This gives them twice as long to get the best offer.

ידירנה הנאה – with the knowledge of the many a vow that has no releasing/loosening [from the vow], so that he will never return her [as his wife] ever, for perhaps through a subtlety, he divorces her in order that she can collect her Ketubah settlement from that which was dedicated to the Temple.

They must make the proclamation in the morning and in the evening. The proclamation is made twice a day morning and night.

קנוניא (a conspiracy to defraud and divide the profits) – a subtlety.

If a man dedicates his property to the Sanctuary and he is still liable for his wife’s ketubah: Rabbi Eliezer says: when he divorces her he must vow that he will not derive any further benefit from her. Rabbi Joshua says: he need not do so. The man’s prior commitment to pay his wife’s ketubah means that if he divorces her, she can collect her ketubah money from the property that he has already dedicated to the Temple. This is not under discussion and indeed is obvious. The problem is that we fear that the man might divorce his wife, allow her to collect her ketubah and then remarry her. This would end up cheating the Temple out of the property that he dedicated to it. To avoid this problem, Rabbi Eliezer says that when he divorces her, he must take a vow never to receive benefit from her again. In this way, he cannot remarry her. Rabbi Joshua seems not to be concerned that a man will go through this ruse in order to cheat the Temple out of its due and therefore he does not obligate the man to take such a vow.

ר' יהושע אומר אינו צריך – Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua do not disagree here if a person performs a conspiracy on something dedicated to the Temple to defraud and divide the profits or not, both of them admit regarding a person that is on his deathbed, that always, he would not perform a conspiracy on something dedicated to the Temple, for a person does not sin regarding something that is not his. But regarding someone healthy, they both admit that he does make a conspiracy on something dedicated to the Temple. What they do disagree on is on a question [to a Sage] of dedication of something to the Temple for Rabbi Eliezer holds that they do not appear before a Sage regarding a question of dedicating something to the Temple, and even if he states to the Sage that it was not for this purpose that he vowed and the dedication to the Temple is in error, even so, the Sage cannot release his vow, for Rabbi Eliezer holds that a dedication done to the Temple in error is a valid dedication, and because this person making a dedication cannot find a Sage who will release him, he performs this conspiracy. But Rabbi Yehoshua holds that they do appear before a Sage regarding someone who dedicates something to the Temple [who wants to be released] for he states that it was not for that purpose that I made the vow and I errored, they release him, for something dedicated to the Temple in error is not a dedication to the Temple. Therefore, he does not have to take a vow [against] deriving any benefit, for if it was for making a conspiracy that he did it, he would come [before a Sage] to be absolved of his vow and he would not have to divorce her. And he Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

Similarly, Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: Also if one guarantees a woman's ketubah and her husband divorces her, the husband must vow to derive no benefit from her, lest he make a conspiracy against the property of that man [the guarantor] and take his wife back again. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel brings up another similar situation where we make a husband divorcing his wife take a vow not to derive benefit from her. If a man had a guarantor sign on his ketubah and then he divorced his wife, if the man cannot afford to pay, the guarantor must pay in the husband’s place. In this situation, we fear that the husband will divorce his wife and allow her to collect from the guarantor. Then he will remarry, thereby cheating the guarantor. To protect the guarantor, we make the husband vow that he will not derive any more benefit from his wife.

הערב לאשה בכתובתה – and the husband lacks property and needs a guarantor to pay off her Ketubah settlement. The guarantor should not pay her Ketubah settlement until the husband first makes her take a vow that he will not be able to take her back [as his wife]. For we suspect lest it is his intention to take her back and to consume her Ketubah settlement after she collects it from the guarantor. And the legal decision in the law of the guarantor of the Ketubah is explained at the end of [Tractate] Bava Batra [Chapter 10, Mishnah 7].

והיתה עליו כתובת אשה – as for example that the divorce of his wife preceded the dedication of property to the Temple, for now there is no conspiracy to defraud and divide the profits (see Tractate Arakhin 23a).

Introduction Today’s mishnah continues to deal with the case of a husband who dedicates his property to the Temple while still owing his wife her ketubah money.

אלא הפודה פודה – her husband redeems them from the property of the Temple cheaply for a small amount in order to pay the woman her Ketubah settlement, for certainly the dedication to the Temple does not take effect on them, for they are not his. And this is a small amount, as a decree, lest they say that what is dedicated to the Temple goes out to become unconsecrated without redemption.

