Temurah 13 – No Exchanges For Birds And Flour

Birds and flour offering cannot make an exchange, that is, if one says, “Let this bird be a substitute for that bird which is a sacrifice,” his words have no effect whatsoever. The Torah said, “If one does substitute an animal...” – only animals are included in this law, but not birds, and not flour.

Likewise, the community and partners cannot make an exchange with their offering, since the Torah stated, “He shall not exchange.” This tells us that only “he” is included in this law, not community or partners.

Rabbi Shimon says that the derivation is different: animal tithe was included in the laws of exchange, together with all other animals. When the Torah then repeated this, it is teaching us something new, namely, the exception that “improves” the rule, that is, teaches something about it. Just as tithe can only separated by an individual, so too exchange can only done by an individual. Parenthetically, just as tithe is an Altar offering, so should be animals subject to exchange – which excludes offerings made for Temple maintenance.

Art: John Frederick Herring Snr - Still life of dead birds, fruit, vegetables, a bottle and a jar

Temurah 12 – When Calculations Determine The Law

If one accidentally dropped grain of the Kohen's portion (terumah) into regular grain, all of the grain becomes forbidden for anyone but a Kohen to eat. However, if the amount of the kohen's portion grain was less than 1% of the regular grain, the terumah is nullified, and the complete mixture is permitted. What happens when the terumah was not nullified, and some of the mixture fell into another pile of grain? We calculate the percentage of the initial terumah portion in comparison to the total, and this gives us a leniency. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees. According to the him, the complete forbidden mixture acquires the status of terumah, with the full power to prohibit the grain it falls into.

Tangentially, when one prepares waters mixed with the ashes of a red heifer, to purify people and vessels after contact with a dead body, one has to put the ashes on the water, not the other way around. Rabbi Shimon says that either order is acceptable, because the Torah compares it to water with earth used to remove suspicion of adultery. Just as there any order is acceptable, so too here. And the first teacher? He says that the last words in the phrase, “put ashes on the water” determine the order: the ash is what makes the water purifying, and we find the same rule in many other places.

Art: Rudolf August Wilhelm Lehmann - Sifting The Grain

Temurah 11 – Sanctifying A Fetus Of An Animal

Earlier we discussed substituting a sacrifice that is yet unborn – a fetus – for another animal. But can a fetus be sanctified as a sacrifice? Bar Padda holds that it cannot, and Rabbi Yochanan says that it can. They asked Bar Padda about multiple rules of sanctifying a fetus, and he answered that all these rules dealt with sanctifying the value of the fetus, donating money to the needs of the Temple, but not the animal itself. Finally, they challenged him from our previous ruling about substituting a fetus which was a sacrifice. In this case he answered that we are dealing with their mother who already was a sacrifice, thus the offspring became sacrifice automatically.

What happens when one sanctifies a limb of a live animal as a sacrifice? If this limb is so important that the animal could not survive without it, all agree that the sanctification spreads throughout  the body of the animal. If the animal can survive, some say that the sanctification still spreads, while others say that it doesn't. They asked about a leg of a bird, is it the same? On the one hand, a bird is not an animal, so the law may be different, but on the other hand, it is also a sacrifice? – and did not find an answer.

Art: Adriaen van Utrecht - Still-Life with Birds on a Ring

Temurah 10 – Sacrificial Exchange of Limbs

One cannot make an exchange of unconsecrated limbs for consecrated fetuses, that is, he cannot say, “Let a leg of this regular animal be substituted for the consecrated fetus that is in the womb of this animal (later one we will discuss how the unborn fetus can become consecrated). Neither can one consecrate unconsecrated fetuses for limbs.

One cannot substitute unconsecrated fetuses or limbs for the whole peace offerings, nor unconsecrated whole animals for fetuses or limbs. Here Rabbi Yose disagrees and says that one can substitute limbs for sacrifices, and here is why: if one consecrates a limb of an animal to be a sacrifice, then the consecrations spreads throughout the animal and the complete animal becomes sacrifice, and our exchange is the same. What about the first teacher, why doesn't he agree to this? – While he may agree to the principle that the sanctification of a leg of a primary sacrifice spreads throughout its whole body, he does not agree that this also applies in the case of exchange.

