If one sells a house in a walled city – from when and until when can one buy it back? How is the year counted – lunar or solar? This type of buying back of land seems like interest as the buyer will get his money back and got produce from the field – is it really interest? And how can this be allowed? What is one sanctifies a house in a walled city? Hillel instituted that if one hides on the last day of the year, the original seller can bring money to the temple and break into the house and live there. Rava tries to infer from this ordinance the halacha regarding one who gives something against the will of the taker (in a divorce document conditioned upon the wofe giving money to the husband) but his suggestion is rejected as the cases are not comparable.
Arakhin 31
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Arakhin 31
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵינוֹ לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין. לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבָּנַן וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara raises a contradiction between two baraitot with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury: It is taught in one baraita: One may borrow money and redeem a field, and one may partially redeem it. And it is taught in another baraita: One may not borrow money and redeem a field, nor may one partially redeem it. The Gemara explains: It is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one may not borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that baraita, which states that one may borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר בֵּית בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֵל מִיָּד, וְגוֹאֵל כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִין רִבִּית, וְאֵינוֹ רִבִּית.
MISHNA: One who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities may redeem the house immediately, even without the consent of the buyer, and he may redeem the house during the entire twelve months following the sale, but not after that. When he redeems the house within the twelve-month period, he returns the sale price to the buyer, and this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the buyer has effectively resided in the house for free in exchange for the fact that the buyer’s money was in the possession of the seller. It is not considered interest, because the buyer owned the house during the period in which he resided in it.
מֵת הַמּוֹכֵר — יִגְאַל בְּנוֹ, מֵת הַלּוֹקֵחַ — יִגְאַל מִיַּד בְּנוֹ. אֵין מוֹנִין שָׁנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁמָּכַר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַד מְלֹאת לוֹ שָׁנָה״.
If the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. If the buyer died, the seller may redeem it from the possession of the buyer’s son. If the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). The term “for him” indicates that the year is calculated from when the initial owner sold the house.
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״תְּמִימָה״, לְהָבִיא אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָעִיבּוּר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לִיתֵּן לוֹ שָׁנָה וְעִיבּוּרָהּ. הִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה — הָיְתָה חֲלוּטָה לוֹ. אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַנִּיתָּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״.
When it says: “A full year,” this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale, if it was a leap year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word “full” serves to give the seller a year and its addition, i.e., the year during which the house may be redeemed is not the 354-day lunar year, but the 365-day solar year. If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, the house has become the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to both one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30).
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״יָמִים״ — אֵין יָמִים פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who sells a house in a walled city may redeem it immediately. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold; for days he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The word “days” means no fewer than two days, i.e., the house cannot be redeemed during the first two days after the sale.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״יָמִים״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. וְרַבִּי, מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״עַד תּוֹם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this word “days”? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis require it to teach the halakha that the year does not conclude with the arrival of Rosh HaShana, at the end of the calendar year; rather, it is calculated from day to day, that is, until the arrival of the date of the sale in the subsequent year. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from day to day? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the phrase: “Until the completion of the year after it is sold” (Leviticus 25:29).
וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא (שְׁנַת) [שָׁנָה] שֶׁל מִנְיַן עוֹלָם. וְיָמִים מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְמֵעֵת לְעֵת, דְּאִי מֵ״עַד תּוֹם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם — אִין, מֵעֵת לְעֵת — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״יָמִים״.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase? The Gemara responds: Actually, they require that phrase to teach that the calculated year is a year from his sale and not the year of the counting of the world, i.e., not the calendar year. And the Rabbis require the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated not only from day to day, but also from hour to hour, i.e., the year is completed only when the hour of the sale arrives in the subsequent year. As if one sought to derive this from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold,” I would say that with regard to calculating the year from day to day, yes, it is calculated in this manner, but with regard to calculating the year from hour to hour, no, it is not calculated in this manner. Rather, once the beginning of the day arrives the seller can no longer redeem the house. The Merciful One therefore wrote the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated from hour to hour.
וְרַבִּי, מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״תְּמִימָה״. וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְעִיבּוּרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from hour to hour? The Gemara answers that he derives it from the term “a full year” (Leviticus 25:30). The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from the term “a full year”? The Gemara responds: The Rabbis require that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale.
