032a – המוכר שדהו – פרק תשיעי – ערכין, דף לב ע”א

Since Hillel had to enact that a giving against one's will^[1] is a giving, it follows that otherwise a giving against one's will is not a giving.

בעל כרחו - that you cast into his house, for the text reads that Hillel enacted it in the Mishnah.

Rav Pappa, or some say Rav Ashi, objects: Perhaps Hillel needed to enact it only for a case where it is done in the absence (of the recipient); but if it is done in her presence, whether with her consent or against her will, it is a gift.

שלא בפניו - for example, one who was hidden. Since there are two defects, that he was absent and that it was against his will, Hillel needed to enact (it).

Some say: Rava said: From Hillel's enactment^[2], "This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz," and she gave it to him, whether with her consent or against her will, it is a giving.

And did Hillel need to enact it for the case of absence? In her presence, whether with her consent or against her will, it is a giving.

Rav Pappa, or some say Rav Shimi bar Ashi, objects: Perhaps, whether in her presence or in her absence, with her consent it is a giving but against her will it is not; and Hillel enacted whatever he needed.

מאי דאיצטריך ליה תקין - Even if he had taken them there and did not want to accept them, Hillel would have needed to enact that a giving against his will is a giving.

Anything inside the wall is like the houses of walled cities, except for the fields. R' Meir says: even the fields. A house built into the wall: R' Yehudah says it is not like the houses of walled cities. R' Shimon says: its outer wall is its wall.

The Sages taught: A house, I have only a house; from where do we include batei badim, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, wells, pits and caves? The verse says "which is in the city", so I might include fields too; the verse says "a house" - these are the words of R' Yehudah.

גמ' בית - "And the house that is in the city shall be established" (Vayikra 25).

מגדלות - mishtiyar (an unclear term), and fixed in the ground.

ת"ל בית - And those mentioned above are like a house.

R' Meir says: A house, I have only a house; from where do we include batei badim, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, wells, pits, caves, and even fields? The verse says "which is in the city".

But if so, is it not written "a house"? Rav Chisda said in the name of Rav Ketina: there is a difference between chulsit^[3] and metzulah.

חולסית - a place not fit for sowing. R' Meir does not mean actual fields, since "house" is written about it; rather chulsit and metzulah are like houses, because they are not fit for sowing but fit for building: from chulsit one takes stones, and from metzulah one takes sand. R' Yehudah holds they are like fields.

And it was taught: Chulsit and metzulah: R' Meir says they are like houses; R' Yehudah says they are like fields.

והתניא - gently (said without challenge).

A house built into the wall: R' Yehudah says it is not like the houses of walled cities^[4] [etc.]:

R' Yochanan said: Both of them derive from one verse: "(Yehoshua 2) And she let them down by a rope through the window, for her house was built into the wall, and she dwells in the wall." [R' Shimon] holds the plain meaning of the verse, and R' Yehudah holds that "she dwells in the wall" means not in a walled city.

כפשטיה דקרא - for we see that her house is inside the wall, and the verse says "she dwells in the wall", meaning she dwells in a walled city.

A city whose roofs are its wall, and which has not been walled since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, is not like the houses of walled cities.

מתני' שגגותיה חומתה - that they did not surround it with a wall, but surrounded it with houses, and the houses are so close to one another that they are like a wall.

These are the houses of walled cities: three courtyards with two houses each, walled since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, such as the old Ketzarah of Tzipori, and Chakra of Gush Chalav, and the old Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gadud, and Chadid, and Ono, and Yerushalayim, and similar ones.

שלש חצירות - that in each one, two houses make it be called a city.

קצרה - the name of a small town outside Tzipori.

The Sages taught: A wall, and not a Shur Igar around it, except for Tiberias, whose wall was removed.

גמ' שור איגר - that its roofs are its wall.

R' Eliezer bar Yosi says: "(Vayikra 25) which has no wall" - even though it has none now, but it had one previously.

לוא חומה - "lo" is written, which means "not" and also "to him": he has none now, but he had a wall earlier; this too was a chalut house in them.

These are the houses of walled cities, etc.^[5]

A Tanna taught: ^[6]Gamla is in the Galilee, Gadud is across the Jordan, and Chadid, Ono and Yerushalayim are in Yehudah. What is the point?

מאי קאמר - And is there no walled city in the Galilee except Gamla, and across the Jordan except Gadud?

