## Arakhin Daf 18b

###### Arakhin 18b:1
[Arakhin 18b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:1)

כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״מֵרֹאשׁוֹ וְעַד רַגְלָיו״, רֹאשׁוֹ וְלֹא רֹאשׁוֹ בַּכְּלָל, רַגְלָיו וְלֹא רַגְלָיו בַּכְּלָל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **similar to the matter that is stated** with regard to a leper: “And the leprosy covers all the skin of him who has the mark **from his head to his feet,** as far as the priest can see…it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:12–13). This verse is understood as follows: The mark reaches from **his head, but his head is not included;** it reaches to **his feet, but his feet are not included.** Therefore, one might have thought the prohibition against consuming leaven on the festival of Passover likewise does not apply to the endpoints mentioned in the verse.


###### Arakhin 18b:2
[Arakhin 18b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:2)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַד יוֹם הָאֶחָד וְעֶשְׂרִים לַחֹדֶשׁ בָּעָרֶב״. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, ״רִאשׁוֹן״ וְ״רִאשׁוֹן״ בַּכְּלָל, ״שְׁבִיעִי״ וּ״שְׁבִיעִי״ בַּכְּלָל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states:** “You shall eat unleavened bread, **until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening”** (Exodus 12:18). This proves that the seventh day of the Festival is included. **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: It is not necessary** to cite this verse, as the prohibition against consuming leaven is from the **first** day of Passover, **and** the **first** day **is included;** and the ban continues until the **seventh** day, **and** the **seventh** day **is included.** Accordingly, with regard to valuations, even without a verbal analogy Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should maintain that the twentieth year is included in the preceding period.


###### Arakhin 18b:3
[Arakhin 18b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:3)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי, שַׁקּוֹלֵי מְשַׁקְּלִי קְרָאֵי. מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב: ״מִבֶּן חֹדֶשׁ וְעַד בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים״, תּוּ ״מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעַד בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים״ לְמָה לִי? הִילְכָּךְ אִישְׁתְּקִלוּ לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **You** may **even say** that the opinion in the mishna is in accordance with that of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, as **the verses offset each other,** and therefore their meaning is unclear without the verbal analogy. The Gemara elaborates: **Since it is written: “From one month old until five years old”** (Leviticus 27:6), this ostensibly includes the fifth year within the stated category. If so, **why do I** need **this** mention of five years **as well:** “And if it is **from five years old until twenty years old,** then your valuation shall be for the male twenty shekels” (Leviticus 27:5)? **Therefore,** with regard to the fifth year, as both verses mention that year, **the** verses **offset each other.** Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the verbal analogy is necessary.


###### Arakhin 18b:4
[Arakhin 18b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:4)

אָמַר מָר: ״רֹאשׁוֹ״ — וְלָא רֹאשׁוֹ בַּכְּלָל, ״רַגְלָיו״ — וְלֹא רַגְלָיו בַּכְּלָל. מְנָלַן? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שָׁאנֵי סִימָנִים דְּגוּפוֹ מִסִּימָנִים דְּרֹאשׁוֹ. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: ״לְכׇל מַרְאֵה עֵינֵי הַכֹּהֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** above, with regard to a leper: The mark reaches from **his head, but his head is not included;** it reaches to **his feet, but his feet are not included.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this interpretation? **If you wish, say** that it is deduced logically: The **signs** of leprosy **of his body are different from** the **signs** of leprosy **of his head** with regard to the different colors of hair that indicate leprosy. Alternatively, **if you wish, say** instead that it is derived from the phrase in that verse: **“As far as the priest can see.”** This excludes a leprous mark on the head, which is obscured from the priest’s view by the hair, as well as leprous marks between the toes.


###### Arakhin 18b:5
[Arakhin 18b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:5)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ יְתֵירוֹת עַל הַשָּׁנִים חוֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְמַעְלָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חֹדֶשׁ וָמַעְלָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן מִבֶּן חוֹדֶשׁ וְיוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, **until they will be** aged one **month and one day beyond the** respective **years.** With regard to this opinion, it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here,** with regard to valuations, **“upward”** (Leviticus 27:7), **and it is stated there,** with regard to the census of the Levites in the wilderness: “From **one month old and upward** you shall number them” (Numbers 3:15). **Just as there,** in the case of the census, the verse means: **From one month and one day old, so too here,** with regard to valuations, the verse means that each respective category is counted **from** one **month and one day old** beyond the stated ages of five years, twenty years, or sixty years.