Art: John Lawson - Feeding The Lamb

Temurah 9 – Exchange And Substitute – What Is The Difference?

One can make a (prohibited) sacrifice exchange of flock for cattle and cattle for flock, sheep for goats, males for females, unblemished for blemished, and even blemished for unblemished – and this it the “bad for good or good for bad” that the Torah meant.

Actually, the Torah said, “Don't exchange and don't substitute.” What is the difference between the two? Exchange means for another's animal, and substitute – for one's own. But we just learned that one cannot use another's animal for exchange?! – We are dealing with the case of one who sanctified his animal with these words: “Let this be a sacrifice, and anyone who wants to use it for an exchange, can use it.”

One can exchange one sacrificial animal for two, two for one, and even a hundred for one (and get a hundred sets of lashes for that). Rabbi Shimon says that one can exchange only one for one, since the Torah said “It (one) and its exchange (also one) will be holy.” What can the Sages answer? They say that “animal” (behemah) sometimes means multiple, like in the case of Jonah, who said, “and many animals” (behemah rabah). How can Rabbi Shimon defend himself now? – “Behemah rabah” indeed means many animals, but just “behemah” means only one.

Art: Charles Ferdinand Ceramano - A shepherdess with her flock before a storm

Temurah 8 – You Can Only Make An Exchange For Your Own Sacrifice

The exchange is effected by saying “Let this animal become a sacrifice instead of that one.” “That one” animal, on which the exchange is based, must be his, otherwise, the declaration does not work. Therefore, Kohanim can make exchanges for animals that they sacrifice and that belong to them. However, they can't make exchanges for animals that were given over to them by a Jew to be sacrificed – despite the fact that after it is slaughtered, they can eat its meat. Regular Jew can make exchange for his sacrifices, even though by now the sacrifice really belong to the Temple – but he has some ownership in it, since the sacrifice achieves his atonement.

Even though a first-born animal is given over to a Kohen and is his property, the Kohen cannot make exchange for it. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri asked, “Why not?” Rabbi Akiva explained, “They are like all other sacrifices.” Rabbi Yochanan objected, “But a first-born is his property!” Rabbi Akiva replied, “When did the first-born become sanctified? When it was born, in the house of its owner! It and its exchange must be in the same domain, but now it is in the hand of the Kohen, thus exchange is not possible.”

Art: William-Adolphe Bouguereau - A Newborn Lamb

Temurah 7 – Five Prohibitions To Bring A Blemished Sacrifice

In analyzing the question whether one can effectively perform acts forbidden by the Torah, the Talmud used the case of sanctifying a blemished sacrifice (in its tenth challenge), and Rava had to explain how this sanctification at all takes effect. Now the Talmud proves that which it previously took for granted.

The Torah said, “A sacrifice with a blemish you shall not offer”. Since the prohibition to slaughter was already stated before, this “you shall not offer” must mean, “you shall not consecrate.” From here we see that one who consecrates a blemished animal and burns this sacrifice on the Altar, transgresses fives times: “do not consecrate,” “do not slaughter,” “do not throw the blood,” “do not burn all of it,” and “do not burn part of it.” Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Yehudah adds one more for receiving its blood.

What is the source of the opinion of Rabbi Yose? The Torah said, “Any sacrifice which is blemished you shall not offer... any whose testicles are crushed... you shall not offer... from the hand of a stranger you shall not offer.” The third “you shall not offer” is extra and applies to another law – receiving the blood. And the first teacher, why doesn't he agree? – He says that this is the normal language of the Torah, and nothing is to be derived from it.

Art: Albrecht Durer - Portrait of a stranger

Temurah 6 – So Finally, May Not or Can Not?

Earlier we learned about two ways of understanding “you shall not” in the Torah, as “you should not” but if you do, it's done, or as “you cannot,” and your act is ineffective, represented respectively by Abaye and Rava.