A man who dedicates his possessions to the sanctuary while he is still liable for his wife's kethubah or in debt to a creditor, the wife cannot collect her ketubah from the consecrated property nor the creditor his debt. Rather he who redeems them must redeem for the purpose of paying the wife her ketubah or the creditor his debt. As I stated in the explanation to yesterday’s mishnah, when a man dedicates his property to the Temple and has a prior debt to his wife or a creditor the wife and creditor must certainly receive their due. However, they do not simply collect from sanctified property, because sanctified property cannot become non-sacred without being redeemed. Rather, what needs to happen is that the person who redeems the property must pay more than the value of the debt or ketubah. Then the money for the debt or ketubah goes to the creditor or to the woman and the property becomes non-sacred. The extra money will go to the Sanctuary.

הקדיש תשעים והיה חובה מאה – even though his liability is larger than that which he dedicated to the Temple, we don’t say that it was not the intention that these possessions would be borrowed but rather he is completely believed therefore he did not collect that which was dedicated to the Temple. But we state that it was the intention that these possessions were borrowed, and he collected from them. And up to how much? Up to one half. But if the possessions that he dedicated to the Temple are not worth half of the liability, he does not collect from them, for it was not with the intention of these properties that he borrowed, for a person is not used to purchasing land for more than double than it is worth.

If he had dedicated ninety maneh, worth of property, and he owed one hundred maneh, then he [the creditor] must add one dinar more and he redeems the property for the purpose of paying the ketubah to the wife or the debt to the creditor. In this case, there is a problem because if the person redeeming the property gives the ketubah to the wife or the debt to the creditor, nothing will be left over for the Sanctuary. In a sense, the person is not redeeming the property but rather just purchasing it from the woman or creditor. To avoid this, the redeemer must pay an extra dinar, over the amount owed to the woman or to the creditor. In this way, the Sanctuary will receive at least some money.

ממשכנין אותן (as a follow up to Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 5, Mishnah 6) – a treasurer enters into their homes and takes [the surety/pledge] against their will.

Introduction This mishnah relates to mishnah 5:6, where we learned that the court take pledges (objects of value) in order to force a person to pay his vows of value. Today we learn that certain items are not taken by the collector.

מזון וכסו ומטה סנדלים ותפילין – on all of hem they leave over for him money to purchase them if he lacks them, as it is written (Leviticus 27:8): “But if one cannot afford the equivalent, [he shall be presented before the priest, and the priest shall assess him,” and the Rabbis expound upon this Biblical verse thusly: “but if one cannot afford/ואם מך “ – it will be made that he will remain, that he would have existence/stability (הויה ) and support/livelihood (חיות ), “the equivalent/מערכך “- from the money of the valuation. And this implies that he has existence and livelihood from the money of the valuation, but not for his wife and not for his children.

Even though they said: they take pledges from those who owe vows of value, they allow him food for thirty days, clothing for twelve months, bed and bedding, shoes and tefillin. For himself, but not for his wife and children. When they take the pledge from the person who owes his vow to the Temple, they leave him with certain basic needs, food, clothing and tefillin. However, they don’t leave him with money to support his wife and family. Evidently, those who depend upon him will have to look elsewhere for support. Note that this does not mean that they take his wife’s property. It just means that they don’t leave him with money to buy food for her or his children.

מכל מין ומין – from all of the trades/skilled labors that require four or five utensils.

If he was a craftsman, they leave him two tools of every kind. If he was a carpenter, they leave him two axes and two saws. If he is a craftsman, he is left with two kinds of each of his tools. This way he can continue to make a living to pay off his debt. An example is a carpenter, who is left with two axes and two saws.

מעצדים (adze) -DULDORA in the foreign tongue, that smoothens/levels the face of the board/tablet.

Rabbi Eliezer says: if he was a farmer, they leave him his yoke [of oxen]. If a donkey driver, they leave him his donkey. Rabbi Eliezer adds that if he is a farmer they leave him with a pair of oxen to pull his plow. And if he is a donkey driver, they leave him his donkey. These are considered the tools of the donkey driver or farmer’s trade, just as an ax or saw is the tool of a carpenter’s trade.

מגירה (saw/plane) – a kind of long knife filled with notches, And the language is Biblical,משור/saw (see Isaiah 10:15: “[Does an ax boast over him who hews with it] or a saw magnify itself above him who wields it/אם-יתגדל המשור על מניפו ,” SIGA in the foreign tongue.

צמדו – the yoke of cattle. For they are the utensils of his trade/craft, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer that the yoke of cattle and a donkey are property, and are not considered utensils of a craft/trade.

