Talmud - Arachin 32a ערכין ל״ב א׳

The Gemara elaborates: From the fact that it was necessary for Hillel to institute that giving against the will of the receiver is considered giving, in the case of houses of walled cities, one may infer that in general, giving against the will of the recipient is not considered giving.

Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say that it was Rav Ashi who objected: But perhaps when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer; but if he repays the buyer in his presence, then whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

There are those who say an opposite version of this discussion, i.e., that Rava says: One may infer from the ordinance of Hillel 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 it to him, whether it was with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is a valid act of giving. And this is because when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer. But if the seller repays him in his presence, whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say it was Rav Shimi bar Ashi who objected: But perhaps, whether she gives him the money in his presence or not in his presence, if she gives it with his consent, yes, it is valid, but if she gives it against his will, it is not considered a valid act of giving. And Hillel instituted what was necessary, to remedy the practical occurrence that buyers would hide themselves at the end of the year. But even if the seller finds the buyer and the buyer refuses to accept payment, it would be necessary for Hillel to institute an ordinance.

MISHNA The halakhic status of any area that is located within the city wall is like that of the houses of walled cities in terms of its redemption, except for the fields located therein. Rabbi Meir says: Even the fields are included in this category. With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities. Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall, and therefore it has the status of a house in a walled city.

GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse 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). I have derived only that this is the halakha with regard to a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” indicating that anything situated within the city is included. If so, one might have thought that I should include even the fields that are inside the city. Therefore, the verse states: “House,” which excludes a field; it does not resemble a house in any way, since it does not contain any items. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: The verse states: “House.” I have derived only a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves, and even fields? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” to include anything inside the city.

The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Meir: But isn’t it written: “House”? If Rabbi Meir includes even a field, what is excluded by the word “house”? Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Ketina said: Actually, everyone agrees that the term “house” serves to exclude a field. The difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a quarry and a sand bed. According to Rabbi Meir, such areas are considered similar to houses and are therefore included in the halakha. The Gemara adds: And it is likewise taught in a baraita: With regard to a quarry and a sand bed inside the walls of a city, Rabbi Meir says: They are considered like houses, and Rabbi Yehuda says: They are considered like fields.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities, and Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: “Then she let them down by a cord through the window; for her house was upon the side of the wall; and she dwelt upon the wall” (Joshua 2:15). Rabbi Shimon holds that the last phrase should be understood in accordance with the simple meaning of the verse, that her house was attached to the outer wall and it was considered inside the walled city; and Rabbi Yehuda holds that “she dwelt upon the wall” means she was a resident of the wall itself, but not a resident of the city enclosed within the wall.

MISHNA The halakhic status of a house in a city whose houses are attached and their rooftops constitute the top of its wall, and likewise, the status of a house in a city that is not surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, even if a surrounding wall was constructed during a later period, is not like that of the houses of walled cities. And these are the houses of walled cities: Any city in which there are at least three courtyards, each containing two houses, and which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, e.g., the ancient fort [katzra] of Tzippori, and the fortress [ḥakra] of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities.

GEMARA With regard to the statement of the mishna that the halakhic status of a house in a city whose rooftops constitute the top of its wall is not like that of the houses of walled cities, the Sages taught: When the verse states: “The house that is in the city that has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30), this is referring specifically to a city that has an actual wall and not merely a wall of roofs. When the next verse states: “But the houses of the villages that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country,” this serves to exclude Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall,” with lo written with an alef, according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that even if a city does not have a wall now, but it had a wall before, in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.

§ The mishna teaches: And these are the houses of walled cities: The ancient fort of Tzippori, and the fortress of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities. The Sages taught in a baraita: Gamla is in the Galilee, and Gedod is in Transjordan, and Ḥadid and Ono and Jerusalem are in Judea. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of this baraita saying? Are these the only walled cities in the Galilee, Transjordan, and Judea?

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

Arachin 32a examines Hillel's ordinance on repayment for houses in walled cities, debating whether giving money against the recipient's will still counts as valid payment.