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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 17, 2019 | 讬状讚 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

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

Arakhin 31

If one sells a house in a walled city – from when and until when can one buy it back? How is the year counted – lunar or solar? This type of buying back of land seems like interest as the buyer will get his money back and got produce from the field – is it really interest? And how can this be allowed? What is one sanctifies a house in a walled city? Hillel聽instituted that if one hides on the last day of the year, the original seller can bring money to the temple and break into the house and live there. Rava tries to infer from this ordinance the halacha regarding one who gives something against the will of the taker (in a divorce document conditioned upon the wofe giving money to the husband) but his suggestion is rejected as the cases are not comparable.


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

转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谞讜 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara raises a contradiction between two baraitot with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury: It is taught in one baraita: One may borrow money and redeem a field, and one may partially redeem it. And it is taught in another baraita: One may not borrow money and redeem a field, nor may one partially redeem it. The Gemara explains: It is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one may not borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that baraita, which states that one may borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜讗诇 诪讬讚 讜讙讜讗诇 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讻诪讬谉 专讘讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 专讘讬转

MISHNA: One who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities may redeem the house immediately, even without the consent of the buyer, and he may redeem the house during the entire twelve months following the sale, but not after that. When he redeems the house within the twelve-month period, he returns the sale price to the buyer, and this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the buyer has effectively resided in the house for free in exchange for the fact that the buyer鈥檚 money was in the possession of the seller. It is not considered interest, because the buyer owned the house during the period in which he resided in it.

诪转 讛诪讜讻专 讬讙讗诇 讘谞讜 诪转 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 讘谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖诪讻专 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 诪诇讗转 诇讜 砖谞讛

If the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. If the buyer died, the seller may redeem it from the possession of the buyer鈥檚 son. If the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The term 鈥渇or him鈥 indicates that the year is calculated from when the initial owner sold the house.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转诪讬诪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讞讚砖 讛注讬讘讜专 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讬转谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 讜注讬讘讜专讛 讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讛讬转讛 讞诇讜讟讛 诇讜 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇爪诪讬转讜转

When it says: 鈥淎 full year,鈥 this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale, if it was a leap year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word 鈥渇ull鈥 serves to give the seller a year and its addition, i.e., the year during which the house may be redeemed is not the 354-day lunar year, but the 365-day solar year. If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, the house has become the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to both one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (Leviticus 25:30).

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讬诪讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who sells a house in a walled city may redeem it immediately. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold; for days he shall have the right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:29). The word 鈥渄ays鈥 means no fewer than two days, i.e., the house cannot be redeemed during the first two days after the sale.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讬诪讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜专讘讬 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注讚 转讜诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this word 鈥渄ays鈥? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis require it to teach the halakha that the year does not conclude with the arrival of Rosh HaShana, at the end of the calendar year; rather, it is calculated from day to day, that is, until the arrival of the date of the sale in the subsequent year. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from day to day? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the phrase: 鈥淯ntil the completion of the year after it is sold鈥 (Leviticus 25:29).

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞转 砖诇 诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讜讬诪讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇诪注转 诇注转 讚讗讬 诪注讚 转讜诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪注转 诇注转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase? The Gemara responds: Actually, they require that phrase to teach that the calculated year is a year from his sale and not the year of the counting of the world, i.e., not the calendar year. And the Rabbis require the word 鈥渄ays鈥 to teach that the year is calculated not only from day to day, but also from hour to hour, i.e., the year is completed only when the hour of the sale arrives in the subsequent year. As if one sought to derive this from the phrase 鈥渦ntil the completion of the year after it is sold,鈥 I would say that with regard to calculating the year from day to day, yes, it is calculated in this manner, but with regard to calculating the year from hour to hour, no, it is not calculated in this manner. Rather, once the beginning of the day arrives the seller can no longer redeem the house. The Merciful One therefore wrote the word 鈥渄ays鈥 to teach that the year is calculated from hour to hour.

讜专讘讬 诪注转 诇注转 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪转诪讬诪讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讘讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from hour to hour? The Gemara answers that he derives it from the term 鈥渁 full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from the term 鈥渁 full year鈥? The Gemara responds: The Rabbis require that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale.

讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讘讜专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜诪注转 诇注转 诪注讚 转讜诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara objects: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also requires that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale. The Gemara explains: Indeed, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the inclusion of the intercalated month from the term 鈥渁 full year.鈥 Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the fact that the year is calculated from day to day and from hour to hour constitutes one halakha, which is derived from the phrase 鈥渦ntil the completion of the year after it is sold.鈥

讛专讬 讝讜 讻诪讬谉 专讘讬转 讜讻讜壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讜 专讘讬转 讙诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖讛转讜专讛 讛转讬专转讜

搂 The mishna teaches: When one redeems a house among those of a walled city, this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the seller returns the original sale price to the buyer and he does not subtract from it in exchange for the period during which the buyer resided in the house. This is not considered interest because the buyer owned the house during that period. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: This is fully considered interest, but in this case the Torah permitted it?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜注砖讛 诇讜 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗住讜专

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of one who had a debt of one hundred dinars against another, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field to the lender, stipulating that if he does not repay the loan on time then the sale shall take effect retroactively from the present moment. As long as the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of that field until the time the loan comes due, this arrangement is permitted. But if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce during this time, the arrangement is prohibited, as it constitutes interest. The reason is that if the loan is repaid on time, the sale is nullified, which means that the produce consumed by the lender will have been consumed as payment for allowing the loan to remain in the borrower鈥檚 possession.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 砖注砖讛 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讬讛 诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer consumes the produce, such an arrangement is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda said in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who made a conditional sale of his field by a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and in this case the buyer was consuming the produce. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring proof from there? Actually, it was the seller who was consuming the produce, and not the buyer.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The dispute between them concerns the permissibility of an agreement involving an uncertain interest, i.e., an agreement that will involve interest only under certain circumstances. This is the case here, since if the loan is repaid the produce consumed by the lender constitutes interest, but if the loan is not repaid then the field is acquired retroactively by the lender and no interest is involved. The Gemara elaborates: The first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that uncertain interest is permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讗住讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讜转专

Rava said: Everyone agrees that uncertain interest is prohibited; and here, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerns the permissibility of interest given on the condition that it will be returned. That is, in addition to the arrangement described in the baraita, the parties agreed that the buyer will consume the produce, and if the sale will later be nullified, then the buyer will reimburse the seller for the value of the produce. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that although the interest is subsequently refunded, this practice is prohibited, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this is permitted.

诪转 讛诪讜讻专 讬讙讗诇 讘谞讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讻专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讛讬转讛 讙讗诇转讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, if the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as a son inherits his father鈥檚 property. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that when the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold鈥 (Leviticus 25:29), this indicates that the man who redeems the house must be the same man who sold it, and this son did not sell; therefore, the same verse teaches us: 鈥淎nd he shall have the right of redemption,鈥 indicating that the right of redemption applies in any case, either to the seller or his son.

诪转 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 讘谞讜 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇拽谞讛 讗转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讛讬转讛 讙讗诇转讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The mishna further teaches: If the buyer died, the seller may redeem the house from the possession of the buyer鈥檚 son. The Gemara asks: This, too, is obvious. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Merciful One states: 鈥淭hen the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), and as this son did not buy the house, the buyer cannot redeem it from him; therefore, the previous verse teaches us: 鈥淗e shall have the right of redemption,鈥 indicating that this right applies in any case, even from the buyer鈥檚 son.

讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖诪讻专 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 砖谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 砖谞讛 诇砖谞讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注讚 诪诇讗转 诇讜 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 讛讜讬 砖谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The Sages taught: When the verse states 鈥測ear,鈥 I do not know if one counts the year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer, or if one counts the year from when the first buyer sold it to the second. When the verse states: 鈥淯ntil the passage of a full year for him,鈥 you must say that it is a year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer.