The fourteenth challenge is against Abaye, from the laws of pe'ah, corners of the field, which one must leave for the poor. If he has not left some standing crop as pe'ah, he can leave it from the sheaves, or any time until the end of the harvest process. Rabbi Ishmael says that he can separate it even from dough. How can Abaye say that “it's done” for this transgression? Rabbi Ishmael teaches that the farmer never acquires pe'ah, but it always remains the property of the poor! Abaye answers that the Torah repeated the commandment to leave pe'ah, to emphasize that the farmer never acquires it.

In all fourteen cases Abaye and Rava actually agreed with each other, even if for different reasons. If so, where do they differ? Perhaps they argue about illegal interest, Abaye saying that the lender acquired it and does not have to return it to the borrower, while Rava saying that he does? – No, interest is more serious than that. Rather, they argue about a thief who stole an item and changed its shape. Does he acquire the item, but has to repay its value (Abaye), or does he not acquire the item and has to return it, even if he changed it (Rava).

Art: Theodore Gerard - The Little Thief

Temurah 5 – You May Not or You Can Not

When the Torah said about something “You shall not,” did it mean “you may not,” but your act takes effect, or did it mean “you cannot,” and if you do it, it's ineffective anyway? The “you may not” is represented by Abaye, and “you can not” - by Rava. According to Abaye, if one violates a law, he is punished with lashes, because his act was effective. But according to Rava, why is he punished, if he achieved nothing? – Simply because he violated the statement of the Merciful One.

The Talmud presents fourteen challenges, some to Abaye and some to Rava. Below are a two of them.

One who violates a girl has to marry her and can never divorce her. If he does divorce her, he has to re-marry her (if she agrees), but he is not given lashes. Why not? According to Rava, he should receive lashes for just violating the commandment!? Rava answers that it is a special case: since he needs to re-marry her, in a sense he achieved nothing.

What about sacrifice exchange, where we learned that, although forbidden, the act takes effect? Rava will answer that it is an exception, since the Torah said “It and its exchange will be holy,” but normally an illegal act achieves nothing.

Art: Aert De Gelder - The Jewish Bride

Temurah 4 – Transgression Without An Action

As a rule, one can be punished only for actions, not speech or thoughts. There are exceptions to this rule, sacrifice exchange being one of them. Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Chanina adds one more: one who first separates the kohen's portion, and afterwards the first fruit from his crop, as the Torah said, “Your first fruit and the kohen's portion don't delay.”  Since the kohen's portion can be designated in thought alone, one is liable to lashes for a thought.

Another rule is that if a prohibition can be remedied, then one does not receive lashes for it. But, is that always true? For example, sacrifice exchange has a remedy – treating the new sacrifice with the laws of sacrificial holiness, and one still gets lashes!? – Exchange is prohibited twice, “don't exchange and don't substitute”, so it is especially severe.

But consider a case of one who violates a young unmarried girl. He has to marry and never divorce her. If he does divorce her, he needs to take her back. If he can't take her back, because he is a Kohen, who is forbidden to marry a divorcée, he gets lashes. But why? He is not doing anything! – Kohanim are special, they have extra prohibitions.

Art: Pierre Auguste Renoir - Young Girl In A Straw Hat

Temurah 3 – Questions About Sacrifice Exchange

We can ask a few questions regarding sacrifice exchanges. Can a minor effect an exchange? If he is younger than twelve, there is not doubt that he cannot, because he cannot vow. But between twelve and thirteen his vows take effect. On the other hand, a minor is not punished, and since he cannot receive lashes, possibly he cannot effect exchange? We leave it unresolved.

Can an idolater effect exchange? Since he can bring sacrifices like an Israelite, perhaps he can. However, since he is never punished with lashes (unlike a minor who will reach the age of punishment), perhaps he cannot? Really, the answer here is clear that he cannot, because the Torah described the exchange only for “sons of Israel.” Rather, the questions is what happens when he promises a sacrifice on behalf of Jew. Is the one who consecrates the sacrifices or the one for whom it is consecrated more important? This is also left unresolved.