וְרַבִּי נָמֵי, הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְעִיבּוּרַהּ! הָכִי נָמֵי, מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וּמֵעֵת לְעֵת מֵ״עַד תּוֹם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara objects: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also requires that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale. The Gemara explains: Indeed, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the inclusion of the intercalated month from the term “a full year.” Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the fact that the year is calculated from day to day and from hour to hour constitutes one halakha, which is derived from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold.”
הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִין רִבִּית וְכוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית גְּמוּרָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הִתִּירַתּוּ!
§ The mishna teaches: When one redeems a house among those of a walled city, this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the seller returns the original sale price to the buyer and he does not subtract from it in exchange for the period during which the buyer resided in the house. This is not considered interest because the buyer owned the house during that period. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is fully considered interest, but in this case the Torah permitted it?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְהָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה, וְעָשָׂה לוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ מֶכֶר, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת — מוּתָּר, לוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת — אָסוּר.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of one who had a debt of one hundred dinars against another, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field to the lender, stipulating that if he does not repay the loan on time then the sale shall take effect retroactively from the present moment. As long as the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of that field until the time the loan comes due, this arrangement is permitted. But if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce during this time, the arrangement is prohibited, as it constitutes interest. The reason is that if the loan is repaid on time, the sale is nullified, which means that the produce consumed by the lender will have been consumed as payment for allowing the loan to remain in the borrower’s possession.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת — מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַיְתוֹס בֶּן זוֹנִין שֶׁעָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ מֶכֶר עַל פִּי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת הָיָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָיה? מוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת הָיָה, וְלֹא לוֹקֵחַ.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer consumes the produce, such an arrangement is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda said in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who made a conditional sale of his field by a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and in this case the buyer was consuming the produce. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring proof from there? Actually, it was the seller who was consuming the produce, and not the buyer.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית מוּתָּר.
The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The dispute between them concerns the permissibility of an agreement involving an uncertain interest, i.e., an agreement that will involve interest only under certain circumstances. This is the case here, since if the loan is repaid the produce consumed by the lender constitutes interest, but if the loan is not repaid then the field is acquired retroactively by the lender and no interest is involved. The Gemara elaborates: The first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that uncertain interest is permitted.
רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּרִבִּית עַל מְנָת לְהַחְזִיר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ — מָר סָבַר: אָסוּר, וּמָר סָבַר: מוּתָּר.
Rava said: Everyone agrees that uncertain interest is prohibited; and here, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerns the permissibility of interest given on the condition that it will be returned. That is, in addition to the arrangement described in the baraita, the parties agreed that the buyer will consume the produce, and if the sale will later be nullified, then the buyer will reimburse the seller for the value of the produce. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that although the interest is subsequently refunded, this practice is prohibited, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this is permitted.
מֵת הַמּוֹכֵר יִגְאַל בְּנוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִמְכֹּר בֵּית מוֹשַׁב״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו מְכַר, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: ״וְהָיְתָה גְּאֻלָּתוֹ״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, if the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as a son inherits his father’s property. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that when the Merciful One states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold” (Leviticus 25:29), this indicates that the man who redeems the house must be the same man who sold it, and this son did not sell; therefore, the same verse teaches us: “And he shall have the right of redemption,” indicating that the right of redemption applies in any case, either to the seller or his son.
מֵת הַלּוֹקֵחַ יִגְאַל מִיָּד בְּנוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״לַקּוֹנֶה אוֹתוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לָא קְנָה — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: ״וְהָיְתָה גְּאֻלָּתוֹ״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
The mishna further teaches: If the buyer died, the seller may redeem the house from the possession of the buyer’s son. The Gemara asks: This, too, is obvious. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Merciful One states: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30), and as this son did not buy the house, the buyer cannot redeem it from him; therefore, the previous verse teaches us: “He shall have the right of redemption,” indicating that this right applies in any case, even from the buyer’s son.
אֵין מוֹנִין לוֹ שָׁנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁמָּכַר כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁנָה — אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם שָׁנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אִם שָׁנָה לַשֵּׁנִי, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״עַד מְלֹאת לוֹ שָׁנָה תְמִימָה״ — הֱוֵי שָׁנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן.
§ The mishna teaches that if the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him” (Leviticus 25:30). The Sages taught: When the verse states “year,” I do not know if one counts the year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer, or if one counts the year from when the first buyer sold it to the second. When the verse states: “Until the passage of a full year for him,” you must say that it is a year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer.