诇诪讬 讞诇讜讟 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讗砖讜谉 讞诇讜讟 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬 讞诇讜讟 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪谞讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诪讛 诪讻专 诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜

The Gemara asks: In such a case, if the owner did not redeem the house within one year of the first sale, to whom does it belong in perpetuity? Rabbi Elazar says: It belongs in perpetuity to the first buyer. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It belongs in perpetuity to the second buyer. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, it is understandable why the house belongs to the first buyer, as one calculates the year according to his acquisition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the reason that the house belongs to the second buyer after the conclusion of one year from the acquisition of the first buyer? Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: What did the first buyer sell to the second buyer? He sold him any right to the field that will come into his possession. This includes the fact that the house will belong to him in perpetuity after the conclusion of one year from the first purchase.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诪讻专 砖谞讬 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞讚 讘讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讝讛 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讝讛 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 砖诇 讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If one sold two houses of walled cities, one on the fifteenth day of the first month of Adar in a leap year, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this house that he sold to him on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed. With regard to this house that he sold to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 拽讚讬诐 砖讞讬谉 谞讜专讗 诪拽诪讗 讚讬讚讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 谞讞讬转 诇注讬讘讜专讗

Ravina objects to this: But let the first buyer say to the second: I preceded you and kindled a fire before you, i.e., I bought my house before you acquired yours. How, then, can you gain possession in perpetuity before me? The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second buyer can say to him: You descended to the house during the intercalated month, i.e., the first Adar, and as it is taught in the mishna, the seller has the right to redeem the house for an entire year, including the intercalated month.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 谞讜诇讚讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 讟诇讗讬诐 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 砖诇 讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞讚 讘讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讝讛 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讝讛 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

And Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If two lambs were born to a single owner, one on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this lamb that was born on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed, and if it was a firstborn it should be sacrificed before that time arrives ab initio. With regard to this lamb that was born to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 拽讚讬诐 讗讻讬诇 讬专讜拽讗 诪拽诪讗 讚讬讚讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 谞讞讬转转 诇注讬讘讜专讗 讗谞讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转谞讗 诇注讬讘讜专讗

Ravina again objects to this: But let the lamb that was born first say to the other lamb: I preceded you and ate vegetables before you, i.e., I was born first. The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second lamb can say to the first: You descended to the world during the intercalated month, which is added to the year, whereas I did not descend to the world during the intercalated month.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 转诪讬诪讛 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 转诪讬诪讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖谞讛 砖谞讛 诪讛讚讚讬 讙诪专讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this second halakha? This halakha with regard to the lambs is identical to that halakha concerning the houses. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there, with regard to houses of walled cities, where it is written: 鈥淎 full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), this is indeed the halakha, but here, with regard to lambs, where it is not written: A full year, perhaps this is not the case; Rabbi Abba bar Memel therefore teaches us that by means of a verbal analogy between the words 鈥測ear鈥 and 鈥測ear鈥 the two cases derive their halakhot from each other. With regard to houses of walled cities, it is written: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), and it is written with regard to lambs: 鈥淵our lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year鈥 (Exodus 12:5).

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转诪讬诪讛 讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讬转谉 砖谞转 注讬讘讜专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜谞讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讻诪谞讬谉 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜谞讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜讗诐 谞转注讘专讛 谞转注讘专讛 诇讜

搂 The mishna teaches: When it states: 鈥淎 full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This serves to give the seller a year and its addition. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淎 full year鈥; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This means that one counts 365 days, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, which are eleven more than in a lunar year. And the Rabbis say: One counts twelve months from day to day, and if an additional month was intercalated into the year, then the month was intercalated to the benefit of the seller, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house.

讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇爪诪讬转讜转 诇讞诇讜讟讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇爪诪讬转讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, it becomes the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: 鈥淚n perpetuity [latzemitut]鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). With regard to this matter, the Sages taught: 鈥Latzemitut means in perpetuity; that is, the seller can no longer redeem the house against the buyer鈥檚 will, nor does it return to his possession in the Jubilee Year. Another matter derived from this verse is that latzemitut serves to include a house given as a gift. What is the reason, i.e., how is this derived from 鈥latzemitut鈥? The verse could have stated tzemit, but instead it states tzemitut. The expanded term serves to include a house given as a gift.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讻诪讻专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 诇爪诪讬转讜转

The Sages said the above baraita before Rav Pappa, and then asked: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Ostensibly, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 he say with regard to the return of an ancestral field in the Jubilee Year that a gift is not like a sale, i.e., an ancestral field given as a gift does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee Year? Likewise, a house in a walled city given as a gift should not become the perpetual property of the buyer after twelve months. Rav Pappa said: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it is different here, as the Merciful One includes a house given as a gift through the term latzemitut.鈥

讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 讬讜讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 转砖讘讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗 诪专讘讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Sages said to Rav Pappa, and some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But consider the case of the Jubilee Year, as it is written: 鈥淚n this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and the Sages teach that this verse serves to include the gift, and yet Rabbi Meir does not include a gift. Rather, this baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇 讛讬讛 讞诇讜讟 诇讜

The Sages taught: With regard to one who consecrates a house among the houses of walled cities, this individual may redeem it from the Temple treasury, and he may always redeem it, even after the first year, unlike a sale. If another redeemed the house from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the final day of the twelve-month period from its redemption arrived and the house was not redeemed by its owner, the house has become the property of the other individual in perpetuity.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇拽谞讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讜诇讞诇讟讬讛 讛拽讚砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讚专转讬讜 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讚讜专讜转

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel says: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The verse indicates that the house belongs in perpetuity to 鈥渢he one who bought it,鈥 even if he purchased it from the possession of the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: But why is the consecrator always capable of redeeming the house from the possession of the Temple treasury? Let it belong to the Temple treasury in perpetuity if it is not redeemed within one year. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hroughout his generations.鈥 Excluded, therefore, is the Temple treasury, as it is not a person and it does not have generations.

诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬驻讜拽 讘讬讜讘诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the phrase in the above verse: 鈥淚t shall not go out in the Jubilee鈥? After all, it already stated: 鈥淚n perpetuity.鈥 Rav Safra said: This phrase is necessary only for the case of one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities and the Jubilee Year arrived during the year of the sale. It might enter your mind to say that the house should leave the possession of the buyer to enter the possession of its owner in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse teaches us: 鈥淚t shall not go out in the Jubilee,鈥 to teach that this is not the case.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 谞讟诪谉 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讞诇讜讟 诇讜 讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 砖讬讛讗 讞讜诇砖 诪注讜转讬讜 诇诇砖讻讛 讜讬讛讗 砖讜讘专 讗转 讛讚诇转 讜谞讻谞住 讗讬诪转讬 砖讬专爪讛 讛诇讝 讬讘讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜

MISHNA At first, the buyer would conceal himself on the final day of the twelve-month period, in order to ensure that it would become his in perpetuity. Hillel instituted that the seller would place [岣lesh] his money in the chamber of the court and that he will break the door and enter the house, and when the other individual, i.e., the buyer, will wish to do so, he may come to the chamber and take his money.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转拽谞转讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 诪讚注转讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

GEMARA Rava says: It may be inferred from the ordinance of Hillel in the mishna that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and she gave the money to him with his consent, then she is divorced. But if she gave it to him against his will, she is not divorced.

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Arakhin 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 31

转谞讬 讞讚讗 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谞讜 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

The Gemara raises a contradiction between two baraitot with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury: It is taught in one baraita: One may borrow money and redeem a field, and one may partially redeem it. And it is taught in another baraita: One may not borrow money and redeem a field, nor may one partially redeem it. The Gemara explains: It is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one may not borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that baraita, which states that one may borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜讗诇 诪讬讚 讜讙讜讗诇 讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讻诪讬谉 专讘讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 专讘讬转

MISHNA: One who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities may redeem the house immediately, even without the consent of the buyer, and he may redeem the house during the entire twelve months following the sale, but not after that. When he redeems the house within the twelve-month period, he returns the sale price to the buyer, and this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the buyer has effectively resided in the house for free in exchange for the fact that the buyer鈥檚 money was in the possession of the seller. It is not considered interest, because the buyer owned the house during the period in which he resided in it.

