MISHNA: The residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse, and each courtyard must be considered on its own in accordance with its specific needs. Similarly, the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees and says: Not all towns require a wall.

With regard to this latter obligation, the mishna asks: How long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city and therefore obligated to contribute to these expenses? Twelve months. But if he bought himself a residence in the city, he is immediately considered like one of the people of the city.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Is this to say that making a gatehouse is beneficial? But wasn’t there that pious man, with whom the prophet Elijah was accustomed to speak, who built a gatehouse, and after-ward Elijah did not speak with him again? The objection to the building of a gatehouse is that the guard who mans it prevents the poor from entering and asking for charity. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: This, the case presented in the mishna, is referring to a gatehouse built on the inside of the courtyard, in which case the poor can at least reach the courtyard’s entrance and be heard inside the courtyard; that, the story of the pious man and Elijah, involves a gatehouse that was built on the outside of the courtyard, completely blocking the poor’s access to the courtyard’s entrance.

And if you wish, say instead that in both cases the gatehouse was built outside the courtyard, and yet this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a door to the gatehouse, so that the poor cannot be heard inside the courtyard, while in the other case there is no door. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a door, and still this is not difficult: In the one case, there is a key needed to open the door, and the key is not available to the poor people, whereas in the other case, there is no key needed. Or if you wish, say that in both cases there is a key needed, and even so this is not difficult: In the one case the key is on the inside, so that the poor cannot reach it, while in the other case of the mishna, the key is on the outside.

§ The mishna teaches that the residents of a courtyard can compel each inhabitant of that courtyard to financially participate in the building of a gatehouse and a door to the jointly owned courtyard. It is taught in a baraita that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all courtyards require a gatehouse. Rather, a courtyard that adjoins the public domain requires a gatehouse to prevent people from peering in. But a courtyard that does not adjoin the public domain does not require a gatehouse. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a courtyard does not adjoin the public domain, people in the public domain sometimes are forced toward the courtyard due to crowding in the public domain, and come and enter the courtyard.

§ The mishna teaches that the residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to contribute to the building of a wall, double doors, and a crossbar for the city. The Sages taught in a baraita: The residents of a city can compel each inhabitant of that city to build double doors and a crossbar for the city. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not all cities require a wall. Rather, a city that adjoins the state border requires a wall, whereas a city that does not adjoin the state border does not require a wall. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the Rabbis make this distinction? The Gemara answers: Even if a city does not adjoin the border, it sometimes happens that invading troops come into the area. Therefore, it is always good for a city to be protected by a wall.

With regard to this issue, Rabbi Elazar asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: When the residents of the city collect money to build a wall, do they collect based on the number of people living in each house, or perhaps they collect based on the net worth of each person? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They collect based on the net worth of each person, and Elazar, my son, you shall fix nails in this, i.e., this is an established halakha, and you must not veer from it.

§ It is related that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia once imposed payment of the tax for the wall even on the Sages. Reish Lakish said to him: The Sages do not require protection, as it is written: “How precious are your dear ones to me, O God…If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand” (Psalms 139:17–18). If I should count whom? If we say this is referring to the righteous, and the verse is saying that they are greater in number than the grains of sand, this is difficult. Now if it is written about all of Israel: “As the sand which is upon the seashore” (Genesis 22:17), can the righteous themselves, who are a part of Israel, be greater in number than the grains of sand? How can they possibly outnumber the grains of sand upon the seashore?

Rather, this is what the verse is saying: If I should count the deeds of the righteous, they are greater in number than the grains of sand. And it follows by an a fortiori inference: If the grains of sand, which are fewer in number, protect the shore from the sea, barring it from flowing inland (see Jeremiah 5:22), do not all the more so the deeds of the righteous, which are greater in number, protect them? Consequently the Sages do not need additional protection.

When Reish Lakish came before Rabbi Yoḥanan and reported the exchange to him, Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: What is the reason that you did not quote this verse to him: “I am a wall and my breasts are like towers” (Song of Songs 8:10), which may be explained as follows: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Torah. “And my breasts are like towers”;

these are Torah scholars, and towers do not require additional protection? The Gemara comments: And Reish Lakish, who did not cite this verse, holds in accordance with the way that Rava expounded the verse: “I am a wall”; this is referring to the Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls.

