Arakhin 32

מדאיצטריך ליה להלל לתקוני נתינה בעל כרחו הויא נתינה הא בעלמא נתינה בעל כרחו לא הויא נתינה

The Gemara elaborates: From the fact that it was necessary for Hillel to institute that giving against the will of the receiver is considered giving, in the case of houses of walled cities, one may infer that in general, giving against the will of the recipient is not considered giving.

מתקיף לה רב פפא ואיתימא רב אשי ודילמא כי איצטריכא ליה להלל לתקוני שלא בפניו אבל בפניו בין מדעתו בין בעל כרחו הויא מתנה

Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say that it was Rav Ashi who objected: But perhaps when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer; but if he repays the buyer in his presence, then whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא מתקנתו של הלל הרי זה גיטיך על מנת שתתני לי מאתים זוז ונתנה לו בין מדעתו בין בעל כרחו הויא נתינה וכי איצטריך ליה להלל לתקוני שלא בפניו אבל בפניו בין מדעתו בין בעל כרחו הויא נתינה

There are those who say an opposite version of this discussion, i.e., that Rava says: One may infer from the ordinance of Hillel 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 it to him, whether it was with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is a valid act of giving. And this is because when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer. But if the seller repays him in his presence, whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

מתקיף לה רב פפא ואיתימא רב שימי בר אשי ודילמא בין בפניו בין שלא בפניו מדעתו אין בעל כרחו לא והלל מאי דאיצטריך ליה תקין

Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say it was Rav Shimi bar Ashi who objected: But perhaps, whether she gives him the money in his presence or not in his presence, if she gives it with his consent, yes, it is valid, but if she gives it against his will, it is not considered a valid act of giving. And Hillel instituted what was necessary, to remedy the practical occurrence that buyers would hide themselves at the end of the year. But even if the seller finds the buyer and the buyer refuses to accept payment, it would be necessary for Hillel to institute an ordinance.

מתני׳ כל שהוא לפנים מן החומה הרי הוא כבתי ערי חומה חוץ מן השדות רבי מאיר אומר אף השדות בית הבנוי בחומה רבי יהודה אומר אינו כבתי ערי חומה רבי שמעון אומר כותל החיצון היא חומתו

MISHNA The halakhic status of any area that is located within the city wall is like that of the houses of walled cities in terms of its redemption, except for the fields located therein. Rabbi Meir says: Even the fields are included in this category. With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities. Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall, and therefore it has the status of a house in a walled city.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן בית אין לי אלא בית מנין לרבות בתי בדים ובתי מרחצאות ומגדלות ושובכין ובורות ושיחין ומערות תלמוד לומר אשר בעיר יכול שאני מרבה אף השדות תלמוד לומר בית דברי רבי יהודה

GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). I have derived only that this is the halakha with regard to a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” indicating that anything situated within the city is included. If so, one might have thought that I should include even the fields that are inside the city. Therefore, the verse states: “House,” which excludes a field; it does not resemble a house in any way, since it does not contain any items. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי מאיר אומר בית אין לי אלא בית מנין לרבות בתי בדים ובתי מרחצאות ומגדלות ושובכין ובורות שיחין ומערות ואפילו שדות תלמוד לומר אשר בעיר

Rabbi Meir says: The verse states: “House.” I have derived only a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves, and even fields? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” to include anything inside the city.

ואלא הא כתיב בית אמר רב חסדא אמר רב קטינא חולסית ומצולה איכא בינייהו והתניא חולסית ומצולה רבי מאיר אומר כבתים רבי יהודה אומר כשדות

The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Meir: But isn’t it written: “House”? If Rabbi Meir includes even a field, what is excluded by the word “house”? Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Ketina said: Actually, everyone agrees that the term “house” serves to exclude a field. The difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a quarry and a sand bed. According to Rabbi Meir, such areas are considered similar to houses and are therefore included in the halakha. The Gemara adds: And it is likewise taught in a baraita: With regard to a quarry and a sand bed inside the walls of a city, Rabbi Meir says: They are considered like houses, and Rabbi Yehuda says: They are considered like fields.