###### Arakhin 18b:6
[Arakhin 18b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:6)

וְאֵימָא כִּי הָתָם, מָה הָתָם חַד יוֹמָא, אַף כָּאן חַד יוֹמָא? אִם כֵּן, גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה מַאי אַהֲנִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** why doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer **say** that the verse dealing with valuation should be understood **like** the verse written **there,** with regard to the census, in the following manner: **Just as there** it is **one day** more than the enumerated age of thirty days, **so too here,** it should be **one day** more than the enumerated ages of five years, twenty years, and sixty years. Why does Rabbi Eliezer add a month? The Gemara answers: **If so,** that only one day should be added, **what purpose does** this **verbal analogy** from the census **serve?** Even without any connection to the verse dealing with the census, it would be understood in the case of valuations that the new period begins from the day after the respective year is fully completed.


###### Arakhin 18b:7
[Arakhin 18b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּקָדָשִׁים, שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים שֶׁבִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים שֶׁבְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי, וְכֵן שֶׁבַּבֵּן וְשֶׁבַּבַּת — כּוּלָּן מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the period of one **year stated with regard to sacrificial** animals, e.g., “sheep in their first year” (Numbers 28:3); and the one **year stated with regard to houses of walled cities,** during which time it is permitted to redeem a sold house in a walled city (Leviticus 25:29); and the **two years** stated **with regard to an ancestral field,** during which one may not yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (Leviticus 25:15); **and** the **six years** stated **with regard to a Hebrew slave** (Exodus 21:2); **and similarly,** the years stated **with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter,** as explained below; **all of** these are calculated **from** the **time** of day at the start of the period **to** the **time** of day at the end of the period, i.e., these periods are units of whole years; they do not expire on predetermined dates, such as at the end of the calendar year.


###### Arakhin 18b:8
[Arakhin 18b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:8)

שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּקָדָשִׁים, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, אָמַר קְרָא: ״כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן שְׁנָתוֹ״, שְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא שֶׁל מִנְיַן עוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to the one **year stated with regard to sacrificial** animals, **from where do we** derive that it is calculated by whole years rather than calendar years? **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says** that **the verse states: “A sheep in its first year”** (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A sheep in the first year, it means **a year** based on the calculation of **its** own life, **and not** a year based **on the counting of the world,** i.e., the calendar year.


###### Arakhin 18b:9
[Arakhin 18b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:9)

שָׁנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה — דִּכְתִיב: ״עַד תֹּם שְׁנַת מִמְכָּרוֹ״, מִמְכָּרוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא שָׁנָה לְמִנְיַן עוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues clarifying the *baraita*: The *halakha* that the one **year stated with regard to houses of walled cities** is calculated by a whole year and not a calendar year is derived from the fact **that it is written:** “Then he may redeem it **within a whole year after it is sold,** for a full year he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day **of its** own **sale, and not** the **year of the counting of the world.**


###### Arakhin 18b:10
[Arakhin 18b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:10)

שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים שֶׁבִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״, פְּעָמִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל שָׁלֹשׁ תְּבוּאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: Concerning the **two years** stated **with regard to an ancestral field,** this is derived from the fact **that it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you”** (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form of both “years” and “crops” indicates that the number of years does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of crops. Consequently, there are **times when a person** might **eat three** yields of **crops in two years.** If one purchased a field at the end of the calendar year when its yield had not yet been harvested, and he harvested that yield and subsequently grew and harvested two more crops before the completion of two whole years from the sale, he would have eaten three yields in less than two years. This is not possible if one follows the calendar years, as a new year would start soon after the purchase.


