Arakhin

. Raba said: All agree that one-sided usury is forbidden, here they are disputing [the principle of] usury [received] on condition that it shall be returned,1 one holding it to be forbidden, the other to be permitted. IF THE SELLER DIED, HIS SON MAY REDEEM IT. But that is self-evident? — You might have said: The Divine Law said, And if a man sell a dwelling house,2 and this one [the son] did not sell it, therefore we are informed, then he may redeem it,2 which means any way. IF THE PURCHASER DIED, IT MAY BE REDEEMED FROM [THE HAND OF] HIS SON. But that is self-evident? — You might have said: The Divine Law said, To him that bought it,3 but this one did not buy it, therefore we are informed, ‘then he may redeem it’, which means anyway. ONE CAN RECKON THE YEAR ONLY FROM THE TIME THAT HE SOLD IT, etc. Our Rabbis taught: [It Is written:] ‘year’;4 I would not know whether this year is to be counted to the first or the second [purchaser], but as it says, ‘with the space of a full year’,5 it must mean to the first. Whose abiding [possession] does it become? — R. Eleazar said: It becomes the abiding possession of the first one. R. Johanan said: It becomes the abiding possession of the second. This is quite right according to R. Eleazar, since we reckon also according to him, but what is the reason for R. Johanan's view? — R. Abba b. Memel said: What did the first sell to the second? All the rights that may accrue to him therefrom. R. Abba b. Memel said: If one sold two houses in a walled city, one on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, and the other on the first day of the second Adar, then as soon as the first day of Adar in the next year has arrived, the year is complete for the sale of the first day of the second Adar, but for the sale of the fifteenth of Adar the year does not become complete before the fifteenth Adar in the next year. Rabina demurred: But could he not say unto him: I lighted a fire before you!6 — [That would not be effective] because he could reply: You have chosen the intercalated month! 7 Furthermore said R. Abba b. Memel: If two lambs were born to one,8 one on the fifteenth of the first Adar, and the other on the first of the second Adar, then the one born on the first of the second Adar has its year completed as soon as the first day of Adar of the next year has arrived, whereas to the one born on the fifteenth day of the first Adar the year is not complete before the fifteenth day of Adar in the next year. Rabina demurred: But [the first] could say to the [second] other: I have eaten grass before you! [That would not be effective] because it could reply: You have come down [to life] in the intercalated month, I have not arrived in the intercalated month! For what purpose was that second [case] taught? Is it not identical with the first? — You might have said: There [the reason for the change] is that it is written: ‘a full [year]’, but here, in connection with which ‘full’ is not written, it does not apply; therefore we are informed that there is an inference from the analogous ‘year’, ‘year’.9 SINCE IT SAYS A ‘FULL’ [YEAR], etc. RABBI SAYS, HE IS ALLOWED A YEAR AND ITS INTERCALARY [DAYS]. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written], ‘a full year’: Rabbi Says. He counts three hundred and sixty-five days according to the number of days in the solar year; but the Sages say: He counts twelve months from day to day, and if the year is intercalated it is intercalated to his advantage! IF THE [LAST] DAY OF THE TWELVE MONTHS HAS ARRIVED AND IT WAS NOT REDEEMED, etc. Our Rabbis taught: ‘La-zemithuth’,10 i.e., permanently. Another explanation: La-zemithuth’. that includes the gift. What is the reason? — [Since instead of] zamith [it says] zemithuth.11 — The scholars said before R. Papa: According to whom is this? [Evidently] not in accord with R. Meir; for if according to R. Meir, surely he said: ‘A gift is not treated like a sale’!12 — R. Papa answered: You may even say that it is in accord with R. Meir, but here it is different. because the Divine Law, in saying ‘la-zemithuth’ has included [the field by gift]. The scholars said to R. Papa, or as some say. R. Huna the son of R. Joshua said to R. Papa: But in connection with the Jubilee touching which it is said: Ye shall return13 includes the gift. yet R. Meir does not include [a gift]?14 — Hence indeed it is not in accord with R. Meir. Our Rabbis taught: If one consecrated a house among the houses In a walled city, he may redeem it at once, and redeem it any time in the future. If someone else redeemed it from the Sanctuary. and the [last] day of the twelve months15 has arrived and the [original owner] did not redeem it [from him who redeemed it] then it is his in perpetuity. Whence do we know this? — Said Samuel: Because Scripture said: To him that bought it, i.e., even out of the possession of the Sanctuary. But let it become the permanent possession of the Sanctuary? — Scripture said: Throughout his generations;16 that excludes the Sanctuary which has no generations.17 Why [is it written]: It shall not go out in the Jubilee?18 — Said R. Safra: That was necessary only for the case of one who sold a house among the houses in a walled city, and the Jubilee arrived within the [first] year. One might have assumed: It shall go out on the Jubilee, therefore we were taught: ‘It shall not go out in the Jubilee’. MISHNAH. BEFORETIME HE [THE BUYER] USED TO HIDE HIMSELF ON THE LAST DAY OF THE TWELVE MONTHS, SO THAT [THE HOUSE] MIGHT BECOME HIS PERMANENT [POSSESSION]. BUT HILLEL ORDAINED THAT HE [THAT SOLD IT] COULD DEPOSIT HIS MONEY IN A CHAMBER19 AND BREAK DOWN THE DOOR AND ENTER, AND THAT THE OTHER, WHENEVER HE WANTED, MIGHT COME AND TAKE HIS MONEY. GEMARA. Raba said: [One may deduce] from the ordinance of Hillel that [if a husband said to his wife]: Here is thy bill of divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and she gave it to him, then she is divorced if she did so with his consent; but if against his will, she is not divorced. return to him the value of the usufruct. The Rabbis hold even this is forbidden, for when he enjoys the usufruct it is actually interest on money lent, whilst R. Judah said: Since by this arrangement the infringement of usury is precluded. V. B.M. Sonc. ed., p. 376. n. 9. I used became mine? hence your year is completed later. possession by gift, to which the same rule applies as does to possession by purchase. purchaser, and for an inhabitant of the province the procedure of bringing that money to Jerusalem on the particular day might be very burdensome. R. Gershom suggests it was a chamber constructed ad hoc, in any court of justice, in the city wherein the case arose.