## Arakhin Daf 32a

###### Arakhin 32a:1
[Arakhin 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:1)

מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְהִלֵּל לְתַקּוֹנֵי נְתִינָה בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ הָוְיָא נְתִינָה, הָא בְּעָלְמָא נְתִינָה בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ לָא הָוְיָא נְתִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Arakhin 32a:2
[Arakhin 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:2)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִילְמָא כִּי אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ לְהִלֵּל לְתַקּוֹנֵי שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, אֲבָל בְּפָנָיו — בֵּין מִדַּעְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ הָוְיָא מַתָּנָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Arakhin 32a:3
[Arakhin 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:3)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: מִתַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁל הִלֵּל — הֲרֵי זֶה ״גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ, בֵּין מִדַּעְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — הָוְיָא נְתִינָה. וְכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְהִלֵּל לְתַקּוֹנֵי — שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, אֲבָל בְּפָנָיו — בֵּין מִדַּעְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ הָוְיָא נְתִינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Arakhin 32a:4
[Arakhin 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:4)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: וְדִילְמָא בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, מִדַּעְתּוֹ — אִין, בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — לָא, וְהִלֵּל מַאי דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ תַּקֵּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 32a:5
[Arakhin 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, חוּץ מִן הַשָּׂדוֹת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַשָּׂדוֹת. בַּיִת הַבָּנוּי בַּחוֹמָה — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כּוֹתֶל הַחִיצוֹן הִיא חוֹמָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 32a:6
[Arakhin 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּית — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּיִת, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי בַדִּים וּבָתֵּי מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת וּמִגְדָּלוֹת וְשׁוֹבָכִין וּבוֹרוֹת וְשִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף הַשָּׂדוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּיִת״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Arakhin 32a:7
[Arakhin 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:7)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נאמר ״בַּיִת״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּיִת, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי בַדִּים וּבָתֵּי מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת, וּמִגְדָּלוֹת וְשׁוֹבָכִין, וּבוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׂדוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 32a:8
[Arakhin 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:8)

וְאֶלָּא הָא כְּתִיב ״בַּיִת״! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: חוֹלְסִית וּמְצוּלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: חוֹלְסִית וּמְצוּלָה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּבָתִּים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשָׂדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Arakhin 32a:9
[Arakhin 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:9)

בַּיִת הַבָּנוּי בַּחוֹמָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וַתּוֹרִידֵם בַּחֶבֶל בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן כִּי בֵיתָהּ בְּקִיר הַחוֹמָה וּבַחוֹמָה הִיא יוֹשָׁבֶת״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר כִּפְשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״בַּחוֹמָה הִיא יוֹשָׁבֶת״ וְלֹא בְּעִיר חוֹמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Arakhin 32a:10
[Arakhin 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** עִיר שֶׁגַּגּוֹתֶיהָ חוֹמָתָהּ, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, אֵינָהּ כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה: שָׁלֹשׁ חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, כְּגוֹן קַצְרָה הַיְּשָׁנָה שֶׁל צִיפּוֹרִי, וְחַקְרָה שֶׁל גּוּשׁ חָלָב, וְיוֹדְפַת הַיְּשָׁנָה, וְגַמְלָא, וּגְדוֹד, וְחָדִיד, וְאוֹנוֹ, וִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכֵן כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 32a:11
[Arakhin 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:11)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חוֹמָה״ — וְלֹא שׁוּר אִיגָּר, ״סָבִיב״ — פְּרָט לִטְבֶרְיָה שִׂימָה חוֹמָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 32a:12
[Arakhin 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:12)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹא חוֹמָה״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְהָיָה לוֹ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Arakhin 32a:13
[Arakhin 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/32a:13)

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: גַּמְלָא בַּגָּלִיל, וּגְדוֹד בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְחָדִיד וְאוֹנוֹ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם בִּיהוּדָה. מַאי קָאָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?