בית הבנוי בחומה רבי יהודה אומר אינו כבתי ערי חומה אמר רבי יוחנן ושניהם מקרא אחד דרשו ותורדם בחבל בעד החלון כי ביתה בקיר החומה ובחומה היא יושבת רבי שמעון סבר כפשטיה דקרא ורבי יהודה סבר בחומה היא יושבת ולא בעיר חומה

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities, and Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: “Then she let them down by a cord through the window; for her house was upon the side of the wall; and she dwelt upon the wall” (Joshua 2:15). Rabbi Shimon holds that the last phrase should be understood in accordance with the simple meaning of the verse, that her house was attached to the outer wall and it was considered inside the walled city; and Rabbi Yehuda holds that “she dwelt upon the wall” means she was a resident of the wall itself, but not a resident of the city enclosed within the wall.

מתני׳ עיר שגגותיה חומתה ושאינה מוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון אינה כבתי ערי חומה ואלו הן בתי ערי חומה שלש חצרות של שני בתים מוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון כגון קצרה הישנה של ציפורי וחקרה של גוש חלב ויודפת הישנה וגמלא וגדוד וחדיד ואונה וירושלים וכן כיוצא בהן

MISHNA The halakhic status of a house in a city whose houses are attached and their rooftops constitute the top of its wall, and likewise, the status of a house in a city that is not surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, even if a surrounding wall was constructed during a later period, is not like that of the houses of walled cities. And these are the houses of walled cities: Any city in which there are at least three courtyards, each containing two houses, and which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, e.g., the ancient fort [katzra] of Tzippori, and the fortress [ḥakra] of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן חומה ולא שור איגר סביב פרט לטבריה שימה חומתה

GEMARA With regard to the statement of the mishna that the halakhic status of a house in a city whose rooftops constitute the top of its wall is not like that of the houses of walled cities, the Sages taught: When the verse states: “The house that is in the city that has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30), this is referring specifically to a city that has an actual wall and not merely a wall of roofs. When the next verse states: “But the houses of the villages that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country,” this serves to exclude Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall.

רבי אליעזר בר יוסי אומר אשר לוא חומה אף על פי שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן

Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall,” with lo written with an alef, according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that even if a city does not have a wall now, but it had a wall before, in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.

ואלו הן בתי ערי חומה כו׳ תנא גמלא בגליל וגדוד בעבר הירדן וחדיד ואונה וירושלים ביהודה מאי קאמר

§ The mishna teaches: And these are the houses of walled cities: The ancient fort of Tzippori, and the fortress of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities. The Sages taught in a baraita: Gamla is in the Galilee, and Gedod is in Transjordan, and Ḥadid and Ono and Jerusalem are in Judea. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of this baraita saying? Are these the only walled cities in the Galilee, Transjordan, and Judea?

אמר אביי הכי קאמר עד גמלא בגליל עד גדוד בעבר הירדן וחדיד ואונו וירושלים ביהודה

Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: Until Gamla in the Galilee, i.e., all towns in the Galilee from Gamla southward were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun; and likewise, all towns until Gedod in Transjordan, which is the easternmost city, were surrounded by a wall; and Ḥadid and Ono and Jerusalem in Judea were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun.

רבא אמר גמלא בגליל לאפוקי גמלא דשאר ארצות גדוד בעבר הירדן לאפוקי גדוד דשאר ארצות אינך דלא איכא דכותייהו לא איצטריך ליה

Rava said a different explanation: The baraita is elucidating the mishna, which mentions these cities. The baraita is teaching that the Gamla referred to in the mishna is the one in the Galilee, to the exclusion of any Gamla found in other lands, i.e., Judea and Transjordan. Likewise, Gedod is the one in Transjordan, to the exclusion of Gedod in other lands, Judea and the Galilee. In the same vein, Ḥadid, Ono, and Jerusalem are specifically the cities in Judea known by those names. With regard to those other cities mentioned in the mishna, e.g., Yodfat, since there are no cities in other lands with similar names, it was not necessary for the tanna of the baraita to state them.

וירושלים מי מיחלט בה והתניא עשרה דברים נאמרו בירושלים אין הבית חלוט בה

The Gemara asks: And is ownership of a house in Jerusalem transferred in perpetuity to the buyer after one year, in the manner of houses of walled cities? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, one of which is that ownership of a house situated in Jerusalem is not transferred in perpetuity one year after its sale?