诪转 讛诪讜讻专 讬讙讗诇 讘谞讜 诪转 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 讘谞讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 砖谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖诪讻专 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 诪诇讗转 诇讜 砖谞讛

If the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. If the buyer died, the seller may redeem it from the possession of the buyer鈥檚 son. If the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The term 鈥渇or him鈥 indicates that the year is calculated from when the initial owner sold the house.

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转诪讬诪讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讗转 讞讚砖 讛注讬讘讜专 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讬转谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 讜注讬讘讜专讛 讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讛讬转讛 讞诇讜讟讛 诇讜 讗讞讚 讛诇讜拽讞 讜讗讞讚 讛谞讬转谉 诇讜 讘诪转谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇爪诪讬转讜转

When it says: 鈥淎 full year,鈥 this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale, if it was a leap year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word 鈥渇ull鈥 serves to give the seller a year and its addition, i.e., the year during which the house may be redeemed is not the 354-day lunar year, but the 365-day solar year. If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, the house has become the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to both one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: 鈥淭hen the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (Leviticus 25:30).

讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讬诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讬诪讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who sells a house in a walled city may redeem it immediately. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold; for days he shall have the right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:29). The word 鈥渄ays鈥 means no fewer than two days, i.e., the house cannot be redeemed during the first two days after the sale.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讬诪讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜专讘讬 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注讚 转讜诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this word 鈥渄ays鈥? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis require it to teach the halakha that the year does not conclude with the arrival of Rosh HaShana, at the end of the calendar year; rather, it is calculated from day to day, that is, until the arrival of the date of the sale in the subsequent year. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from day to day? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the phrase: 鈥淯ntil the completion of the year after it is sold鈥 (Leviticus 25:29).

讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 砖谞转 砖诇 诪谞讬谉 注讜诇诐 讜讬诪讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讛讜 诇诪注转 诇注转 讚讗讬 诪注讚 转讜诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讗讬谉 诪注转 诇注转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase? The Gemara responds: Actually, they require that phrase to teach that the calculated year is a year from his sale and not the year of the counting of the world, i.e., not the calendar year. And the Rabbis require the word 鈥渄ays鈥 to teach that the year is calculated not only from day to day, but also from hour to hour, i.e., the year is completed only when the hour of the sale arrives in the subsequent year. As if one sought to derive this from the phrase 鈥渦ntil the completion of the year after it is sold,鈥 I would say that with regard to calculating the year from day to day, yes, it is calculated in this manner, but with regard to calculating the year from hour to hour, no, it is not calculated in this manner. Rather, once the beginning of the day arrives the seller can no longer redeem the house. The Merciful One therefore wrote the word 鈥渄ays鈥 to teach that the year is calculated from hour to hour.

讜专讘讬 诪注转 诇注转 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪转诪讬诪讛 讜专讘谞谉 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讘讜专讛

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from hour to hour? The Gemara answers that he derives it from the term 鈥渁 full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from the term 鈥渁 full year鈥? The Gemara responds: The Rabbis require that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale.

讜专讘讬 谞诪讬 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讘讜专讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜诪注转 诇注转 诪注讚 转讜诐 砖谞转 诪诪讻专讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara objects: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also requires that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale. The Gemara explains: Indeed, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the inclusion of the intercalated month from the term 鈥渁 full year.鈥 Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the fact that the year is calculated from day to day and from hour to hour constitutes one halakha, which is derived from the phrase 鈥渦ntil the completion of the year after it is sold.鈥

讛专讬 讝讜 讻诪讬谉 专讘讬转 讜讻讜壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛专讬 讝讜 专讘讬转 讙诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 砖讛转讜专讛 讛转讬专转讜

搂 The mishna teaches: When one redeems a house among those of a walled city, this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the seller returns the original sale price to the buyer and he does not subtract from it in exchange for the period during which the buyer resided in the house. This is not considered interest because the buyer owned the house during that period. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: This is fully considered interest, but in this case the Torah permitted it?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 谞讜砖讛 讘讞讘讬专讜 诪谞讛 讜注砖讛 诇讜 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗住讜专