מין אחד מרובה ומין אחד מועט – as for example, three adzes and one saw.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s, which discussed what property the court seizes when taking a pledge from one who owes the Temple money for his vow.

נותנים לו שנים מן המרובה – and the third the treasurer takes.

If he had many [tools] of one kind, and few of another kind, they may not say to him to sell the many and buy some of the few, but one leaves him two of the kind of which he has many and all that he has from those of which he has few. If he only has one of a certain type of tool, but many of another, he doesn’t get the opportunity to sell some tools in order to buy a second tool of the kind of which he has only one. Rather, they just apply the rule as it is normally applied they leave him with two of every kind, and if only has one, too bad for him.

וכל שיש לו מן המועט – they leave for him and we don’t sell him another. For in order that it is sufficient for him until now with this, now also it will be sufficient for him. For you might have thought that until now there were people that would lend him, because he had one kind of utensil to lend him another, now that the treasurer took from the abundant [tools], there is no found who would lend him [another], therefore, we will sell him another, it comes to tell us that this is incorrect (see Talmud Arakhin 24a).

One who consecrates [all] his possessions to the Sanctuary, they count his tefillin in the evaluation. Tefillin count in assessing the value of one’s property. So if one dedicates the value of his property to the Temple, he must include in the assessment the value of his tefillin. [This brings back memories of the day my wife and I bought our first apartment. I remember taking out the mortgage and buying the house and then realizing that before that moment, the most valuable item I owned were my tefillin!]

אין לו בכסות אשתו ובניו – because these properties are not his.

Introduction Today’s mishnah continues to deal with how the Temple assesses a person’s belongings if they have dedicated all of their property to the Temple.

שצבען לשמן – for the sake of his wife and children.

Whether one consecrates his property or evaluates himself, it [the Sanctuary] has no claim to his wife's garment or his children's garment or to the dyed clothes which he had dyed for their use or to the new sandals which he has bought for their use. When a person dedicates all of his property to the Temple, the Temple can make claim only to property that is his they have no share in his family’s property. Even if he bought clothes for his wife or kids, they belong them and not to him. The mishnah goes even further. If the husband has clothes dyed in order to give them to his wife and kids, they already belong to them, even if they have not yet worn them. Similarly, if he buys new sandals for them, they do not belong to the husband, even if the wife and kids have not yet worn them. The mere intent that these items should belong to his family already takes them out of his property.

לא בסנדלים חדשים – it comes to teach us something remarkable for even though that they still had not worn them (i.e., the shoes), they are he time of their purchasing/acquiring them.

Although they said: “Slaves are sold with their garments to increase their value,” because when a garment for thirty denars is bought for him his value is increased by a maneh. And likewise with a cow, if it is kept waiting to the market-day it increases in value, and similarly a pearl, if brought to a big city increases in value. Nevertheless, the Sanctuary can only claim the value of anything in its own place and at its own time. The main point of this section is that when the Temple’s treasurer estimates the value of a person’s property, he estimates how much it is worth now, and not how much it might be worth in the future. There are three examples in which an owner could easily raise the value of his property. A slave dressed in fine clothing, worth 30 denars, will see his value in the market value go up 100 denar (a maneh) [this is similar to painting your house or fixing your car before you sell it the house increases in value more than the cost of the paintjob]. Similarly, a cow and a pearl that are given time to grow can have their market value greatly increase. In sum, slaves, animals and precious stones can have a large degree of variance in their value. Nevertheless, when the Temple collects from the person who dedicated his property, they assess its worth based on its current value.

אע"פ שאמרו עבדים נמכרים בכסותן לשבח – their nice raiment/clothing praises and raises their monetary value, as for example regarding the possessions of orphans, that if clothing worth thirty Denar should be acquired by a slave, he should ameliorate it by a Maneh on the monetary value that it is worth currently.

לאטליס – to the market day.

לכרך – that it is the manner of merchants to come there and purchase pearls at an expensive price.

אין להקדש אלא מקומו – regarding a pearl.

ושעתו – regarding a slave, as it is written (Leviticus 27:23): “and he shall pay the assessment as of that day,” that he not delay it. “a sacred donation to the LORD” (ibid.), implying that everything that is a sacred donation to the LORD, such as mere donations to the Sanctuary, which are for the repair of the Temple, all of them should be given on that day immediately, so that he would not delay them. And the reason is, as Maimonides wrote (in his commentary to the Mishnah), that sometimes when they come delay [their sale] in order to increase their value, but [in actuality] they come to a loss in value, and for this reason, also, one does not profit from that which is dedicated to the Temple.