אמר רבי יוחנן כירושלים דמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון ולא כירושלים דאילו ירושלים אין הבית חלוט בה ואילו הכא הבית חלוט בהן רב אשי אמר לאו אמר רב יוסף תרי קדש הוו הכא נמי תרי ירושלים הוו

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The tanna means that ownership of a house may be transferred in perpetuity in any city that is like Jerusalem, i.e., which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, but the halakha with regard to such a city is not like Jerusalem itself, since while with regard to Jerusalem, ownership of a house inside it is not transferred in perpetuity, here, with regard to cities similar to Jerusalem, a house in them may be transferred in perpetuity to the buyer. Rav Ashi said a different answer: Didn’t Rav Yosef say in resolution of another difficulty: There were two places called Kadesh? Here, too, one can say that there were two places called Jerusalem in Judea, and the mishna is referring to the one where ownership of houses transfers in perpetuity.

תניא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום אבל ראשונות בטלו משבטלה קדושת הארץ קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא

§ With regard to the cities listed in the mishna, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: Why did the Sages count specifically these cities as those walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? They counted them because when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and sanctified them; but the sanctity of the first walled cities was nullified when the sanctity of the land was nullified and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua consecrated it for its time, until the exile, but did not consecrate Eretz Yisrael forever.

ורמינהי אמר רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי וכי אלו בלבד היו והלא כבר נאמר ששים עיר כל חבל ארגב כל אלה ערים בצרות אלא למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום קידשום הא אמרינן דלא צריך לקדושינהו אלא מנאום

The Gemara asks: But raise a contradiction from another baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: And were these cities enumerated in the mishna the only walled cities from the days of Joshua? But isn’t it already stated: “There was not a city that we took not from them; sixty cities, all the region of Argob…all these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:4–5)? Rather, why did the Sages specifically count these cities? They counted them because when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and sanctified them. The Gemara interjects: Can the baraita really mean that they sanctified them? But we say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to sanctify them. Rather, the baraita means that they found these cities and counted them in the mishna.

ולא אלו בלבד אלא כל שתעלה לך מסורת בידך מאבותיך שמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון כל מצות הללו נוהגות בה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא

The baraita continues: And not only these; rather, with regard to any city for which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it is surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot of walled cities are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time and consecrated it forever. Evidently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal.

איבעית אימא תרי תנאי ואליבא דרבי ישמעאל ואיבעית אימא חד מינייהו רבי אלעזר בר יוסי אמרה דתניא רבי אלעזר בר יוסי אומר אשר לוא חומה אף על פי שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן

The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that this is a dispute between two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. And if you wish, say instead that one of the baraitot, specifically the second one, was actually said by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall,” with lo written with an alef, according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that even if a city does not have a wall now, but it had a wall before, in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.

מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא דכתיב ויעשו בני הגולה השבים מן השבי סכות וישבו בסכות כי לא עשו מימי ישוע בן נון כן בני ישראל וגו׳ ותהי שמחה גדולה מאד אפשר בא דוד ולא עשו סוכות עד שבא עזרא

§ The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time, but did not consecrate it forever? As it is taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to the return from Babylonia: “And all the congregation of those that were coming back out of the captivity made sukkot, and dwelt in sukkot, for since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, unto that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great joy” (Nehemiah 8:17). Now, is it possible that King David came and the Jews in his time and all subsequent generations did not make sukkot, until Ezra came?

אלא מקיש ביאתם בימי עזרא לביאתם בימי יהושע מה ביאתם בימי יהושע מנו שמיטין ויובלות וקדשו ערי חומה אף ביאתן בימי עזרא מנו שמיטין ויובלות וקדשו ערי חומה

Rather, when the verse states: “For since the days of Joshua,” it means to compare their arrival in Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra to their arrival in the days of Joshua: Just as with regard to their arrival in the days of Joshua, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities, so too, with regard to their arrival in the days of Ezra, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities.

ואומר והביאך ה׳ אלהיך אל הארץ אשר ירשו אבתיך וירשתה מקיש ירושתך לירושת אבותיך מה ירושת אבותיך בחידוש כל דברים הללו אף ירושתך בחידוש כל דברים הללו

And so it says with regard to the return of the Jews from exile: “And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it” (Deuteronomy 30:5). The verse compares your possession to the possession of your fathers: Just as the possession of your fathers came with the renewal of all these matters, i.e., the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year, and terumot and tithes, so too your possession comes with the renewal of all these matters, as the initial consecration was nullified.