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of one who had a debt of one hundred dinars against another, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field to the lender, stipulating that if he does not repay the loan on time then the sale shall take effect retroactively from the present moment. As long as the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of that field until the time the loan comes due, this arrangement is permitted. But if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce during this time, the arrangement is prohibited, as it constitutes interest. The reason is that if the loan is repaid on time, the sale is nullified, which means that the produce consumed by the lender will have been consumed as payment for allowing the loan to remain in the borrower鈥檚 possession.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讜转专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘讘讬转讜住 讘谉 讝讜谞讬谉 砖注砖讛 砖讚讛讜 诪讻专 注诇 驻讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讜诇讜拽讞 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诪砖诐 专讗讬讬讛 诪讜讻专 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讛讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讜拽讞

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer consumes the produce, such an arrangement is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda said in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who made a conditional sale of his field by a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and in this case the buyer was consuming the produce. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring proof from there? Actually, it was the seller who was consuming the produce, and not the buyer.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The dispute between them concerns the permissibility of an agreement involving an uncertain interest, i.e., an agreement that will involve interest only under certain circumstances. This is the case here, since if the loan is repaid the produce consumed by the lender constitutes interest, but if the loan is not repaid then the field is acquired retroactively by the lender and no interest is involved. The Gemara elaborates: The first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that uncertain interest is permitted.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 爪讚 讗讞讚 讘专讘讬转 讗住讜专 讜讛讻讗 讘专讘讬转 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讞讝讬专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 住讘专 讗住讜专 讜诪专 住讘专 诪讜转专

Rava said: Everyone agrees that uncertain interest is prohibited; and here, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerns the permissibility of interest given on the condition that it will be returned. That is, in addition to the arrangement described in the baraita, the parties agreed that the buyer will consume the produce, and if the sale will later be nullified, then the buyer will reimburse the seller for the value of the produce. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that although the interest is subsequently refunded, this practice is prohibited, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this is permitted.

诪转 讛诪讜讻专 讬讙讗诇 讘谞讜 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讻专 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讛讬转讛 讙讗诇转讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, if the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as a son inherits his father鈥檚 property. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that when the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold鈥 (Leviticus 25:29), this indicates that the man who redeems the house must be the same man who sold it, and this son did not sell; therefore, the same verse teaches us: 鈥淎nd he shall have the right of redemption,鈥 indicating that the right of redemption applies in any case, either to the seller or his son.

诪转 讛诇讜拽讞 讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 讘谞讜 讜讻讜壮 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇拽谞讛 讗转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 拽谞讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讜讛讬转讛 讙讗诇转讜 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The mishna further teaches: If the buyer died, the seller may redeem the house from the possession of the buyer鈥檚 son. The Gemara asks: This, too, is obvious. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Merciful One states: 鈥淭hen the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), and as this son did not buy the house, the buyer cannot redeem it from him; therefore, the previous verse teaches us: 鈥淗e shall have the right of redemption,鈥 indicating that this right applies in any case, even from the buyer鈥檚 son.

讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 讗诇讗 诪砖注讛 砖诪讻专 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 讗诐 砖谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讗诐 砖谞讛 诇砖谞讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注讚 诪诇讗转 诇讜 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 讛讜讬 砖谞讛 诇专讗砖讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches that if the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The Sages taught: When the verse states 鈥測ear,鈥 I do not know if one counts the year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer, or if one counts the year from when the first buyer sold it to the second. When the verse states: 鈥淯ntil the passage of a full year for him,鈥 you must say that it is a year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer.

