Arakhin 31a (לא.) — the Talmud in English

One baraita teaches: He may borrow

the one who consecrates an ancestral field

and redeem it, and he may redeem

the one who consecrates it

in installments.

And another baraita teaches: He may not borrow

the one who consecrates it

and redeem it, and he may not redeem

the one who consecrates it

in installments;

and the baraitot contradict one another.

And we explain:

It is not difficult! This

baraita, which teaches that he may not borrow and redeem, and may not redeem in installments,

is the opinion of the Rabbis,

who disagree with the earlier baraita, from which we derive with regard to consecrated property that he may borrow and redeem it, and may redeem it in installments!

And that

baraita which teaches that he may borrow and redeem it, and may redeem it in installments,

is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds this way in the earlier baraita!

Mishna:

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

“And if it is not redeemed by the completion of a full year, then the house that is in the city that does not have a wall [the written text reads: ‘that does not have a wall’; the received reading is: ‘that has a wall’] shall be established permanently for the one who purchased it, for all his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee.”

One who sells a house in the walled cities, this house may be redeemed immediately,

unlike an ancestral field, concerning which we learned above that it may not be redeemed before two years have elapsed,

and it may be redeemed throughout the twelve-month period.

This is

the redemption by which he redeems the house: he returns everything that the buyer gave him, and he does not deduct from this amount the value of the buyer’s use of the house until the seller redeems it,

something akin to

interest

since the buyer uses the house in exchange for waiting for the money that the seller will return to him when he redeems it,

but it is not full-fledged interest,

because full-fledged interest exists only when the transaction is in the form of a loan, and not in the case of houses in walled cities, where it takes place through a sale.

If the seller dies

within a year of the sale,

his son redeems it

on behalf of the seller during that year.

If the buyer dies

within a year and bequeaths the house to his son,

the seller redeems it

from

his son immediately

the buyer’s son.

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

the first seller is not counted

as having begun the redemption period

for a year except from the time when he sold it,

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

as it is stated: “until the completion of ‘his’ year”,

which indicates that the year of the owner of the ancestral property must be completed, and not the year of the sale by the buyer, who is not the owner of the ancestral property.

When it [

the verse]

says:

“until the completion of his year,”

“full”: to include the intercalated month,

so that if the year is intercalated between the sale and the redemption, the house does not become permanently the buyer’s until thirteen months after the sale; before that time, the seller may redeem it.

Rabbi says:

This is how “full” is expounded: Since the solar year is longer than the lunar year [which consists of twelve months] by eleven and a quarter days, and for this reason an intercalated month is sometimes added in order to align the lunar year with the solar year, every year has an “intercalation,” which is joined to a full month when the year is intercalated. Therefore, the Torah said

to give him

the seller

a year

of the moon

“and its intercalation,”

which is the excess of the solar year; that is, he is given a solar year [and thus the year is “full” both with regard to the moon and with regard to the sun—Rabbeinu Gershom].

When the twelfth month has arrived—

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

and it was not redeemed, it was

that is, it became

established permanently for him

the buyer.

Whether the buyer

purchased the house, the seller may redeem it within a year, and after a year it becomes permanently his,

or whether it was given to him as a gift,

the giver may redeem it within a year, and after a year it becomes permanently his,

as it is stated: “permanently”,

rather than “permanently owned,” to include a gift.

Gemara:

The Mishna,

which says that the house may be redeemed immediately, meaning even on the very day that it was sold,

is not in accordance with Rabbi,

who holds that it may be redeemed only after two days have passed.

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi says: “Days”

“shall be the period of its redemption”;

“days” cannot be fewer than two,

since the minimum of a plural is two. This teaches that it must remain in the buyer’s possession for no fewer than two days.

And we challenge this:

And the Rabbis,

who hold that it may be redeemed even on the very day,

what do they do with this word “days”,

which is apparently superfluous, since it is already written: “If it is not redeemed by the completion of a full ‘year’”?

And we answer:

They require it—the Rabbis require the word “days”—

to teach that the year must be

from the day

on which he sold it

to the day

on which he redeemed it. It should not be said that the relevant year is a calendar year, counted from Tishrei to Tishrei, so that if he sold it in the middle of a calendar year, once Tishrei of the following year arrives, a year has already elapsed for him.