ואידך דבעי רחמי על יצר דעבודה זרה ובטליה ואגין זכותא עלייהו כי סוכה

The Gemara asks: And the tanna who maintains the other opinion, that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal, how does he interpret the verse in Nehemiah? The Gemara answers that when the verse states: “For since the days of Joshua,” this is not referring to actual sukkot; rather, the verse means that Ezra prayed for mercy with regard to the evil inclination of idol worship and nullified it, and the merit of his prayer protected them like a sukka.

והיינו דקא קפיד קרא עילויה דיהושע דבכל דוכתא כתיב יהושע והכא כתיב ישוע בשלמא משה לא בעא רחמי דלא הוה זכותא דארץ ישראל אלא יהושע דהוה ליה זכותא דארץ ישראל אמאי לא ליבעי רחמי

The Gemara adds: And this is the reason that the verse criticizes Joshua for not praying for the removal of this inclination himself. How is this criticism indicated in the verse? As in every other place in the Bible, his name is written as: Yehoshua, and here it is written: Yeshua. The Gemara explains why the verse singles out Joshua for criticism: Granted, Moses, the first leader of the Jewish people, did not pray for mercy that this inclination should be removed, as at the time there was no merit of Eretz Yisrael; but Joshua, who had the merit of Eretz Yisrael, why didn’t he pray for mercy that this inclination should be nullified?

והא כתיב אשר ירשו אבתיך וירשתה הכי קאמר כיון דירשו אבותיך ירשת את

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion that the initial consecration was not nullified, isn’t it written: “Which your fathers possessed and you shall possess it”? This verse apparently indicates that it was necessary to sanctify Eretz Yisrael a second time. The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, this is what the verse is saying: Since your fathers possessed the land, you too possess it, and there is no need to sanctify it again.

ומי מנו שמיטין ויובלות השתא משגלו שבט ראובן ושבט גד וחצי שבט מנשה בטלו יובלות עזרא דכתיב ביה כל הקהל כאחד ארבע רבוא אלפים ושש מאות וששים הוה מני

The baraita cited earlier teaches that the Jews began counting the Jubilee Year upon their return from exile. The Gemara asks: But did they count Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years in the days of Ezra? Now, if from the time that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled (see I Chronicles 5:26) the counting of Jubilee Years was nullified, despite the fact that a majority of Jews lived in Eretz Yisrael, then in the time of Ezra, about which it is written: “The whole congregation together was 42,360” (Ezra 2:64), would they have counted Jubilee Years?

דתניא משגלו שבט ראובן ושבט גד וחצי שבט המנשה בטלו יובלות שנאמר וקראתם דרור בארץ לכל ישביה בזמן שכל יושביה עליה ולא בזמן שגלו מקצתן

As it is taught in a baraita: From the time that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled, the counting of Jubilee Years was nullified, as it is stated: “And you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a Jubilee for you” (Leviticus 25:10), indicating that the halakhot of the Jubilee Year apply only when all its inhabitants are in Eretz Yisrael, and not when some of them have been exiled.

יכול היו עליה והן מעורבין שבט בנימין ביהודה ושבט יהודה בבנימין יהא יובל נוהג תלמוד לומר לכל ישביה בזמן שיושביה כתיקונן ולא בזמן שהן מעורבין

The baraita continues: One might have thought that if all the Jews were living in Eretz Yisrael, but they are intermingled, e.g., the tribe of Benjamin is living in the portion of the tribe of Judah, and the tribe of Judah in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin, that the Jubilee Year should be in effect. Therefore, the verse states: “To all its inhabitants,” which teaches that the Jubilee Year applies only when its inhabitants are living according to their proper arrangment, and not when they are intermingled. How, then, could those who returned from exile have counted the Jubilee Years?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מנו יובלות לקדש שמיטין

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They counted Jubilee Years in order to sanctify Sabbatical Years. That is, at the end of every seven cycles of the Sabbatical Year they would count the fiftieth year as a Jubilee Year, so that the next Sabbatical cycle would begin in its proper time, in the fifty-first year. Nevertheless, the halakhot of the Jubilee Year were not in effect.