诇诪讬 讞诇讜讟 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讗砖讜谉 讞诇讜讟 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇砖谞讬 讞诇讜讟 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽讗 诪谞讬谞谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诪讛 诪讻专 诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讻诇 讝讻讜转 砖转讘讗 诇讬讚讜

The Gemara asks: In such a case, if the owner did not redeem the house within one year of the first sale, to whom does it belong in perpetuity? Rabbi Elazar says: It belongs in perpetuity to the first buyer. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It belongs in perpetuity to the second buyer. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, it is understandable why the house belongs to the first buyer, as one calculates the year according to his acquisition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is the reason that the house belongs to the second buyer after the conclusion of one year from the acquisition of the first buyer? Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: What did the first buyer sell to the second buyer? He sold him any right to the field that will come into his possession. This includes the fact that the house will belong to him in perpetuity after the conclusion of one year from the first purchase.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诪讻专 砖谞讬 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞讚 讘讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讝讛 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讝讛 砖诪讻专 诇讜 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 砖诇 讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If one sold two houses of walled cities, one on the fifteenth day of the first month of Adar in a leap year, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this house that he sold to him on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed. With regard to this house that he sold to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 拽讚讬诐 砖讞讬谉 谞讜专讗 诪拽诪讗 讚讬讚讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 谞讞讬转 诇注讬讘讜专讗

Ravina objects to this: But let the first buyer say to the second: I preceded you and kindled a fire before you, i.e., I bought my house before you acquired yours. How, then, can you gain possession in perpetuity before me? The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second buyer can say to him: You descended to the house during the intercalated month, i.e., the first Adar, and as it is taught in the mishna, the seller has the right to redeem the house for an entire year, including the intercalated month.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 谞讜诇讚讜 诇讜 砖谞讬 讟诇讗讬诐 讗讞讚 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 砖诇 讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞讚 讘讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讝讛 砖谞讜诇讚 讘讗讚专 讛砖谞讬 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 讝讛 砖谞讜诇讚 诇讜 讘讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 注诇转讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 注讚 讞诪砖讛 注砖专 讘讗讚专 砖诇 砖谞讛 讛讘讗讛

And Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If two lambs were born to a single owner, one on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this lamb that was born on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed, and if it was a firstborn it should be sacrificed before that time arrives ab initio. With regard to this lamb that was born to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 拽讚讬诐 讗讻讬诇 讬专讜拽讗 诪拽诪讗 讚讬讚讱 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转 谞讞讬转转 诇注讬讘讜专讗 讗谞讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转谞讗 诇注讬讘讜专讗

Ravina again objects to this: But let the lamb that was born first say to the other lamb: I preceded you and ate vegetables before you, i.e., I was born first. The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second lamb can say to the first: You descended to the world during the intercalated month, which is added to the year, whereas I did not descend to the world during the intercalated month.

讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 转诪讬诪讛 讛讻讗 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 转诪讬诪讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚砖谞讛 砖谞讛 诪讛讚讚讬 讙诪专讬

The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this second halakha? This halakha with regard to the lambs is identical to that halakha concerning the houses. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there, with regard to houses of walled cities, where it is written: 鈥淎 full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), this is indeed the halakha, but here, with regard to lambs, where it is not written: A full year, perhaps this is not the case; Rabbi Abba bar Memel therefore teaches us that by means of a verbal analogy between the words 鈥測ear鈥 and 鈥測ear鈥 the two cases derive their halakhot from each other. With regard to houses of walled cities, it is written: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), and it is written with regard to lambs: 鈥淵our lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year鈥 (Exodus 12:5).

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 转诪讬诪讛 讻讜壮 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讬转谉 砖谞转 注讬讘讜专讛 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜谞讛 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖砖讬诐 讜讞诪砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讻诪谞讬谉 讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讜谞讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诪讬讜诐 诇讬讜诐 讜讗诐 谞转注讘专讛 谞转注讘专讛 诇讜

搂 The mishna teaches: When it states: 鈥淎 full year鈥 (Leviticus 25:30), this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This serves to give the seller a year and its addition. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淎 full year鈥; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This means that one counts 365 days, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, which are eleven more than in a lunar year. And the Rabbis say: One counts twelve months from day to day, and if an additional month was intercalated into the year, then the month was intercalated to the benefit of the seller, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house.

讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇爪诪讬转讜转 诇讞诇讜讟讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇爪诪讬转讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 爪诪讬转 爪诪讬转讜转

搂 The mishna teaches: If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, it becomes the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: 鈥淚n perpetuity [latzemitut]鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). With regard to this matter, the Sages taught: 鈥Latzemitut means in perpetuity; that is, the seller can no longer redeem the house against the buyer鈥檚 will, nor does it return to his possession in the Jubilee Year. Another matter derived from this verse is that latzemitut serves to include a house given as a gift. What is the reason, i.e., how is this derived from 鈥latzemitut鈥? The verse could have stated tzemit, but instead it states tzemitut. The expanded term serves to include a house given as a gift.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讗诪专 诪转谞讛 讗讬谞讛 讻诪讻专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讘讬 专讞诪谞讗 诇爪诪讬转讜转

The Sages said the above baraita before Rav Pappa, and then asked: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Ostensibly, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn鈥檛 he say with regard to the return of an ancestral field in the Jubilee Year that a gift is not like a sale, i.e., an ancestral field given as a gift does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee Year? Likewise, a house in a walled city given as a gift should not become the perpetual property of the buyer after twelve months. Rav Pappa said: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it is different here, as the Merciful One includes a house given as a gift through the term latzemitut.鈥

讗诪专讜 专讘谞谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗诪专 诇讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 讙讘讬 讬讜讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 转砖讘讜 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗 诪专讘讬 讗诇讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Sages said to Rav Pappa, and some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But consider the case of the Jubilee Year, as it is written: 鈥淚n this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and the Sages teach that this verse serves to include the gift, and yet Rabbi Meir does not include a gift. Rather, this baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇注讜诇诐 讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讛讙讬注 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇 讛讬讛 讞诇讜讟 诇讜

The Sages taught: With regard to one who consecrates a house among the houses of walled cities, this individual may redeem it from the Temple treasury, and he may always redeem it, even after the first year, unlike a sale. If another redeemed the house from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the final day of the twelve-month period from its redemption arrived and the house was not redeemed by its owner, the house has become the property of the other individual in perpetuity.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇拽谞讛 讗讜转讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讜诇讞诇讟讬讛 讛拽讚砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讚专转讬讜 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讚讜专讜转

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel says: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:30). The verse indicates that the house belongs in perpetuity to 鈥渢he one who bought it,鈥 even if he purchased it from the possession of the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: But why is the consecrator always capable of redeeming the house from the possession of the Temple treasury? Let it belong to the Temple treasury in perpetuity if it is not redeemed within one year. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hroughout his generations.鈥 Excluded, therefore, is the Temple treasury, as it is not a person and it does not have generations.

诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讘转讜讱 砖谞转讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讬驻讜拽 讘讬讜讘诇 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the phrase in the above verse: 鈥淚t shall not go out in the Jubilee鈥? After all, it already stated: 鈥淚n perpetuity.鈥 Rav Safra said: This phrase is necessary only for the case of one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities and the Jubilee Year arrived during the year of the sale. It might enter your mind to say that the house should leave the possession of the buyer to enter the possession of its owner in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse teaches us: 鈥淚t shall not go out in the Jubilee,鈥 to teach that this is not the case.

诪转谞讬壮 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 谞讟诪谉 讬讜诐 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 讞诇讜讟 诇讜 讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 砖讬讛讗 讞讜诇砖 诪注讜转讬讜 诇诇砖讻讛 讜讬讛讗 砖讜讘专 讗转 讛讚诇转 讜谞讻谞住 讗讬诪转讬 砖讬专爪讛 讛诇讝 讬讘讗 讜讬讟讜诇 讗转 诪注讜转讬讜

MISHNA At first, the buyer would conceal himself on the final day of the twelve-month period, in order to ensure that it would become his in perpetuity. Hillel instituted that the seller would place [岣lesh] his money in the chamber of the court and that he will break the door and enter the house, and when the other individual, i.e., the buyer, will wish to do so, he may come to the chamber and take his money.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转拽谞转讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 诪讚注转讜 诪讙讜专砖转 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讙讜专砖转

GEMARA Rava says: It may be inferred from the ordinance of Hillel in the mishna that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and she gave the money to him with his consent, then she is divorced. But if she gave it to him against his will, she is not divorced.

Scroll To Top