Why is one punished for exchange with lashes, if it is just words, and the usual rule is that one is only punished for an act (with some exceptions, such as cursing another with the name of God or makes a false oath)? However, the answer is that with his words he achieves an action, and therefore is punished as for an action.

Art: Italian School - Little Boy In Venice

Temurah 2 – Sacrifice Exchange

One may decide to exchange his sacrifice for another, a better or a worse one, pronouncing “let this animal become a sacrifice instead of that one.” This is forbidden by the Torah, but his words take effect: the second animal becomes sanctified, although the first one still remains a sacrifice. In addition, he violates a negative commandment, and is subject to lashes. Therefore, we have the first ruling: “All can effect exchange, a man or a woman, but this is not a permission to do so, rather, if he did it, it's done, and he is liable to lashes.”

Earlier we surveyed the use of “All do this and that” to show that the word “all” adds something not obvious. What does “All can effect exchange” add? It adds an heir who inherits a sacrifice of his father and who can effect exchange with that sacrifice (and get lashes for that). Then why is it not taught explicitly? Because it is not unanimous, and Rabbi Yehudah disagrees and says that just as the heir does not lean on the sacrifice, so too he cannot effect exchange. And Rabbi Meir (the author of all anonymous rulings)? – He agrees to the comparison, but the word “exchange” is said twice to include an heir.

Art: Follower of Jacob Gerritsz Cuyp - Double Portrait of Children, With a Goat

Arachin 34 – Cities of Levites

When the Israelites entered the Land of Israel, each tribe was designated a portion, except for the Levites. Instead, each tribe provided cities for them to settle. Should a Levite sell his house, he can redeem it any time in the future – unlike the Israelites who have but a year. However, these rules are obvious from the Torah, and the Talmud begins from the first non-obvious case.

If a regular Jew (Yisrael) inherited a house in the city of the Levites from his maternal grandfather, he redeems it like a regular Jew, only for a year – this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, who attaches importance to who the seller is. However, the Sages say that he does not have to be a Levi, but rather, all houses in the city of Levites follow the same rules.

Around the cities Torah mandates an open space for a thousand steps for beauty, and another thousand for farming, and these may not be exchanged.

Kohanim and Levites may sell their houses in walled cities and redeem them at any time, their houses never become permanent property of the buyer, who may always be forced by the Levi to sell them back.

Art: Georges Seurat - White Houses, Ville d'Avray

Arachin 33 – Houses in Open Towns

Previously we discussed sales of houses in walled cities and fields outside cities. Houses in open towns are in between these two categories, and the Torah gives them the enhanced rights of walled citied and the enhanced rights of ancestral fields. How so? They can be redeemed immediately after sale and for the entire twelve months, like houses in walled cities; and they return to their owners in the Jubilee year, besides, their redemption price goes down with the years passed toward the Jubilee year.

Obviously, a town needs a wall. However, even if it has a wall but is very small, consisting of two courtyards of two houses each, then even if it had a wall from the time of Joshua the son of Nun, they are treated like houses in open towns.

Art: Henry Woods - A Courtyard in Venice

Arachin 32 – Purchases in Walled Cities

Originally, the buyer of a home in a walled city would hide on the final day of the twelfth month after the purchase, in order that the seller could not redeem it, and the purchase was thus confirmed. Hillel enacted a law by which the original owner could deposit redemption money in a special room – and some say, with the court – and then break down the door of the house and enter.

All constructions similar to a house within a walled city can be likewise sold and redeemed within a year, but not fields – this is the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi Meir, based on the words of the Torah “which is in the city” includes even the fields for a one-year redemption. But it does say “house'! – You are right, and in fact Rabbi Meir includes only pebble fields, which are similar to a house, but not all fields.

Jerusalem belonged to all tribes, and therefore the law of walled cities did not apply to it, and houses there could always be redeemed. Other walled cities were re-sanctified by Ezra, and they kept this sanctity, because Jews never stopped living in Israel after Ezra.