לְמִי חָלוּט? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לָרִאשׁוֹן חָלוּט, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לַשֵּׁנִי חָלוּט. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דִּלְדִידֵיהּ קָא מָנֵינַן, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: מָה מָכַר לוֹ רִאשׁוֹן לְשֵׁנִי — כׇּל זְכוּת שֶׁתָּבֹא לְיָדוֹ.
The Gemara asks: In such a case, if the owner did not redeem the house within one year of the first sale, to whom does it belong in perpetuity? Rabbi Elazar says: It belongs in perpetuity to the first buyer. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It belongs in perpetuity to the second buyer. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, it is understandable why the house belongs to the first buyer, as one calculates the year according to his acquisition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason that the house belongs to the second buyer after the conclusion of one year from the acquisition of the first buyer? Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: What did the first buyer sell to the second buyer? He sold him any right to the field that will come into his possession. This includes the fact that the house will belong to him in perpetuity after the conclusion of one year from the first purchase.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: מָכַר שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי; זֶה שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם אֶחָד בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה; זֶה שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁל אֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן — לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.
Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If one sold two houses of walled cities, one on the fifteenth day of the first month of Adar in a leap year, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this house that he sold to him on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed. With regard to this house that he sold to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״אֲנָא קָדֵים שָׁחֵין נוּרָא מִקַּמֵּא דִּידָךְ״! מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַתְּ נְחֵית לְעִיבּוּרָא״.
Ravina objects to this: But let the first buyer say to the second: I preceded you and kindled a fire before you, i.e., I bought my house before you acquired yours. How, then, can you gain possession in perpetuity before me? The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second buyer can say to him: You descended to the house during the intercalated month, i.e., the first Adar, and as it is taught in the mishna, the seller has the right to redeem the house for an entire year, including the intercalated month.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: נוֹלְדוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי טְלָאִים, אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁל אֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, זֶה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם אֶחָד בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה, זֶה שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן — לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.
And Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If two lambs were born to a single owner, one on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this lamb that was born on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed, and if it was a firstborn it should be sacrificed before that time arrives ab initio. With regard to this lamb that was born to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֲנָא קָדֵים אָכֵיל יְרוּקָּא מִקַּמָּךְ דִּידָךְ! מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ נְחֵיתְתְּ לְעִיבּוּרָא, אֲנָא לָא נְחֵיתְנָא לְעִיבּוּרָא.
Ravina again objects to this: But let the lamb that was born first say to the other lamb: I preceded you and ate vegetables before you, i.e., I was born first. The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second lamb can say to the first: You descended to the world during the intercalated month, which is added to the year, whereas I did not descend to the world during the intercalated month.
הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ הָךְ! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב ״תְּמִימָה״, הָכָא, דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״תְּמִימָה״ — לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מֵהֲדָדֵי גָּמְרִי.
The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this second halakha? This halakha with regard to the lambs is identical to that halakha concerning the houses. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there, with regard to houses of walled cities, where it is written: “A full year” (Leviticus 25:30), this is indeed the halakha, but here, with regard to lambs, where it is not written: A full year, perhaps this is not the case; Rabbi Abba bar Memel therefore teaches us that by means of a verbal analogy between the words “year” and “year” the two cases derive their halakhot from each other. With regard to houses of walled cities, it is written: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him” (Leviticus 25:30), and it is written with regard to lambs: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year” (Exodus 12:5).
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״תְּמִימָה״ כּוּ׳. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לִיתֵּן שְׁנַת עִיבּוּרָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שָׁנָה תְּמִימָה״, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מוֹנֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁשִּׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹנֶה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם, וְאִם נִתְעַבְּרָה — נִתְעַבְּרָה לוֹ.
§ The mishna teaches: When it states: “A full year” (Leviticus 25:30), this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This serves to give the seller a year and its addition. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught in a baraita: “A full year”; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This means that one counts 365 days, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, which are eleven more than in a lunar year. And the Rabbis say: One counts twelve months from day to day, and if an additional month was intercalated into the year, then the month was intercalated to the benefit of the seller, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house.
הִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא נִגְאָל כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״ — לַחֲלוּטִין. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״צְמִית״ ״צְמִיתוּת״.
§ The mishna teaches: If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, it becomes the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: “In perpetuity [latzemitut]” (Leviticus 25:30). With regard to this matter, the Sages taught: “Latzemitut” means in perpetuity; that is, the seller can no longer redeem the house against the buyer’s will, nor does it return to his possession in the Jubilee Year. Another matter derived from this verse is that “latzemitut” serves to include a house given as a gift. What is the reason, i.e., how is this derived from “latzemitut”? The verse could have stated tzemit, but instead it states tzemitut. The expanded term serves to include a house given as a gift.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר — הָאָמַר מַתָּנָה אֵינָהּ כְּמֶכֶר! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״.
