Arakhin 18b (יח:) — the Talmud in English

And this implies that they themselves are not included,

as in the matter that is stated:

“And if the leprosy will erupt on the skin, and the leprosy covers the entire skin of the affliction,”

“from his head [

of a person]

to his feet,”

“as far as the eyes of the priest can see. And the priest shall see, and so on, and the priest shall declare the entire affliction pure; it has turned completely white, he is pure.” And there the intention is: “from

his head,” but his head itself is not included,

for even if the leprosy did not erupt on his head, he is pure; “and to

his feet,” but his feet themselves are not included.

And since this is so, shall we say the same with regard to the karet stated concerning leaven?

The verse states: “On the first day, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, you shall eat matzot,” so the first day is included;

until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening”—so the seventh day itself is included. “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats what is leavened, and his soul shall be cut off,” and thus, for everything stated above, he is liable even to karet—Tosafot.

“until the twenty-first day of the month, in the evening,” so the seventh day is included. “For seven days leaven shall not be found in your houses, for whoever eats anything leavened shall be cut off,” and therefore, in all that was stated above, one is liable even to karet — Tosafot.

Rabbi says: It is not necessary

to include the first and seventh days from another verse, because

“first,” and the first is included,

as it is written, “from the first day”;

“seventh,” and the seventh is included,

as it is written, “until the seventh day.” And this implies that these themselves too are included.

If so, this implies that the Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi, because according to Rabbi, the twentieth year itself is included in “until twenty years.”

And we reject this:

You can even say

that the Mishna is in accordance with

Rabbi.

A verse is still necessary to teach that the years themselves are treated as belonging to the lower category, and this cannot be learned from the word “until.” And because

the verses are evenly balanced [

the derivations from the verses are equally plausible], one cannot determine from them whether the year itself is treated as belonging to the lower category or to the upper category.

Now, it is written: “From one month old until five years old,

and your valuation for the male shall be five shekels.” If so, had it been written only, “and until twenty years old, and your valuation for the male shall be twenty shekels,” and it had not been written, “And if from five years old” [until twenty years old, and so on], we would know that from five years of age his valuation changes to twenty shekels.

Then

“and if

from five

years old” [until twenty years old, and so on]

why do I need it?!

And since this is so, one can learn from the Torah’s writing, “and if from five years old,” that the fifth year itself is treated as belonging to the upper category: “from five years old” — and five is included [according to Rabbi, just as “from the first day” includes the first day]. Conversely, from what is written, “and until five years old,” one can learn that the fifth year itself is treated as belonging to the lower category, because “until” includes the endpoint [according to Rabbi].

Therefore,

it follows that

the derivations have been rendered evenly balanced

as to whether the fifth year is treated as belonging to the lower or upper category. Therefore, even according to Rabbi, a gzera shava is necessary so that the fifth, twentieth, and sixtieth years will be treated as belonging to the lower category.

The Master said:

“One might have thought that the first day is not included, and so on, as in the matter that is stated: ‘from his head to his feet.’”

“His head,” but his head itself is not included; “his feet,” but his feet themselves are not included.

And we wonder:

From where do we know

that this is so, such that it was obvious to the Rabbis to learn from here [were it not for the verse] that also when it says, “from the first day,” the first day is not included, and “until the seventh day,” the seventh day is not included?!

And we explain:

Alternatively,

the head is necessarily not included, for

the signs on the body differ from the signs on the head

[the signs of impurity in a leprous affliction on the body are either that the affliction has turned the hair white, or that the leprosy spread when the priest quarantined him. The signs of impurity on the head, which is a place of hair, are either that the hair has turned yellow, or that the leprosy spread when the priest quarantined him]. Therefore, it is impossible that the intention of the Torah is for the head to be included, and that it would be necessary for the leprosy on the body to erupt even on the head in order to render him pure. And since his head is not included, his feet are likewise not included.