Art: Charles Haigh-Wood - At the Cottage Door

Arachin 31 – Redemption of Houses

If one sells a house in a walled city (surrounded by a wall in the time of Joshua), he can redeem it immediately, without any waiting period, or any time afterwards, for a full year. It thus looks like prohibited interest: the seller got the money, the buyer lived in the house (interest), and then the seller returned the money (as if returned the loan). However, it is not really prohibited interest, since interest is a loan payment fixed in advance, and here he sold his house, and only later it turned out that he could buy it back.

What does the Torah mean by saying that the redemption period is a “full” year? – If this year happens to have thirteen months, he is given an extra month. (To adjust for difference between lunar months and solar year, an extra month is added every few years). Rabbi Yehudah the Prince says that “full” year means a solar year of 365 days. It can thus happen, according to the Sages, that a house sold, for example, on the fifteens of the first month of Adar I, will have more redemption time than another house, sold later, on the first of Adar II.

Art: Paul Cezanne - The Manor House At Jas De Bouffan

Arachin 30 – Redemption of Ancestral Fields

If the hereditary owner of an ancestral fields sold it to the first buyer for a hundred coins (zuz), and the first buyer then sold it to the second for two hundred coins, then when the original owner comes to redeem the field, he calculates the redemption fee only according to the hundred coins he paid the first buyer, since the Torah said, “And he shall calculate the years of his sale and return the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.”

On the other hand, if the owner sold the field to the first buyer for two hundred coins, and the first buyer then resold the field to a second buyer for a hundred coins, the owner redeems it based on the price of the second buyer, that is, one hundred coins, since the Torah said, “He shall calculate and return the remainder to the man...” – which man? – the one who currently owns the field.

How can the same phrase be interpreted in two different ways, both times to the advantage of the owner? Abaye said, “I am today as sharp as Ben Azzai, who was smarter than all the Sages, and I will explain: fields are compared to a Hebrew slave, and Hebrew slave was given multiple leniencies by God.”

Art: John Singer Sargent - Home Fields

Arachin 29 – Dedication (“cherem”) - To Whom?

One can pronounce dedication (“cherem”) of his property, after which it becomes forbidden to him and goes either to the Temple or to the Kohanim. Among the Kohanim, it goes to the family that serves in the Temple this week.

If one pronounced a dedication but did not specify who it should go to, then it goes to the upkeep of the Temple – so says Rabbi Yehoshua ben Beteira, since the Torah said, “Any dedication (“cherem”) is most holy to God.”  However, the Sages says that any unspecified dedication goes to the Kohanim, since the Torah said, “Any dedicated field shall be to the Kohen.” If so, how do the Sages explain the phrase used by Rabbi Yehoshua? – It teaches that one can dedicate ("cherem") even offerings that are already holy , which will result in additional obligations on his part.

If one sells an ancestral field, he is not permitted to redeem it less than two years after the sale, as the Torah said, “According to the number of crops is the price”, and the minimal number of plural “crops” is two. However, a year of drought or a shemittah year  don't go into the count.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Fields

Arachin 28 – Promise to the Temple is Like Deed with People

If bidders offered respectively ten, twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty shekels for a field consecrated to the Temple, and then one who has bid fifty retracted, he is still responsible to add his ten shekels to the forty-shekel bid. If afterwards the one who has bid forty retracted, they pay ten shekels each. However, if they retracted simultaneously, the one who has bid fifty is responsible for his ten, and for half of the other one's ten, so he pays fifteen, while the other one pays five.

One can “dedicate” his property by making it forbidden ("cherem") to himself, and then assign it either to the Temple or to the Kohanim. All donations that we learned about so far were promises, this one is actual giving over, only it works in two steps: it becomes forbidden to him immediately, and it either remains forbidden in the possession of the Temple until redemption, or it becomes permitted to the Kohanim once they take possession of it.

One can dedicate ("cherem") some of his sheep, cattle, of fields, but not all of them. In general, one should have pity on his possessions and not give away everything – as a guideline, no more than one-fifth.

Art: Camille Pissarro - Flock of Sheep in a Field after the Harvest

Arachin 27 – An Acquired Field

One can acquire a field and then consecrate it to the Temple. Since this is an "acquired," not ancestral field, it is redeemed for its market value, not the fifty shekels per measure of barley, and in the Jubilee year it goes back to the ancestral owner, rather than being divided by the Kohanim.

