Arakhin

For, since it was necessary for Hillel to ordain that [in this case] giving against [the recipient's will] is considered valid giving, the inference is that elsewhere such giving is not considered valid giving. To this R. Papa, or as others say, R. Shimi b. Ashi, demurred: But perhaps Hillel had to ordain this only in his absence, but in his presence it would be considered a valid gift both with his consent or without it? Others reported: Raba said, From the ordinance of Hillel [one can infer that if a husband said]: Here is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz, and she thereupon gave them to him, whether that was given with his consent or against his will, it is a valid gift. For Hillel's ordinance was necessary in the case of the recipient's absence; but where he was present, whether [given] with his consent or against his will, the gift is valid. To this R. Papa, or as some say, R. Shimi b. Ashi, demurred: But perhaps whether it was in his presence or absence, it is [valid] only [if it was given] with his consent, but not if without his consent, and as to Hillel, he ordained what was required [by the circumstances of the case].1 MISHNAH. WHATSOEVER IS WITHIN THE [CITY] WALL IS REGARDED AS THE DWELLING HOUSES IN A WALLED CITY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF FIELDS. R. MEIR SAYS: ALSO FIELDS. IF A HOUSE IS BUILT INTO THE WALL, R. JUDAH SAYS: IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A HOUSE WITHIN A WALLED CITY. R. SIMEON SAYS: ITS OUTER WALL IS REGARDED AS ITS [CITY] WALL. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written] ‘house’,2 hence I know only about a house, whence [do I learn] to include the building for the oil-press, bath-houses, towers, dove-cotes, pits, trenches and caves? Therefore the text states: that is in the city.3 One might have assumed that fields are also included, therefore it is said: ‘house’. So R. Judah. R. Meir says, ‘house’, hence I know only about a house. Whence [do I learn] to include the buildings for the oil-press, bath-houses, towers, dove-cotes, pits, trenches and caves, and also fields? Therefore the text states: ‘that is in the city’. But surely it is written: ‘house’? — R. Hisda in the name of R. Kattina said: The practical difference between them applies in the case of a sand-mound and a glen.4 Thus also was it taught: Concerning a sand-mound and a glen. R. Meir said: They are as houses, R. Judah: They are as fields. IF A HOUSE IS BUILT INTO THE WALL, R. JUDAH SAYS: IT IS NOT CONSIDERED A HOUSE WITHIN THE WALLED CITY, etc. R. Johanan said: And both expound the same Scriptural verse: Then she let them down by a court through the window; for her house was upon the side of the wall, and she dwelt upon the wall.5 R. Simeon [explains it] according to the simple meaning of the text,6 whilst R. Judah holds: She dwelt upon the wall, not in a walled city. MISHNAH. [A HOUSE WITHIN] A CITY WHOSE HOUSEROOFS7 FORM ITS WALL, OR THAT WAS NOT ENCOMPASSED BY A WALL IN8 THE DAYS OF JOSHUA B. NUN, IS NOT CONSIDERED A DWELLING HOUSE IN A WALLED CITY. [A HOUSE IN ANY OF] THE FOLLOWING IS ACCOUNTED A HOUSE IN A WALLED CITY: [THOSE IN A CITY] OF NO LESS THAN THREE COURTYARDS, HAVING TWO HOUSES EACH, WHICH HAVE BEEN ENCOMPASSED BY A WALL IN THE DAYS OF JOSHUA B. NUN, SUCH AS THE OLD CASTLE OF SEPPHORIS,9 THE FORT OF GUSH-HALAB.10 OLD YODPAT,11 GAMALA,12 GADUD,13 HADID,14 ONO,15 JERUSALEM AND THE LIKE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [It is written,] ‘a wall’,16 but not a line formed by joining roofs; round about,17 that excludes Tiberias whose wall is the lake. R. Eliezer b. Jose says: asher lo homah,18 even though it has none now, as long as it had one before. [A HOUSE IN ANY OF] THE FOLLOWING IS ACCOUNTED IN WALLED CITIES etc. It was taught: Gamala was in Galilee, Gadud in Transjordania, Hadid, Ono and Jerusalem in Judaea. What does he mean to say?19 refers under the term of ‘fields’, since they appertain to buildings but not to actual fields, in which he agrees with R. Judah, though R. Judah treats the former also as fields.] and the kere, uk (to it), i.e., ‘which has a wall to it’, hence the combination of the meanings: Even if it has no wall now, as long as it had one in the long ago it is, for the purposes of these laws, considered a walled city.