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi,

who requires

from day to day

and not a calendar year,

from where does he derive this,

as according to his view it is impossible to derive it from “days,” since he derives another teaching from that word?

And we answer:

He derives it—Rabbi derives that the year is a year from day to day—

from the phrase

“until the completion of the year of his ‘sale,’”

which indicates: the year of “his sale,” and not a calendar year.

And we challenge this:

And the Rabbis,

who derive from “days” that it is not a calendar year, why do they need the phrase “until the completion of the year of his sale”? We return and answer: Indeed,

that

“until the completion of the year of his sale” even according to the Rabbis

is required

to teach

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

as Rabbi teaches;

and they require “days”

to teach

from hour to hour,

so that the year must extend from the time when he sold it in this year until the time when he sold it in the following year. It should not be said that if he sold it in the middle of the day, once that day begins in the following year, it can no longer be redeemed.

For if

we were to derive only

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

yes,

it is required;

from hour to hour—

no,

it is not required. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “days,”

to teach that even from hour to hour is required.

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi,

who derives “days” for another matter,

from hour to hour,

which he requires,

from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

He derives it from “full,”

which indicates that it must be complete even from hour to hour.

And we challenge this:

And the Rabbis,

why do they not derive the requirement of from hour to hour from “full”?

And we answer:

That

“full”

is required

for the teaching derived in the Mishna,

for its intercalation,

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

And we challenge this:

But according to Rabbi as well, “full” is not superfluous, and

this is required

for what

he derives 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 requirement of from hour to hour?

We return and answer: According to Rabbi, “full” does not come to teach that the period must extend from hour to hour, nor does it come to teach about the intercalation of the year. Rather,

both from day to day and from hour to hour

are

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

which requires the entire year of his sale, including the period from hour to hour.

We learned in the Mishna:

It is something akin to interest

and it is not interest.

And we challenge this:

But it is taught in a baraita: It is full-fledged interest, except that the Torah permitted it!

Yet our Mishna said that this is only “something akin to interest”?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is not difficult

to reconcile the Mishna with the baraita!

This

Mishna is the opinion of

Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds: “One aspect of interest is permitted.” Interest that comes through a sale, such as the sale of houses in walled cities, is called “one aspect of interest,” because it does not necessarily result in interest from both sides: if the seller does not redeem the house and it becomes permanently the buyer’s, there is no interest here. A loan, however, certainly results in interest, since the property never becomes permanently the lender’s.

And that

baraita is the opinion of

the Rabbis,

who hold that even “one aspect of interest” is prohibited.

As it is taught in a baraita: If one was owed a maneh by another, and he made for him

the borrower to the lender

a sale of his field,

meaning that he mortgaged his field to him for that maneh, and wrote for him: “If I do not give you the maneh that I owe you within three years, it shall be yours from now.” The law differs according to the circumstances:

when the seller

is the borrower

consumes the produce

of the field during those three years, it is

permitted,

because there is no interest here. But if the

buyer,

who is the lender,

consumes the produce

of the field during those three years, it is

prohibited,

lest the borrower redeem it within the three years, in which case the lender will have consumed the produce of the field as interest.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer consumes the produce, it is permitted.

Rabbi Yehuda said:

But

there was an incident involving Beitus ben Zunin, who made a sale of his field

to his creditor,

on the authority of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the buyer consumed the produce!

This proves that it is not interest.

They said to him,

the Sages:

Is that proof? The seller was consuming the produce, not the buyer!

And we explain their dispute:

What is the difference between them,

meaning: in what do Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree?

One aspect of interest

in a case such as this, where it may result in interest and it may not result in interest: the redemption aspect results in interest, while the sale aspect does not result in interest—Rashi, Bava Metzia 63a [and although at the time of repayment it is certainly interest, since at the time the terms were established there was one permissible aspect, it is permitted—Tosafot, Bava Metzia 63a].

This is the difference between them! The first tanna holds: One aspect of interest is prohibited. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: One aspect of interest is permitted!