If one bought a field from his father, then his father died, and then he consecrated it, it is treated as an ancestral field, since it could come to him as his inheritance. However, if he consecrated the field first, and afterwards his father died, then it is treated as an acquired field, which is redeemed for its market value.

When the Jubilee year is not in force, the laws are different. All fields are redeemed for their market value. The auction is started by the treasurer telling the owner, who had consecrated the field, “You bid first” since the owner is required to add one-fifth to his redemption price. It once happened that one consecrated an inferior field. He was required to bid first, however, so he offered a small coin. The treasurer told him "The field is yours." The field reverted back to him, and all he accomplished was to loose a small coin.

Art: Ary Scheffer - The Death of Gericault

Arachin 26 – A Field That Was Not Redeemed

If Jubilee year arrived and the field had not been redeemed, there are three diametrically opposed possible outcomes. One is described by Rabbi Yehudah: the Kohanim take possession of the field, but they must pay the full redemption price of fifty silver shekels per measure of barley to the treasury. Why? Because a consecrated field is similar to a consecrated house (the Torah uses the same word, “holy”), and the house is never redeemed without a payment.

Rabbi Shimon says that the Kohanim take the possession of the field without a payment, because it is similar to the two lambs of Shavuot, about which the Torah also said “holy,” and which belong to the Kohanim without a payment. And Rabbi Yehudah? – Better to compare consecrated field to a house – both are real estate. And Rabbi Shimon? – Better to compare field to a sacrifice – both are presents to Kohanim.

According to Rabbi Elazar, nobody takes possession of the field, it is called “abandoned,” and remains in the Temple treasury until the next Jubilee. Why? – Normally, when one sells a field, it comes back to him (“goes out of the hands of the buyer”) at Jubilee; but why should it “go out of the hands of the Temple?"

Art: Paul Gauguin - Abandoned Garden in Rouen

Arachin 25 – Measuring an Ancestral Field

The laws of the Jubilee year apply only when all the Tribes of Israel live in the Land of Israel, each in its Biblical portion of the land. If one consecrated his field during this time and wished to redeem it, he paid fifty silver shekels for an area on which a measure of barley can be sown . What measure? - Chomer (same as kor, about 10 cubic feet), and this much barley was enough to sow the area of about five acres. The full fifty-shekel price applied only for the full forty-nine years of the Jubilee cycle, but in the middle of the cycle the price was adjusted for the years remaining. Thus it came out that for each year until Jubilee he paid a selah (Biblical shekel) and a pundyon – a small coin, the value of one forty-eighths of a selah. He could not pay this in installments.

If the owner redeemed his field, he had to add one-fifth, while others did not have to add one-fifth. On the other hand, the owner kept the field at the Jubilee years, while others who redeemed the field had to give it up in Jubilee, and it was divided among the kohanim. (In another version of the text it goes back to the owner.)

Art: John Constable - Wheat Field

Arachin 24 – Redemptions from the Temple

How does one collect debts from the Temple property? For example, if someone consecrated his possessions to the Temple, but part of them were needed to pay the Ketubah of his wife or his debt obligation – the one who redeems the complete amount refunds a part as a Ketubah or debt payment. The payments do not go directly from the Temple to individuals, so that people would not think that sacred property can be converted to private property without redemption.

Although the Temple treasurers may force individuals to fulfill their Temple vows and even enter his house and seize his property, they leave him food for thirty days, clothing for twelve months, a bed and tools of trade – and sustenance is for him, but not for his family.

One can consecrate his ancestral field to the Temple, and then redeem it at a fixed price prescribed by the Torah. The price of fifty silver shekels that we mentioned earlier is the maximum price for the 49 nine years until the Jubilee year. Since the field returns to him in the Jubilee year anyway, every year the price is reduced. However, because of a technicality, it is not reduced within the last two years before the Jubilee, and one should therefore be mindful of that when consecrating his field.