The Sages said the above baraita before Rav Pappa, and then asked: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Ostensibly, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn’t he say with regard to the return of an ancestral field in the Jubilee Year that a gift is not like a sale, i.e., an ancestral field given as a gift does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee Year? Likewise, a house in a walled city given as a gift should not become the perpetual property of the buyer after twelve months. Rav Pappa said: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it is different here, as the Merciful One includes a house given as a gift through the term “latzemitut.”
אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב פָּפָּא, וַאֲמַר לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא גַּבֵּי יוֹבֵל, דִּכְתִיב ״תָּשׁוּבוּ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָא מְרַבֵּי! אֶלָּא הָא וַדַּאי דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Sages said to Rav Pappa, and some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But consider the case of the Jubilee Year, as it is written: “In this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and the Sages teach that this verse serves to include the gift, and yet Rabbi Meir does not include a gift. Rather, this baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֵל, וְגוֹאֵל לְעוֹלָם. גְּאָלוֹ אַחֵר מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, הִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא נִגְאַל — הָיָה חָלוּט לוֹ.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to one who consecrates a house among the houses of walled cities, this individual may redeem it from the Temple treasury, and he may always redeem it, even after the first year, unlike a sale. If another redeemed the house from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the final day of the twelve-month period from its redemption arrived and the house was not redeemed by its owner, the house has become the property of the other individual in perpetuity.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לַקּוֹנֶה אוֹתוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְלַחְלְטֵיהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְדוֹרוֹתָיו״, יָצָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ דּוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel says: As the verse states: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:30). The verse indicates that the house belongs in perpetuity to “the one who bought it,” even if he purchased it from the possession of the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: But why is the consecrator always capable of redeeming the house from the possession of the Temple treasury? Let it belong to the Temple treasury in perpetuity if it is not redeemed within one year. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Throughout his generations.” Excluded, therefore, is the Temple treasury, as it is not a person and it does not have generations.
לֹא יֵצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל, לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְמוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, וּפָגַע בּוֹ יוֹבֵל בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיפּוֹק בְּיוֹבֵל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: ״לֹא יֵצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל״.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the phrase in the above verse: “It shall not go out in the Jubilee”? After all, it already stated: “In perpetuity.” Rav Safra said: This phrase is necessary only for the case of one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities and the Jubilee Year arrived during the year of the sale. It might enter your mind to say that the house should leave the possession of the buyer to enter the possession of its owner in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “It shall not go out in the Jubilee,” to teach that this is not the case.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה נִטְמָן יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא חָלוּט לוֹ. הִתְקִין הִלֵּל שֶׁיְּהֵא חוֹלֵשׁ מְעוֹתָיו לַלִּשְׁכָּה, וִיהֵא שׁוֹבֵר אֶת הַדֶּלֶת וְנִכְנָס, אֵימָתַי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הַלָּז יָבֹא וְיִטּוֹל אֶת מְעוֹתָיו.
MISHNA At first, the buyer would conceal himself on the final day of the twelve-month period, in order to ensure that it would become his in perpetuity. Hillel instituted that the seller would place [ḥolesh] his money in the chamber of the court and that he will break the door and enter the house, and when the other individual, i.e., the buyer, will wish to do so, he may come to the chamber and take his money.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: מִתַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁל הַלֵּל — ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ מִדַּעְתּוֹ — מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.
GEMARA Rava says: It may be inferred from the ordinance of Hillel in the mishna that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and she gave the money to him with his consent, then she is divorced. But if she gave it to him against his will, she is not divorced.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
New York, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
New York, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Arakhin 31
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵינוֹ לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין. לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבָּנַן וְהָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
The Gemara raises a contradiction between two baraitot with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury: It is taught in one baraita: One may borrow money and redeem a field, and one may partially redeem it. And it is taught in another baraita: One may not borrow money and redeem a field, nor may one partially redeem it. The Gemara explains: It is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one may not borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that baraita, which states that one may borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר בֵּית בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֵל מִיָּד, וְגוֹאֵל כׇּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, הֲרֵי זֶה כְּמִין רִבִּית, וְאֵינוֹ רִבִּית.