תוספות

מדאיצטריך הלל לתקוני נתינה בעל כרחו [הוי נתינה הא בעלמא נתינה בע"כ] לא הויא נתינה - (Obviously, a person may not receive a gift against his will, and it is not a giving.) And if you ask: why did it need to bring a proof for this, that a giving against one's will is not a giving? Obviously a person may not receive a gift against his will. Moreover, how does Rav Pappa dispute this? And it can be answered: certainly a gift of mere permission that he has no need of is obviously not a giving against his will; Rav Pappa too disputes only about a gift that has a need, as here, where he said to her, "this is your get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz," which she needs in order to fulfil the condition of the get; and like the receiving in the Mishnah. [But] where the giver has an obligation, such as a debt or a deposit, in such a case it is certainly a giving against his will, as it is in the chapter Ha-Gozel Bater (Bava Kamma 118 and there): if he lent him or deposited with him in a settled area, he does not return it to him in the wilderness; this implies that in a settled area he returns it against his will. And if you say: that which we learned in the chapter Mi She'achazo (Gittin 32 and there): "this is your get on condition that you give me my cloak," and the cloak was lost, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says she gives its value, and there it deals even with against his will, since the Sages disagree with him and say "my cloak" only. Further, the Gemara asks there: one who says to a woman, "this is your get on condition that you give me two hundred zuz," and then retracts and says "I release you for nothing" - what is the law? Does it (the question) concern the Sages? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The Sages? Up to here the Sages said (their ruling) there only where he did not release it into her hand. But here he says "I release you for nothing," and it must be that the Sages say "my cloak" only; the case is against his will. For if it were with her consent, it is no less than "I release you for nothing," and yet Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says she gives him its value. Thus Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a giving against one's will is a giving; and then how does Rava say here that it is not a giving? It must be answered: for Rava, the case there, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says she gives him its value, is said with her consent; and even so, for the Sages, "my cloak" only, and she is not divorced. And this question there is not according to Rava: for Rava, certainly according to the Sages, even "I release you for nothing" does not help. And if you say, for Rava, who holds that even in a city a giving against one's will is not a giving, then why did the buyer need to hide? Let him say "I do not accept," and then it would not be a giving; and (the husband) released it to him after twelve months? It can be answered: if he were in the city he would be ashamed before him if he did not accept. And if you say: it implies that for Rava even in his presence, against his will, it is not a giving; then how can he prove from here (the case) "in his presence," when Hillel's enactment was only for the absent case? And did Hillel need to enact (it) for the absent case? But in the presence, whether with consent or against his will, it is a giving, as Rav Pappa objects. It can be answered: this is shown, for if it were so that in his presence a giving against his will is a giving, Hillel would not need to enact (it) for the absent case, (the husband) to deposit his money in the chamber; for it is possible to acquire for him through another (agent). But conclude from this: since Hillel needed to enact that a giving against one's will (is a giving), otherwise (it is not), etc.; and Rav Pappa, who objects, does not hold this reasoning.

חולסית - Rashi explains: to take stones from there; and metzulah: to take sand from there. Rashbam explains in Bava Basra (67a and there): chulsit, to take glass from it; and metzulah like "metzulah shel dagim" in Berachos (9a), a deep pool of fish.

אשר לו חומה - Rashi explains: "lo" is written, which means "to him" and also "not": he has none now, but he had one before. But this is not so in accurate Chumashim: it is written without an alef and read with a vav (vav, and not read with an alef).

מאי קאמר - And is there no walled city in the Galilee except Gamla, and across the Jordan except Gadud? If you ask, why does (the Gemara) not raise the same objection on the Mishnah? It can be answered that it rightly objects to the beraisa, because the beraisa is more precise and explicitly names Gamla in the Galilee and Gadud across the Jordan.

Notes

1. 1. Nitnah be'al korcho: giving something to a person who does not want to receive it.
2. 2. Hillel's enactment: a conditional bill of divorce, given on condition that she give him two hundred zuz; the question is whether delivery against her will is valid.
3. 3. Chulsit and metzulah: two places, like a quarry from which stones are taken and a pit from which sand is taken; they resemble a house, not a field.
4. 4. R' Yehudah says a house built into the wall is not like the houses of walled cities; the Gemara brings his reason from a verse.
5. 5. The Mishnah's list of walled cities that have been walled since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun.
6. 6. Gamla (in the Galilee), Gadud (across the Jordan), Chadid, Ono and Yerushalayim (in Yehudah): the Gemara places each city by its region.