Alternatively,

it is obvious to us from here that his head and feet are not included, since it is written: “from his head to his feet,”

“as far as the eyes of the priest can see,”

and the priest cannot see the head because of the hair, nor the feet between one toe and another . Thus, necessarily, his head and feet are not included.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Until they exceed the years by one month and one day.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,

in the passage concerning valuations: “And if he is from sixty years old”

“and above,” and it is stated there

[in Numbers, chapter 3]: “Take a census of the sons of Levi, and so on, every male from one month old”

“and above,”

you shall count them.

Just as there,

with regard to the Levites,

a month

is stated, as it is written, “from one month old,”

and one day

is stated, as it is written, “from one month old and above,” meaning that he has already entered the following month,

so here too

one adds to sixty years

one month and one day.

And we challenge this: From where is it derived that one adds a month in addition to one day?

Say that, since

“and above”

there, just as there

“and above” adds

one day, so here too

we should add to the years by means of the gzera shava

one day

alone, to teach that he must have entered his sixty-first year?

And we answer:

If so,

if it came only to teach that he must have entered his sixty-first year,

the gzera shava

which comes to teach us from the Levites something that is not written here,

what purpose does it serve?

After all, “and above” is written here as well, and we would know to add one day! Necessarily, the gzera shava comes to add everything stated with regard to the Levites, namely, a month and “above.”

The Sages taught: The year stated with regard to the

age of

sacrificial animals,

such as when the Torah states that one must bring lambs “of one year” [within their first year], means a year from one date and time to the corresponding date and time: from the day and hour when it was born until that same day and hour in the following year. We do not follow the calendar year.

And likewise,

the year stated with regard to

the sale of

houses in walled cities,

[cities surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun], such that the seller may redeem it from the purchaser, if he wishes, until “a year” from its sale; after that, it becomes the purchaser’s permanently, and the seller may no longer redeem it.

And likewise,

the two years with regard to

the redemption of

ancestral land ,

as the seller may not redeem it until two “years” have passed in the purchaser’s possession. This is learned from the verse: “According to the number of years of crops shall he sell it to you,” and the minimum of a plural expression is two.

And the six years with regard to

the release of

a Hebrew slave

into freedom: the slave works for six “years,” and then goes free.

And the years with regard to a son and a daughter,

the years stated with regard to a son and a daughter [the Gemara below will discuss which years are meant].

All the years mentioned

in all these cases

are “a year”

from one date to the corresponding date,

from the day and hour when the year begins [in each case according to its context] until that same day and hour in the following year , unlike counting calendar years—from Tishrei to Tishrei. Thus, if the first Tishrei arrives, it is counted as a year for him.

And we explain the baraita:

The year stated with regard to sacrificial animals—from where do we know

that it means a period from one date to the corresponding date?

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said: The verse states: A lamb of “its year,”

to teach:

its own year, and not the calendar year.

And

the year stated with regard to houses in walled cities,

we learn that it means a period from one date to the corresponding date

from what is written:

“And its redemption shall be”

“until the completion of the year of its sale,”

to teach:

the year of its sale, and not a calendar year.

And

the two years of ancestral land,

we learn this

from what is written: “According to the number of years of crops shall he sell it to you.”

And from this verse one can learn

that sometimes a person [

the purchaser]

eats three crops during two years.

Since this is necessarily the case, the year with regard to the two years of ancestral land must mean a period from one date to the corresponding date, and not calendar years.

And this is the explanation: The Torah’s statement “years of crops” is superfluous. We already know from the word “years” that the land must be in the purchaser’s possession for two years, and this superfluous expression comes to teach that all the crops found by the purchaser during those two years he may eat, even three crops. For example, if they sold him the field in Nisan when it was full of standing grain, he may not redeem it until two years later, in Nisan on that same day. If the purchaser advanced the harvest and reaped the crop produced by the field at the end of the second year from its sale, before two full years had elapsed for him in Nisan, he would have eaten three crops: the crop of the field that was full when he purchased it, and two further crops from the two years. Since this is so, the year must mean a period from one date to the corresponding date from the time of its sale. For if we followed the calendar year, in Tishrei of the second year after its sale the seller would already redeem it [since two calendar years of ancestral land would have elapsed], and the purchaser would eat only two crops.

