Arakhin 31a — the Talmud in English

One [baraita] teaches: He borrows

one who consecrates an ancestral field

and redeems, and he redeems

one who consecrates

by halves.

And another [baraita] teaches: He does not borrow

one who consecrates

and redeems, and he does not redeem

one who consecrates

by halves,

and the baraitot contradict one another.

And we explain:

It is not difficult! This

which teaches that he does not borrow and redeem, and he does not redeem by halves,

is the Rabbis,

who disagree with the earlier baraita, for we expounded concerning consecration that he borrows and redeems, and he redeems by halves!

And this

which teaches that he borrows and redeems, and he redeems by halves—

is Rabbi Shimon,

who holds this way in the earlier baraita!

Mishna:

It is written [in Leviticus 25:29–30]: “And when a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city [a house in a city surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun], its redemption [of the seller from the buyer] shall be until the completion of the year of its sale; for a year [a year] shall be the time of its redemption.”

“And if it is not redeemed until a complete year has elapsed for him, then the house that is in the city that does not have [for him—according to the reading] a wall shall stand permanently for the one who purchased it, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee.”

One who sells a house in the houses of walled cities may redeem it immediately,

and it is not like an ancestral field, concerning which we learned above that it is not permitted to redeem it before two years,

and he redeems throughout the twelve months.

This

redemption, by which he redeems and returns everything that the buyer gave him, and he does not deduct from this what the buyer used the house until the seller redeemed it,

is like

interest

for the buyer uses the house in return for waiting for his money, which the seller will return to him when he redeems it,

but it is not interest

in the full sense, for full interest exists only when it is by way of a loan, and not in the houses of walled cities, which is by way of a sale.

If the seller dies

within a year of the sale,

his son redeems

the seller’s [house] until the year [is completed].

If the buyer dies

within the year and bequeaths it to his son,

the seller redeems

the house

immediately from his son

of the buyer.

If the first buyer sold it to a second buyer, the first seller has the power to redeem it, but

the period is not counted for the first seller

for the first seller who comes to redeem it

as a year, but only from the time when he sold it,

he, and not from the time when the second buyer sold it; and when a year has passed from his sale, he can no longer redeem it

as it is stated: “until a year has elapsed for him”,

which implies that a year must elapse from the sale by the owner of the ancestral property, and not from the sale by a buyer who is not the owner of the ancestral property.

When it [

the verse]

says:

“until a year has elapsed for him,”

“complete”: this comes to include the intercalated month,

for if the year was intercalated between the sale and the redemption, it becomes finalized for the buyer only after thirteen months from the sale, and before this time the seller redeems it.

Rabbi says:

this is how we expound “complete”: since the solar year exceeds the lunar year [which is twelve months] by eleven and a quarter days, and for this reason an intercalated month is sometimes added, in order to equate the lunar year with the solar year, each year therefore has an “intercalation,” which joins it as a complete month when the year is intercalated, and the Torah said:

to give him

to the seller

a year

of the moon

“and its intercalation”

which is the excess of the solar year; that is, they give him a solar year, [and the year is consequently “complete” both according to the moon and according to the sun—Rabbeinu Gershom].

When the twelfth month arrives—

for the Rabbis, [or the solar year, according to Rabbi]

and it was not redeemed, it was

that is, it became

finalized for him

for the buyer.

Whether one who buys

a house—the seller redeems it within a year, and after a year it becomes finalized.

And whether one to whom it was given as a gift

—the giver redeems it within a year, and after a year it becomes finalized,

as it is stated: “permanently”,

and it did not say “permanently” in the singular form, in order to include a gift.

Gemara:

The Mishna

that says, “he redeems it immediately,” implying even on the very day that he sold it,

is not in accordance with Rabbi:

who holds that he redeems it only after two days.

For it was taught: Rabbi says: “days”

“shall be its redemption,”

“days” cannot be fewer than two,

for the minimum of a plural is two, to teach that it should not remain in the buyer’s possession for fewer than two days.

And we raise a difficulty:

And the Rabbis,

who hold that he redeems it even on that very day,

what do they do with this “days”,

for it is superfluous, since it is already written, “and if it is not redeemed until a complete year has elapsed for him”?

And we answer:

They require it

the “days” for the Rabbis, to teach that there shall be a year

from the day

on which he sold it

to the day

on which he redeemed it. And it should not be said: a year according to the reckoning of the world, which is from Tishrei to Tishrei, is the time of its redemption, and if he sold it in the middle of the calendar year, once the Tishrei of the following year arrives, a year has already elapsed for him.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi,

who requires

from day to day

and not a calendar year,

from where does he derive it,

for according to his view, it is impossible to expound “days” for this, since he derives another teaching from it?