MISHNA: One who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities may redeem the house immediately, even without the consent of the buyer, and he may redeem the house during the entire twelve months following the sale, but not after that. When he redeems the house within the twelve-month period, he returns the sale price to the buyer, and this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the buyer has effectively resided in the house for free in exchange for the fact that the buyer’s money was in the possession of the seller. It is not considered interest, because the buyer owned the house during the period in which he resided in it.
מֵת הַמּוֹכֵר — יִגְאַל בְּנוֹ, מֵת הַלּוֹקֵחַ — יִגְאַל מִיַּד בְּנוֹ. אֵין מוֹנִין שָׁנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁמָּכַר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַד מְלֹאת לוֹ שָׁנָה״.
If the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. If the buyer died, the seller may redeem it from the possession of the buyer’s son. If the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). The term “for him” indicates that the year is calculated from when the initial owner sold the house.
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״תְּמִימָה״, לְהָבִיא אֶת חֹדֶשׁ הָעִיבּוּר. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לִיתֵּן לוֹ שָׁנָה וְעִיבּוּרָהּ. הִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא נִגְאֲלָה — הָיְתָה חֲלוּטָה לוֹ. אֶחָד הַלּוֹקֵחַ וְאֶחָד הַנִּיתָּן לוֹ בְּמַתָּנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״.
When it says: “A full year,” this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale, if it was a leap year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word “full” serves to give the seller a year and its addition, i.e., the year during which the house may be redeemed is not the 354-day lunar year, but the 365-day solar year. If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, the house has become the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to both one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30).
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״יָמִים״ — אֵין יָמִים פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who sells a house in a walled city may redeem it immediately. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold; for days he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The word “days” means no fewer than two days, i.e., the house cannot be redeemed during the first two days after the sale.
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״יָמִים״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. וְרַבִּי, מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״עַד תּוֹם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this word “days”? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis require it to teach the halakha that the year does not conclude with the arrival of Rosh HaShana, at the end of the calendar year; rather, it is calculated from day to day, that is, until the arrival of the date of the sale in the subsequent year. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from day to day? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the phrase: “Until the completion of the year after it is sold” (Leviticus 25:29).
וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא (שְׁנַת) [שָׁנָה] שֶׁל מִנְיַן עוֹלָם. וְיָמִים מִיבְּעֵי לְהוּ לְמֵעֵת לְעֵת, דְּאִי מֵ״עַד תּוֹם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם — אִין, מֵעֵת לְעֵת — לָא, כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״יָמִים״.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase? The Gemara responds: Actually, they require that phrase to teach that the calculated year is a year from his sale and not the year of the counting of the world, i.e., not the calendar year. And the Rabbis require the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated not only from day to day, but also from hour to hour, i.e., the year is completed only when the hour of the sale arrives in the subsequent year. As if one sought to derive this from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold,” I would say that with regard to calculating the year from day to day, yes, it is calculated in this manner, but with regard to calculating the year from hour to hour, no, it is not calculated in this manner. Rather, once the beginning of the day arrives the seller can no longer redeem the house. The Merciful One therefore wrote the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated from hour to hour.
וְרַבִּי, מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״תְּמִימָה״. וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְעִיבּוּרַהּ.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from hour to hour? The Gemara answers that he derives it from the term “a full year” (Leviticus 25:30). The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from the term “a full year”? The Gemara responds: The Rabbis require that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale.
וְרַבִּי נָמֵי, הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְעִיבּוּרַהּ! הָכִי נָמֵי, מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם וּמֵעֵת לְעֵת מֵ״עַד תּוֹם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara objects: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also requires that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale. The Gemara explains: Indeed, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the inclusion of the intercalated month from the term “a full year.” Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the fact that the year is calculated from day to day and from hour to hour constitutes one halakha, which is derived from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold.”
הֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִין רִבִּית וְכוּ׳. וְהָתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי זוֹ רִבִּית גְּמוּרָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הִתִּירַתּוּ!
