Arakhin 32a — the Talmud in English

And this is proven from Hillel’s enactment:

since Hillel found it necessary to enact

that in the redemption of houses in walled cities,

the giving

of the purchaser

against the will

of the seller

is giving,

and for this reason it is considered redemption.

This

teaches

that ordinarily, giving against his will

is not giving,

for if it were giving, it would have been redeemed even without a special enactment.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Pappa objected to it, and some say

[there are those who say]

Rav Shimi bar Ashi: But perhaps

there is no proof from Hillel’s enactment that giving against his will is not considered giving, for one may say: if the purchaser had been before us, and there had been only one deficiency, namely, that it was against his will, it would have been considered giving even without Hillel’s enactment. And

when Hillel found it necessary to enact,

it was because the purchaser was also hiding, and the giving was also

not in his presence,

and for this reason it would not have been effective, since there were two deficiencies here: a. that it was against his will; b. that it was not in his presence.

But

with giving

in his presence,

one may say that

whether with the consent

of the recipient

or against his will, it is giving.

There are those who say

the following:

Rava said: From Hillel’s enactment,

which was because the purchaser was hiding, and it was impossible to give to him in his presence, we learn:

“This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you give me two hundred zuz,” and she gave it to him

in his presence;

whether with his consent or against his will, it is giving.

And this matter is learned as follows:

And when Hillel found it necessary to enact,

it was specifically because the redemption was also

not in his presence,

and Hillel enacted that although there were two deficiencies—that it was not in his presence and that it was against his will—it should be considered giving;

but when it is in his presence, whether with his consent or against his will, it is giving.

And according to the one who says this,

Rav Pappa objected to it, and some say Rav Shimi bar Ashi:

What is the proof that when it was in his presence Hillel did not need to enact?

But perhaps whether it is in his presence or not in his presence, with his consent—

yes; against his will—no,

and even if he had not been hiding, we would have required Hillel’s enactment.

And whatever Hillel found necessary

when it was not in his presence—

he enacted!

Mishna:

Everything

that

is within the wall is like the houses of walled cities,

so that every law of a house in a walled city applies to it,

except for fields

41. Rabbi Meir says: The fields as well,

in the cities surrounded by a wall, the law of the houses of walled cities applies to them.

A house built in the wall

itself:

Rabbi Judah says: It is not like the houses of

walled cities,

but rather like the houses of unwalled villages, whose law will be explained below, on page 33a.

Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall

of the house built in the wall

is its wall,

and it is a house in a city surrounded by a wall.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And when a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city, its redemption shall be until the completion of the year of its sale; and if it is not redeemed … the house that is in the city that does not [have—read] a wall shall be established permanently ….”

And we derive: From that which is written, “And when a man sells

‘a house,’ I have only a house

that is made for dwelling,” as it is written, “a dwelling-house” [Rabbi Shimon in the Sifra],

from where is it derived to include houses of oil presses

[the oil press],

and bathhouses, and towers

that are fixed in the ground,

and dovecotes, and pits, trenches, and caves,

so that they too have the status of the houses of walled cities?

The verse says:

“And the house shall be established,”

“that is in the city,”

to include everything that is in the walled city.

Could I include fields as well? The verse says:

The Torah wrote

“house,”

to teach that it must resemble a house, like all that we listed above that resemble a house, and to exclude fields,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: “House”—I have only a house. From where is it derived to include houses of oil presses, and bathhouses, and towers, and dovecotes, and pits, trenches, and caves, and even fields? The verse says: “that is in the city,”

to include everything that is in the city, even fields.

And we wonder concerning Rabbi Meir:

But

[yet]

it is written, “house,”

and it implies a house and that which resembles a house, but not fields?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said that Rav Ketina said:

When Rabbi Meir said “the fields as well,” he did not mean actual fields, for they were excluded by “house”; Rabbi Meir added only places that resemble a house: a. they are not fit for sowing; b. they are fit for taking from them for the construction of a house. And

hulseit,

land from which stones are taken for the construction of a house,

and a metzula,

land from which sand is taken for the construction of a house—this

is the difference between them:

according to Rabbi Meir, their law is like that of a house, and according to Rabbi Judah, their law is like that of fields. But actual fields—no.

And we support this interpretation:

But it was taught in a beraita: Hulseit and metzula—Rabbi Judah says: They are judged as fields,

they are judged,

Rabbi Meir says: They are judged as houses,

thus Rabbi Meir added only those, and not ordinary fields.

We learned in the Mishna:

A house built in the wall—Rabbi Judah says: It is not like the houses of walled cities,

Rabbi Shimon says: Its outer wall is its wall.

Rabbi Yohanan said: And both of them

—Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Judah—derive

their positions from one verse,

as it is written:

“And she lowered them

[Rahab the prostitute, the two spies]

by a rope through the window, for her house was in the wall of the city, and in the wall she dwelled.”

Rabbi Shimon held:

“And in the wall she dwelled” means

according to the plain meaning of the verse,

for it implies: since her house was in the wall of the city, she dwelled within a city surrounded by a wall.

Rabbi Judah held: She dwelled “in the wall,” and not “in a walled city,”

she dwelled; her house is like a house outside a city surrounded by a wall—that is its law.

Mishna:

A city

that they did not surround with a wall, but rather with adjoining houses, in such a manner

that the roofs

of its outermost houses are

its wall, and that was not surrounded by a wall from the days of

the conquest of the land by

Joshua son of Nun [Rambam], but they built it afterward,

[Maimonides], but was built afterward,

is not

judged

like the houses of walled cities.

And these are the houses of walled cities:

There must be in the city at least

three courtyards,

each of the three courtyards being

of two houses,

and it must be

surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun, such as

the small city named

Old Ketzra—

of Tzippori

[which was adjacent to it],

and

the city named

Hokra—

of Gush Halav, and Old Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gadod, and Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise those similar to them.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning the houses of walled cities: “that does not [have—read]

a wall,”

and it implies specifically one that has an actual wall,

and not

one that has

a wall of roofs

[a wall of roofs—Rabbeinu Gershom], whose outermost houses’ roofs are its wall. And it is written: “And the houses of the unwalled villages, which have no wall

around

them, shall be reckoned as a field of the land [and not like the houses of walled cities].” You learn from this that a city surrounded by a wall has its wall around it. This teaches:

to exclude Tiberias, whose sea is its wall

on one side, and its wall is not around it [Gemara and Rashi, Megilla 5]. Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says:

It is written:

“which has ‘no’ wall”

[according to Rashi, its meaning is that “lavo” is written. And according to Tosafot: “lo” is written and read “lo”], as though it said, “It has for it—no,” to teach:

even though it does not now have

a wall, namely, “no,”

and it had one previously

at the time of the conquest of the land by Joshua son of Nun, namely, “for it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

these are the towns surrounded by a wall:

Gamla in the Galilee, and Gadod across

the Jordan, and Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem in Judea.

And we wonder:

Transjordan, and Ḥadid, Ono, and Jerusalem in Judea.

What is he saying?

Did only Gamla have a wall in the Galilee, and only Gadod have a wall in Transjordan—and no others?!

Was only Gamla surrounded by a wall in the Galilee, and only Gadud surrounded by a wall in Transjordan—but no other towns?!