And we answer:

He derives it

for Rabbi, that a year is a year from day to day,

from “until the completion of the year of his sale”,

and it implies: the year of “his sale,” and not a calendar year.

And we raise a difficulty:

And the Rabbis,

who learned from “days” that it is not a calendar year—why do I need “until the completion of the year of his sale”? And we retract this and answer: Indeed, it is so,

that “

until the completion of the year of his sale,” even for the Rabbis,

is required

to teach:

the year of his sale, his, and not the year of the calendar reckoning—

and this is like Rabbi;

and they require “days”

to teach:

for a full twenty-four-hour period,

that the year shall be from the time when he sold it in this year until the time when he sold it in the following year, and it should not be said that if he sold it in the middle of a day, once the beginning of that day in the following year arrives, it can no longer be redeemed,

for if

we were to learn only

from “until the completion of the year of his sale,” I would say: from day to day—

yes [

it is required],

a full twenty-four-hour period—

no,

it is not required; therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “days”,

for even a full twenty-four-hour period is required.

And we raise a difficulty:

And Rabbi,

who expounds “days” for another matter,

the full twenty-four-hour period

which he requires,

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

He derives it from “complete”,

which implies complete even for a full twenty-four-hour period.

And we raise a difficulty:

And the Rabbis,

why do they not learn the full twenty-four-hour period from “complete”?

And we answer:

That “

complete”

is required

as they expound in the Mishna

for the intercalation

of the year, to add a month when the year is intercalated.

And we raise a difficulty:

For Rabbi as well, “

complete” is not superfluous, and

this is required for him

for what he expounds in the Mishna

for the intercalation

of every year, to add it even in an ordinary year, so that it will be a solar year; if so, from where does Rabbi derive the full twenty-four-hour period?

And we retract this and answer: According to Rabbi, “complete” does not come to teach that a full twenty-four-hour period is required, but rather for the intercalation of the year. Rather:

from day to day and for a full twenty-four-hour period, both

both

are derived from “until the completion of the year of his sale”,

for the “entire” year of his sale is required, and also a full twenty-four-hour period.

We learned in the Mishna:

“This is like interest”

and it is not interest.

And we raise a difficulty:

But it was taught: “This is full interest, except that the Torah permitted it!”

Whereas in our Mishna they said that this is only “like interest”?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is not difficult

the Mishna in relation to the baraita!

This

the Mishna

is Rabbi Judah,

who holds: “One side of interest is permitted.” And interest that comes by way of a sale, such as the sale of houses in walled cities, is called “one side of interest,” because it does not come to interest from both sides, for if the seller does not redeem it and it becomes finalized for the buyer, there is no interest here. But a loan certainly comes to interest, for it is never finalized.

And this

the baraita

is the Rabbis,

who hold that even “one side of interest” is forbidden” .

For it was taught: If one was claiming from his fellow one hundred dinars, and he made for him

the borrower to the lender

his field a sale,

for he mortgaged his field for that one hundred dinars and wrote for him: “If I do not give you the one hundred dinars that I owe you within three years, it is yours from now on!” The law is divided:

when the seller

is the borrower

eats the produce

of the field during these three years—

it is permitted,

for there is no interest here. But if

the buyer,

who is the lender,

eats the produce

of the field during these three years,

it is forbidden,

lest the borrower redeem it within the three years, and it turns out that the lender ate the produce of the field as interest.

Rabbi Judah says: Even when the buyer eats the produce, it is permitted.

Rabbi Judah said:

But consider

the incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who made his field a sale

to his lender,

in accordance with Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, and the buyer was eating the produce!

This shows that it is not interest.

They said to him,

the Sages:

Is there proof from there?! The seller was eating the produce, and not the buyer!

And we explain their dispute:

What is the difference between them,

that is, over what do Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis disagree?

One side of interest,

in such a case that perhaps it will come to interest and perhaps it will not: the side of redemption comes to interest, while the side of the sale does not come to interest. —Rashi, Bava Metzia 63a [and although at the time of repayment this is certainly interest, since at the time of the stipulation there is one side of permission, it is permitted! Tosafot, Bava Metzia 63a].

There is a difference between them! The first tanna holds: One side of interest is forbidden. And Rabbi Judah holds: One side of interest is permitted!