§ The mishna teaches: When one redeems a house among those of a walled city, this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the seller returns the original sale price to the buyer and he does not subtract from it in exchange for the period during which the buyer resided in the house. This is not considered interest because the buyer owned the house during that period. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is fully considered interest, but in this case the Torah permitted it?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְהָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה נוֹשֶׁה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ מָנֶה, וְעָשָׂה לוֹ שָׂדֵהוּ מֶכֶר, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַמּוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת — מוּתָּר, לוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת — אָסוּר.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of one who had a debt of one hundred dinars against another, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field to the lender, stipulating that if he does not repay the loan on time then the sale shall take effect retroactively from the present moment. As long as the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of that field until the time the loan comes due, this arrangement is permitted. But if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce during this time, the arrangement is prohibited, as it constitutes interest. The reason is that if the loan is repaid on time, the sale is nullified, which means that the produce consumed by the lender will have been consumed as payment for allowing the loan to remain in the borrower’s possession.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַלּוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת — מוּתָּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּבַיְתוֹס בֶּן זוֹנִין שֶׁעָשָׂה שָׂדֵהוּ מֶכֶר עַל פִּי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, וְלוֹקֵחַ אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת הָיָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִשָּׁם רְאָיָיה? מוֹכֵר אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת הָיָה, וְלֹא לוֹקֵחַ.
Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer consumes the produce, such an arrangement is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda said in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who made a conditional sale of his field by a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and in this case the buyer was consuming the produce. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring proof from there? Actually, it was the seller who was consuming the produce, and not the buyer.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית אָסוּר, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית מוּתָּר.
The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The dispute between them concerns the permissibility of an agreement involving an uncertain interest, i.e., an agreement that will involve interest only under certain circumstances. This is the case here, since if the loan is repaid the produce consumed by the lender constitutes interest, but if the loan is not repaid then the field is acquired retroactively by the lender and no interest is involved. The Gemara elaborates: The first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that uncertain interest is permitted.
רָבָא אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא צַד אֶחָד בְּרִבִּית אָסוּר, וְהָכָא בְּרִבִּית עַל מְנָת לְהַחְזִיר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ — מָר סָבַר: אָסוּר, וּמָר סָבַר: מוּתָּר.
Rava said: Everyone agrees that uncertain interest is prohibited; and here, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerns the permissibility of interest given on the condition that it will be returned. That is, in addition to the arrangement described in the baraita, the parties agreed that the buyer will consume the produce, and if the sale will later be nullified, then the buyer will reimburse the seller for the value of the produce. One Sage, the first tanna, holds that although the interest is subsequently refunded, this practice is prohibited, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this is permitted.
מֵת הַמּוֹכֵר יִגְאַל בְּנוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִמְכֹּר בֵּית מוֹשַׁב״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי לָאו מְכַר, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: ״וְהָיְתָה גְּאֻלָּתוֹ״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, if the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as a son inherits his father’s property. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that when the Merciful One states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold” (Leviticus 25:29), this indicates that the man who redeems the house must be the same man who sold it, and this son did not sell; therefore, the same verse teaches us: “And he shall have the right of redemption,” indicating that the right of redemption applies in any case, either to the seller or his son.
מֵת הַלּוֹקֵחַ יִגְאַל מִיָּד בְּנוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״לַקּוֹנֶה אוֹתוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהָא לָא קְנָה — קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: ״וְהָיְתָה גְּאֻלָּתוֹ״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.
The mishna further teaches: If the buyer died, the seller may redeem the house from the possession of the buyer’s son. The Gemara asks: This, too, is obvious. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Merciful One states: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30), and as this son did not buy the house, the buyer cannot redeem it from him; therefore, the previous verse teaches us: “He shall have the right of redemption,” indicating that this right applies in any case, even from the buyer’s son.
אֵין מוֹנִין לוֹ שָׁנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁמָּכַר כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁנָה — אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם שָׁנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן אִם שָׁנָה לַשֵּׁנִי, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״עַד מְלֹאת לוֹ שָׁנָה תְמִימָה״ — הֱוֵי שָׁנָה לָרִאשׁוֹן.
§ The mishna teaches that if the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him” (Leviticus 25:30). The Sages taught: When the verse states “year,” I do not know if one counts the year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer, or if one counts the year from when the first buyer sold it to the second. When the verse states: “Until the passage of a full year for him,” you must say that it is a year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer.
לְמִי חָלוּט? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לָרִאשׁוֹן חָלוּט, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לַשֵּׁנִי חָלוּט. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר דִּלְדִידֵיהּ קָא מָנֵינַן, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: מָה מָכַר לוֹ רִאשׁוֹן לְשֵׁנִי — כׇּל זְכוּת שֶׁתָּבֹא לְיָדוֹ.