And

six

years

with regard to a Hebrew slave,

we learn that they are years from one date to the corresponding date from the time of his sale

from what is written: “He shall work six years, and in the seventh”

[he shall go free without payment]. This implies:

sometimes in the seventh

calendar year he

will also work,

for example, if he was sold in the middle of a calendar year. In Tishrei at the end of the sixth year [including the year in which he was sold], his six calendar years have already elapsed [since when the first Tishrei after his sale arrived, one year had already elapsed for him], and the Torah says that he must continue working in the seventh calendar year, until six full years from the time of his sale have elapsed.

They now come to explain what was stated in the baraita:

“And all the years with regard to a son and a daughter are from one date to the corresponding date”—for what halakhic purpose?

That is, which years with regard to a son and a daughter is the baraita discussing?

And we explain:

Rav Giddel said that Rav said:

that is,

with regard to valuations,

where the Torah fixed the valuation according to years for males and females. This teaches that with regard to the fifth [from which age and onward the valuation rises], twentieth [from which age and onward the valuation rises], and sixtieth [from which age and onward the valuation decreases] years, one does not follow the calendar year; rather, one counts the years from the time of his birth, from one date to the corresponding date.

Rav Yosef said [in the name of Rav—Rabbeinu Gershom]: The “years with regard to a son and a daughter” that we learned are

to the chapter on a child born by caesarean section

with regard to the chapter of Yoledet

in tractate Niddah, where many ages of a son and daughter are taught, such as: “A son of twelve years—his vows are examined [to determine whether he understands in whose name he vowed], and a son of thirteen years—his vows are valid.” And with regard to a daughter: “A girl of eleven years—her vows are examined, and a girl of twelve years—her vows are valid,” and more. It is with regard to these years that we said that they are measured from one date to the corresponding date.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef,

who explained the baraita in the name of Rav as referring to the chapter of Yoledet:

Do you disagree?

Are you disputing the law, so that according to you the years of valuations are not measured from one date to the corresponding date?

He said to him,

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

No,

we did not disagree! Rather,

I stated one matter, and he,

Rav Giddel,

stated one matter. That is, we disagree only with regard to the interpretation of Rav’s statement, concerning which years the baraita is discussing, and not with regard to the law.

And we support this, that there is no legal disagreement concerning Rav’s opinion:

This too is reasonable, for if it enters your mind that they disagree, and the one who says “with regard to valuations” does not say [

hold] that

with regard to the chapter of Yoledet

the years must also be measured from one date to the corresponding date,

but Rav said

in tractate Niddah:

The halakha throughout the entire chapter

of Yoledet is that the years stated there are

from one date to the corresponding date.

Thus, according to Rav, even in the chapter of Yoledet the years are measured from one date to the corresponding date, and not only with regard to valuations. Rav Giddel does not disagree with Rav Yosef, and likewise Rav Yosef does not disagree with Rav Giddel.

And we challenge this: Since they do not disagree with regard to the law,

but rather, according to the one who says: “With regard to valuations,”

the baraita is speaking,

what is the reason he did not say

and explain that

with regard to the chapter of Yoledet

the baraita is speaking?

And we answer: His reason is that the “years with regard to a son and a daughter” mentioned in the baraita are

analogous to these

other years mentioned in the baraita. And

just as these

years are years

written

in the Torah,

so too these

years with regard to a son and a daughter are years

written

in the Torah. And these are the years of valuations, not the years of the chapter of Yoledet, which are not written in the Torah but derive from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

And we challenge this:

But the other one,

Rav Yosef—why did he explain that the baraita is speaking about the years of the chapter of Yoledet and not about the years of valuations, since he concedes that these years too must be measured from one date to the corresponding date?

And we answer: On the contrary, it implies that “years with regard to a son and a daughter” refers to years that are not explicitly stated in the Torah [namely, the years of the chapter of Yoledet]. For

if it enters your mind that they are written,

and that the baraita is speaking about the years of valuations,

this phrase, “with regard to a son and a daughter,”

that is, why did the tanna state in the baraita the expression “with regard to a son and a daughter,”