Art: Franciscus Carree - A Seated Woman preparing Food in a Kitchen

Arachin 23 – Responsibilities of a Loan Guarantor

A Ketubah is a husband's obligation to provide for his wife in case of his death or divorce. If one consecrated all of his possessions to the Temple, the Ketubah part is not consecrated, because it came prior. However, if the husband now wants to divorce his wife, we make him vow never to re-marry her, because we suspect that the divorce is just a ruse: she will collect the Ketubah, and he will re-marry her and live on that money – this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says that he does not need to vow – either because people do not cheat on Temple, or because he can annul his consecration.

Rav Huna was poor, and his father, Moshe bar Atzri, promised to pay the Ketubah of his wife. Abbaye said, “Who would advise Rav Huna to divorce his wife and collect the money?” Rav Huna was a Kohen, who cannot re-marry his wife, and Abbaye remarked, “Poverty follows after the poor.”

But maybe Moshe ben Atzri just wanted to help his son and was not sincere in his promise? – He accepted to be a guarantor even if his son does have the money, and such a guarantee is always binding.

Art: Tivadar Zemplenyi - The Poor Womans Home

Arachin 22 – Debt Collections and Court Auctions

If one dies without paying his debts, the court may have to sell his lands. If he leaves young orphans, the court first appraises the field, then conducts an auction, allowing people to bid on it for thirty days. For a field consecrated to the Temple, the auction lasts for sixty days. During these days there is a public auction announcement in the morning and in the evening.

The auction is an attempt to get higher price for the orphans. Shouldn't it also last for sixty days? – No, this may be counterproductive, since people may retract their bids. Then shouldn't the Temple auction run for thirty days? – No, because an oral bid to the Temple is considered binding, and there the people can't retract.

Why is the announcement done in the morning and in the evening? So that the businessmen could ask their workers to inspect the property on the way home and to remind them to inquire of the results in the morning.

But, as a rule, one cannot collect from orphans while they are minors and has to wait until they grow up. Why didn't the teacher talk about a regular case of heirs? Because he wanted to discuss the exceptonal cases when the court does sell their lands while they are still minors – when there are interest payments on the loan, and they are diminishing the estate.

Art: Georges Sheridan Knowles - The Orphans

Arachin 21 – Forcing to Fulfill the Temple Obligation

When one makes a vow to the Temple, whether to donate a symbolic value of a person, or a real monetary value, or any money or property donation, he needs to fulfill that vow in the timely fashion. If he procrastinates, the Temple treasurers may get the permission of the court to exact some of his possessions as security. If he does not pay within thirty days, they become the property of the Temple.

This is also true if he promises a voluntary offering. Since it brings optional atonement, for example, for wrong thoughts or for skipping saying “Shema Israel,” one does not feel pressured to fulfill his vow and needs an additional incentive. However, for sin and guilt offerings – which are brought, for example, for unwitting Shabbat violations, or for liaison with a maidservant designated for another – treasurers do not exact security: one who feels the need to atone for this will eventually do it on his own.

Since the Torah said, “He must bring it, of his will,” fulfilling his vow to bring a sacrifice is a commandment, but it must be done willingly. Therefore, if need be, they force him, until he declares “I want to do it.”

Art: Philip Hermogenes Calderon - Broken Vows

Arachin 20 – Real vs Symbolic Value

Sometimes symbolic value of a person is stricter than the real. For example, if he vowed his symbolic value to the Temple but died before paying, his heirs must give it: since the symbolic obligation is fixed by the Torah, it exists from the moment he vows. By contrast, if he promised his real value (as defined by being sold on the slave market), and died before he was appraised, his heirs need not give anything, since dead have no monetary value.

If one vows to give “half of his symbolic value,” he gives half, but if he vows to give “symbolic value of half of him” - then he pays the full amount, because half of him cannot live without the other half. In this respect, real value vows are the same: if he vows value of half of him, it is tantamount to the whole value.

If one promised his ox as a sacrifice or his house as donation to the Temple, and the ox died or the house fell, he does not have to pay. However, if he promises their value, he will have to pay if they are not extant.

Art: Childe Hassam - Back of the Old House