Talmud - Arachin 31b ערכין ל״א ב׳

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.

§ 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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

§ 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.

§ 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.

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.”

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Arachin 31b examines whether interest returned later still counts as forbidden, then explores inheritance rights allowing sons to redeem or reclaim walled-city houses.