The Gemara asks: In such a case, if the owner did not redeem the house within one year of the first sale, to whom does it belong in perpetuity? Rabbi Elazar says: It belongs in perpetuity to the first buyer. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It belongs in perpetuity to the second buyer. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, it is understandable why the house belongs to the first buyer, as one calculates the year according to his acquisition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason that the house belongs to the second buyer after the conclusion of one year from the acquisition of the first buyer? Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: What did the first buyer sell to the second buyer? He sold him any right to the field that will come into his possession. This includes the fact that the house will belong to him in perpetuity after the conclusion of one year from the first purchase.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: מָכַר שְׁנֵי בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי; זֶה שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם אֶחָד בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה; זֶה שֶׁמָּכַר לוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁל אֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן — לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.
Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If one sold two houses of walled cities, one on the fifteenth day of the first month of Adar in a leap year, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this house that he sold to him on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed. With regard to this house that he sold to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״אֲנָא קָדֵים שָׁחֵין נוּרָא מִקַּמֵּא דִּידָךְ״! מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״אַתְּ נְחֵית לְעִיבּוּרָא״.
Ravina objects to this: But let the first buyer say to the second: I preceded you and kindled a fire before you, i.e., I bought my house before you acquired yours. How, then, can you gain possession in perpetuity before me? The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second buyer can say to him: You descended to the house during the intercalated month, i.e., the first Adar, and as it is taught in the mishna, the seller has the right to redeem the house for an entire year, including the intercalated month.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל: נוֹלְדוּ לוֹ שְׁנֵי טְלָאִים, אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר שֶׁל אֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֶחָד בְּאֶחָד בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, זֶה שֶׁנּוֹלַד בַּאֲדָר הַשֵּׁנִי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ יוֹם אֶחָד בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה — עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה, זֶה שֶׁנּוֹלַד לוֹ בַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר הָרִאשׁוֹן — לֹא עָלְתָה לוֹ שָׁנָה עַד חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בַּאֲדָר שֶׁל שָׁנָה הַבָּאָה.
And Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If two lambs were born to a single owner, one on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this lamb that was born on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed, and if it was a firstborn it should be sacrificed before that time arrives ab initio. With regard to this lamb that was born to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא, וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: אֲנָא קָדֵים אָכֵיל יְרוּקָּא מִקַּמָּךְ דִּידָךְ! מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ נְחֵיתְתְּ לְעִיבּוּרָא, אֲנָא לָא נְחֵיתְנָא לְעִיבּוּרָא.
Ravina again objects to this: But let the lamb that was born first say to the other lamb: I preceded you and ate vegetables before you, i.e., I was born first. The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second lamb can say to the first: You descended to the world during the intercalated month, which is added to the year, whereas I did not descend to the world during the intercalated month.
הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַיְינוּ הָךְ! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב ״תְּמִימָה״, הָכָא, דְּלָא כְּתִיב ״תְּמִימָה״ — לָא. קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּ״שָׁנָה״ ״שָׁנָה״ מֵהֲדָדֵי גָּמְרִי.
The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this second halakha? This halakha with regard to the lambs is identical to that halakha concerning the houses. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there, with regard to houses of walled cities, where it is written: “A full year” (Leviticus 25:30), this is indeed the halakha, but here, with regard to lambs, where it is not written: A full year, perhaps this is not the case; Rabbi Abba bar Memel therefore teaches us that by means of a verbal analogy between the words “year” and “year” the two cases derive their halakhot from each other. With regard to houses of walled cities, it is written: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him” (Leviticus 25:30), and it is written with regard to lambs: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year” (Exodus 12:5).
כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״תְּמִימָה״ כּוּ׳. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לִיתֵּן שְׁנַת עִיבּוּרָהּ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״שָׁנָה תְּמִימָה״, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מוֹנֶה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁשִּׁים וַחֲמִשָּׁה יָמִים כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוֹנֶה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם, וְאִם נִתְעַבְּרָה — נִתְעַבְּרָה לוֹ.
§ The mishna teaches: When it states: “A full year” (Leviticus 25:30), this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This serves to give the seller a year and its addition. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught in a baraita: “A full year”; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This means that one counts 365 days, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, which are eleven more than in a lunar year. And the Rabbis say: One counts twelve months from day to day, and if an additional month was intercalated into the year, then the month was intercalated to the benefit of the seller, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house.
הִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא נִגְאָל כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״ — לַחֲלוּטִין. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״צְמִית״ ״צְמִיתוּת״.
