Arakhin 32a (לב.) — the Talmud in English

And this is proven from Hillel’s ordinance:

since Hillel found it necessary to institute

that in the redemption of houses in walled cities,

the giving

by the purchaser

against his will

of the seller

is considered giving,

and for this reason it is considered a redemption.

This

teaches that

ordinarily, giving against his will

is not considered giving,

for if it were considered giving, the house would have been redeemed even without a special ordinance.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Pappa strongly objects, and some say

Rav Shimi bar Ashi:

But perhaps

there is no proof from Hillel’s ordinance that giving against one’s will is not considered giving. One can say that if the purchaser had been present, and there had been only one deficiency—that it was against his will—it would have been considered giving even without Hillel’s ordinance. But

when Hillel found it necessary to institute

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

not in his presence.

For this reason it was ineffective, since there were two deficiencies: a. it was against his will; b. it was not in his presence.

However,

with giving

in his presence,

one can say that

whether with the recipient’s consent

or

or against his will, it is considered giving.

There are those who say

as follows:

Rava said: From Hillel’s ordinance,

which was instituted 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 considered giving.

And this is how it is derived:

When Hillel found it necessary to institute

the ordinance, it was specifically because the redemption was also

not in his presence.

Hillel instituted that although there were two deficiencies—that it was not in his presence and that it was against his will—it would nevertheless be considered giving.

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

And according to

the one who says this,

Rav Pappa, and some say Rav Shimi bar Ashi, strongly objected:

What is the proof that when it is in his presence Hillel did not need to institute an ordinance?

Perhaps whether it is in his presence or not, if it is with his consent—

yes; if it is against his will, no, and even if he had not been hiding, we would still have required Hillel’s ordinance.

And whatever Hillel found necessary

to institute when it was not in his presence,

he instituted!

Mishna:

Everything

that

is within the wall is like houses in walled cities,

so that all the laws of a house in a walled city apply to it,

except for fields

41. Rabbi Meir says: Even the fields,

in cities surrounded by a wall, are subject to the law of houses in walled cities.

A house built into the wall

itself:

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not like houses

in walled cities,

but like houses in unwalled courtyards, whose law will be explained below, on page 33a.

Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall

of the house built into the wall

is its wall,

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And if a man sells a house that is a dwelling 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: ‘for it has no’] a wall shall remain permanently,” and so on.

And we interpret: From the fact that it is written, “And if 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

do we include oil presses,

and bathhouses and towers

that are permanently fixed to the ground,

and dovecotes, cisterns, ditches, and caves,

which also have the status of houses in walled cities?

The verse states:

“And the house shall remain,”

“that is in the city,”

to include everything that is in a city surrounded by a wall.

Could I include even fields? The verse states:

The Torah wrote

“house,”

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

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: “House”—I have only a house. From where do we include oil presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, cisterns, ditches, and caves, and even fields? The verse states: ‘that is in the city,’

to include everything in the city, even fields.

And we ask concerning Rabbi Meir:

But

[and yet]

it is written “house,”

which implies a house and something resembling a house, but not fields?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said that Rav Ketina said:

When Rabbi Meir said “even the fields,” he did not mean actual fields, for they were excluded by the term “house.” Rabbi Meir added only places that resemble a house: a. they are unfit for planting; b. they are suitable for taking

Hulsit,

land from which stones are taken for building a house,

and a metzula,

land from which sand is taken for building a house—this

is the difference between them:

according to Rabbi Meir, they have the status of a house, while according to Rabbi Yehuda, they have the status of fields. But actual fields are not included.

And we support this interpretation:

And it was taught in a beraita: Hulsit and a metzula—Rabbi Yehuda says: They are treated like fields;

they are judged

Rabbi Meir says: They are treated like houses,

indicating that Rabbi Meir added only these, and not ordinary fields.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A house built into the wall; Rabbi Yehuda says: It is not like houses in walled cities,”

and Rabbi Shimon says: Its outer wall is its wall.

Rabbi Yohanan said: And both of them

—Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda—

derive their positions from one verse.

It is written:

“And she lowered them

[Rahab the prostitute lowered the two spies]

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

Rabbi Shimon maintains:

“And she dwelled in the wall” means

according to the plain meaning of the verse,

namely, that since her house was in the wall, she dwelled within a city surrounded by a wall.

Rabbi Yehuda maintains: She dwelled “in the wall,” but not “in a walled city,”

meaning that her house was like a house outside a city surrounded by a wall.

Mishna:

A city

that was not surrounded by a wall, but by adjoining houses, such

that the roofs

of its outermost houses were

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

the conquest of the Land by

Joshua son of Nun

[Maimonides], but was built afterward,

is not

judged

like houses in walled cities.

And these are houses in walled cities:

There must be at least

three courtyards

in the city, each of the three courtyards containing

two houses,

and it must be

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

the small city called

Old Katzra

of Sepphoris

[which was adjacent to it],

and

the city called

Hakra

of Gush Halav, and Old Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gadod, and Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and similar places.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written concerning houses in walled cities: “that has no [read:

wall

”—which implies specifically one that has an actual wall,

and not

one that has a

sur igar

[a wall of roofs—Rabbeinu Gershom], where the roofs of the outermost houses form its wall. And it is written: “And the houses of the unwalled courtyards, which have no wall

around

them, shall be reckoned as a field of the land [and not as houses in 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, so that it does not have a wall all around [Gemara and Rashi, Megilla 5a].

Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says:

It is written:

“that has ‘lo’ a wall”

[according to Rashi, this means that “lo” is written; according to Tosafot, “lo” is written and read as “lo”—“for it,” or “to it”], as though it said, “to it—not,” to teach:

even though it does not now have

a wall, which is the meaning of “not,”

it had one previously

at the time of the conquest of the Land by Joshua son of Nun, which is the meaning of “to it.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And these are houses in walled cities, etc.” It was taught:

These are the towns surrounded by a wall:

Gamla in the Galilee, and Gadod in Transjordan,

and Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem in Judea.

And we wonder:

What is he saying?

Was Gamla the only city surrounded by a wall in the Galilee, and Gadod the only city surrounded by a wall in Transjordan—and no others?!