###### Arakhin 18b:11
[Arakhin 18b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:11)

שֵׁשׁ שֶׁבְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי — דִּכְתִיב: ״שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית״, זִימְנִין דְּבִשְׁבִיעִית נָמֵי יַעֲבוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: The *halakha* that the **six years** stated **with regard to a Hebrew slave** is calculated by whole years, not calendar years, is derived from the fact **that it is written: “Six years he shall work; and in the seventh** he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2). The word “and” in the phrase: “And in the seventh,” teaches that **sometimes** it turns out **that he shall also work** in the seventh calendar year, if six full years have not passed from when he was sold. For example, if he was sold in the month of Nisan, although five years and six months have passed when Tishrei, the first month of the seventh year, arrives, since he has not yet completed six years of service he must work in this seventh calendar year as well, until the day of the month in which he was sold.


###### Arakhin 18b:12
[Arakhin 18b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:12)

וְשֶׁבַּבֵּן וְשֶׁבַּבַּת כּוּלָּן מֵעֵת לְעֵת. לְמַאי הִילְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: לַעֲרָכִין. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: לְפִרְקִין דְּ״יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* also teaches: The years stated **with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter** are among these terms calculated from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what *halakha*** is this stated? **Rav Giddel said** that **Rav said: With regard to valuations,** i.e., that the age of a valuated male or female is calculated in whole years from the date of their birth, not by calendar years. **Rav Yosef said:** The *halakha* is stated **with regard to** the matters taught in the fifth **chapter of** tractate *Nidda*, which is called after its opening words: ***Yotze Dofen*,** i.e., an animal born by caesarean section. In other words, when a mishna in that chapter, which deals with various matters related to the ages of sons and daughters, mentions years, it means full years, even when it does not state this explicitly.


###### Arakhin 18b:13
[Arakhin 18b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִי פְּלִיגִיתוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, אֲנָא אֲמַרִי חֲדָא, וְהוּא אֲמַר חֲדָא. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ פְּלִיגִי, מַאן דְּאָמַר לַעֲרָכִין לָא אָמַר לְ״יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן״? וְהָאָמַר רַב: הִילְכְתָא בְּכוּלֵּהּ פִּירְקָא מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you** and Rav **dispute** this matter, i.e., when you apply the mention of a son and a daughter to different cases, do each of you reject the opinion of the other? Rav Yosef **said to** Abaye: **No,** we do not disagree; **I said one** matter **and he said one** different matter. The Gemara adds: **This too stands to reason, as if it enters your mind** that they **disagree** on this matter, then with regard to **the one who says** full years are required **for** determining **valuations,** does he **not** also **say** that full years are used **for** the *halakhot* of ***Yotze Dofen*? But doesn’t Rav say,** like Rav Yosef, that **the *halakha* in** that **entire chapter** is that the ages of the sons and daughters are determined **from** the **time** at the start of the period **to** the **time** at the end of the period, not by calendar years?


###### Arakhin 18b:14
[Arakhin 18b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:14)

וְאֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לַעֲרָכִין, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר לְ״יוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן״? דּוּמְיָא דְּהָנָךְ, מָה הָנָךְ דִּכְתִיבָא, אַף הָנָךְ דִּכְתִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if that is the case, then **according to the one who says** that the reference to full years mentioned in the *baraita* is **for** determining **valuations,** i.e., Rav, **what is the reason** he **did not say** that the *baraita* is referring **to** the *halakhot* of ***Yotze Dofen*?** The Gemara answers: Rav would claim that the years of a son and a daughter in the *baraita* are **similar to these** other cases mentioned in the *baraita*: **Just as** those numbers of years **are** explicitly **written** in the Torah, **so too these** years of the sons and daughters are referring to matters **where** the years **are written** in the Torah, i.e., the years of valuations, unlike the topics discussed in *Yotze Dofen*, where the years are not mentioned expressly in the Torah.


###### Arakhin 18b:15
[Arakhin 18b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/18b:15)

וְאִידַּךְ, אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דִּכְתִיבָא, הַאי ״שֶׁבַּבֵּן וְשֶׁבַּבַּת״ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the other,** Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this contention? He would maintain that **if it enters your mind** that the *baraita* is referring to the years of valuations, **which are written** in the Torah, then **this** phrase in the *baraita*: **With regard to a son and with regard to a daughter,** is unsuitable.