§ The mishna teaches: If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, it becomes the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: “In perpetuity [latzemitut]” (Leviticus 25:30). With regard to this matter, the Sages taught: “Latzemitut” means in perpetuity; that is, the seller can no longer redeem the house against the buyer’s will, nor does it return to his possession in the Jubilee Year. Another matter derived from this verse is that “latzemitut” serves to include a house given as a gift. What is the reason, i.e., how is this derived from “latzemitut”? The verse could have stated tzemit, but instead it states tzemitut. The expanded term serves to include a house given as a gift.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, כְּמַאן? דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר — הָאָמַר מַתָּנָה אֵינָהּ כְּמֶכֶר! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּרַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״לַצְּמִיתוּת״.
The Sages said the above baraita before Rav Pappa, and then asked: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Ostensibly, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn’t he say with regard to the return of an ancestral field in the Jubilee Year that a gift is not like a sale, i.e., an ancestral field given as a gift does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee Year? Likewise, a house in a walled city given as a gift should not become the perpetual property of the buyer after twelve months. Rav Pappa said: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it is different here, as the Merciful One includes a house given as a gift through the term “latzemitut.”
אֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב פָּפָּא, וַאֲמַר לַהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: וְהָא גַּבֵּי יוֹבֵל, דִּכְתִיב ״תָּשׁוּבוּ״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָא מְרַבֵּי! אֶלָּא הָא וַדַּאי דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.
The Sages said to Rav Pappa, and some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But consider the case of the Jubilee Year, as it is written: “In this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and the Sages teach that this verse serves to include the gift, and yet Rabbi Meir does not include a gift. Rather, this baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֵל, וְגוֹאֵל לְעוֹלָם. גְּאָלוֹ אַחֵר מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, הִגִּיעַ יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא נִגְאַל — הָיָה חָלוּט לוֹ.
§ The Sages taught: With regard to one who consecrates a house among the houses of walled cities, this individual may redeem it from the Temple treasury, and he may always redeem it, even after the first year, unlike a sale. If another redeemed the house from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the final day of the twelve-month period from its redemption arrived and the house was not redeemed by its owner, the house has become the property of the other individual in perpetuity.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״לַקּוֹנֶה אוֹתוֹ״, וַאֲפִילּוּ מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ. וְלַחְלְטֵיהּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְדוֹרוֹתָיו״, יָצָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁאֵין לוֹ דּוֹרוֹת.
The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel says: As the verse states: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:30). The verse indicates that the house belongs in perpetuity to “the one who bought it,” even if he purchased it from the possession of the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: But why is the consecrator always capable of redeeming the house from the possession of the Temple treasury? Let it belong to the Temple treasury in perpetuity if it is not redeemed within one year. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Throughout his generations.” Excluded, therefore, is the Temple treasury, as it is not a person and it does not have generations.
לֹא יֵצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל, לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְמוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, וּפָגַע בּוֹ יוֹבֵל בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנָתוֹ. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: לִיפּוֹק בְּיוֹבֵל, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: ״לֹא יֵצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל״.
The Gemara asks: Why do I need the phrase in the above verse: “It shall not go out in the Jubilee”? After all, it already stated: “In perpetuity.” Rav Safra said: This phrase is necessary only for the case of one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities and the Jubilee Year arrived during the year of the sale. It might enter your mind to say that the house should leave the possession of the buyer to enter the possession of its owner in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse teaches us: “It shall not go out in the Jubilee,” to teach that this is not the case.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה נִטְמָן יוֹם שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא חָלוּט לוֹ. הִתְקִין הִלֵּל שֶׁיְּהֵא חוֹלֵשׁ מְעוֹתָיו לַלִּשְׁכָּה, וִיהֵא שׁוֹבֵר אֶת הַדֶּלֶת וְנִכְנָס, אֵימָתַי שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הַלָּז יָבֹא וְיִטּוֹל אֶת מְעוֹתָיו.
MISHNA At first, the buyer would conceal himself on the final day of the twelve-month period, in order to ensure that it would become his in perpetuity. Hillel instituted that the seller would place [ḥolesh] his money in the chamber of the court and that he will break the door and enter the house, and when the other individual, i.e., the buyer, will wish to do so, he may come to the chamber and take his money.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: מִתַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁל הַלֵּל — ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ מִדַּעְתּוֹ — מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — אֵינָהּ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת.
GEMARA Rava says: It may be inferred from the ordinance of Hillel in the mishna that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and she gave the money to him with his consent, then she is divorced. But if she gave it to him against his will, she is not divorced.