It is similarly related that Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda once imposed payment of the poll tax [karga] even on the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have transgressed the words of the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings.

You have transgressed the words of the Torah, as it is written: “Even when He loves the peoples, all His holy ones are in Your hand” (Deuteronomy 33:3), which is understood to mean that Moses said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even when You hold the other nations dear and grant them dominion over Israel, let “all His holy ones,” meaning the Torah scholars, be exclusively in Your hand and free from the authority of the nations, and therefore be exempt from paying taxes. The continuation of that verse can also be understood as referring to Torah scholars, as it states: “And they sit [tukku] at Your feet, receiving Your words” (Deuteronomy 33:3), and Rav Yosef teaches: These are Torah scholars who pound [mekhatetim] their feet from city to city and from country to country to study Torah; “receiving [yissa] Your words,” to discuss [lissa velitten] the utterances of God.

And you have transgressed the words of the Prophets, as it is written: “Though they have hired lovers [yitnu] among the nations, now I will gather them, and they will begin to be diminished by reason of the burden of kings and princes” (Hosea 8:10). With regard to this verse, Ulla says: Part of this verse is stated in the Aramaic language; the word yitnu should be understood here in its Aramaic sense: To learn. And the verse should be interpreted as follows: If all of Israel learns Torah, I will gather them already now; and if only a few of them learn Torah, they will be excused from the burden imposed by kings and princes. This indicates that those who study Torah should not be subject to paying taxes.

And furthermore, you have transgressed the words of the Writings, as it is written: “It shall not be lawful to impose tribute, impost or toll upon them” (Ezra 7:24), i.e., upon the priests and Levites who serve in the Temple. This halakha would apply to Torah scholars as well. And Rav Yehuda says: “Tribute”; this is referring to the king’s portion, a tax given to the king. “Impost”; this is referring to the head tax. “Toll”; this is referring to a tax [arnona] paid with property that was imposed from time to time.

It is related that Rav Pappa once imposed a tax for the digging of a new cistern even on orphans. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: Perhaps they will dig, but in the end they will not draw any water from there, and it will turn out that the money will have been spent for nothing. The rest of the townspeople can relinquish their rights to their money, but orphans who are minors cannot do so. Rav Pappa said to him: I shall collect money from the orphans; if they draw water, they will draw water, and if not, I will return the money to the orphans.

Rav Yehuda says: All of the city’s residents must contribute to the building and upkeep of the city gates [le’aglei gappa], and for this purpose money is collected even from orphans. But the Sages do not require protection and are therefore exempt from this payment. All of the city’s residents must contribute to the digging of cisterns [lekarya patya], and for this purpose money is collected even from the Sages, since they too need water. The Gemara comments: And we said this only when the people are not required to go out en masse [be’akhluza] and do the actual digging, but are obligated merely to contribute money for that purpose. But if the people are required to go out en masse and actually dig, the Sages are not expected to go out with them en masse, but rather they are exempt from such labor.

It is related that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once opened his storehouses to distribute food during years of drought. He said: Masters of Bible, masters of Mishna, masters of Talmud, masters of halakha, masters of aggada may enter and receive food from me, but ignoramuses should not enter. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram, whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not know, pushed his way in, and entered, and said to him: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, sustain me. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My son, have you read the Bible? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him, out of modesty: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: Have you studied Mishna? Once again, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then asked him: If so, by what merit should I sustain you? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram said to him: Sustain me like a dog and like a raven, who are given food even though they have not learned anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was moved by his words and fed him.

After Rabbi Yonatan left, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat, and was distressed, and said: Woe is me, that I have given my bread to an ignoramus. His son, Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to him: Perhaps he was your disciple Yonatan ben Amram, who never in his life wanted to materially benefit from the honor shown to the Torah? They investigated the matter and found that such was the case. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then said: Let everyone enter, as there may also be others who hide the fact that they are true Torah scholars.

Commenting on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, the Gemara notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conformed to his standard line of reasoning, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses. This is like the incident of the crown tax [kelila] that was imposed on the residents of the city of Tiberias. The heads of the city came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and said to him: The Sages should contribute along with us. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: No, the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then we will run away and the entire burden will fall on the Torah scholars. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Run away as you please. Half of the city’s residents ran away. The authorities then waived half the sum that they had initially imposed on the city.

And Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All are required to contribute to the columns of the city, and money is collected for that purpose even from orphans. But the Sages are not required to contribute, since the Sages do not need protection. Rav Pappa said: Money is collected even from orphans for the city wall, for the city horseman, and for the guard [uletarzina] of the city armory, but the Sages do not require protection. The principle of the matter is: Money is collected even from orphans for anything from which they derive benefit.

It is reported that Rabba imposed a contribution to a certain charity on the orphans of the house of bar Maryon. Abaye said to him: But didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teach: One does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, since they are minors and are not obligated in the mitzvot? Rabba said to him: I did this to elevate them in standing, i.e., so that people should honor them as generous benefactors; not in order that the poor should benefit.

§ The mishna teaches: And how long must one live in the city to be considered like one of the people of the city? Twelve months. And we raise a contradiction from what is taught in a baraita: In the case of a donkey caravan or a camel caravan that was journeying from place to place, and it lodged inside an idolatrous city, and its members were led astray along with the other residents of the city, and they too engaged in idol worship, they, the members of the caravan, are liable to death by stoning like ordinary individual idolaters, and their property escapes destruction, i.e., they are not treated like the residents of an idolatrous city, who are liable to death by the sword and whose property is destroyed.

The baraita continues: And if the caravan members had remained in that city for thirty days, they are liable to death by the sword and their property is destroyed, just as it is for the rest of the residents of the city. This seems to indicate that once an individual has lived in a city for thirty days, he is already considered one of its residents.

Rava said: This is not difficult. This period, i.e., twelve months, is required in order to be considered one of the members of the city; and that period, i.e., thirty days, suffices in order to be considered one of the residents of the city. As it is taught in a baraita: One who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the people of a particular city is prohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed there for twelve months, but it is permitted for him to derive benefit from anyone who has stayed there for less time than that. By contrast, if he prohibited himself by way of a vow from deriving benefit from the residents of a particular city, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed there for thirty days, but it is permitted for him to derive benefit from anyone who has stayed there for less time than that.

The Gemara asks: And do we require that one lives in a city for twelve months for all matters? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If one lives in city for thirty days, he must contribute to the charity platter from which food is distributed to the poor. If he lives there for three months, he must contribute to the charity box. If he lives there for six months, he must contribute to the clothing fund. If he lives there for nine months, he must contribute to the burial fund. If he lives there for twelve months, he must contribute to the columns of the city [lepassei ha’ir], i.e., for the construction of a security fence. Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: When we learned twelve months in the mishna, we learned that with regard to contributing to the columns of the city, money used for protecting and strengthening the city, but not for other matters.

And Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All are required to contribute to the columns of the city, and money is collected for that purpose even from orphans. But the Sages are not required to contribute, since the Sages do not need protection. Rav Pappa said: Money is collected even from orphans for the city wall, for the city horseman, and for the guard [uletarzina] of the city armory, but the Sages do not require protection. The principle of the matter is: Money is collected even from orphans for anything from which they derive benefit.

It is reported that Rabba imposed a contribution to a certain charity on the orphans of the house of bar Maryon. Abaye said to him: But didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teach: One does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, since they are minors and are not obligated in the mitzvot? Rabba said to him: I did this to elevate them in standing, i.e., so that people should honor them as generous benefactors; not in order that the poor should benefit.

Incidental to this story, the Gemara relates that Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur, king of Persia, sent a purse [arneka] full of dinars to Rav Yosef. She said to him: Let the money be used for a great mitzva. Rav Yosef sat and considered the question: What did Ifera Hurmiz mean when she attached a condition to the gift, saying that it should be used for a great mitzva? Abaye said to him: From what Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught, that one does not impose a charity obligation on orphans even for the sake of redeeming captives, learn from this

that redeeming captives is a great mitzva.

Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: Concerning this matter that the Sages stated, that redeeming captives is a great mitzva, from where is it derived? Rabba bar Mari said to him: As it is written: “And it shall come to pass, when they say to you: To where shall we depart? Then you shall tell them: So says the Lord: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for famine, to famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity” (Jeremiah 15:2). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whichever punishment is written later in this verse is more severe than the one before it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: The sword is worse than death. If you wish, say that this is learned from a verse; if you wish, say instead that it is derived by way of logical reasoning. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This punishment, i.e., death by sword, mutilates the body, but that punishment, i.e., natural death, does not mutilate it. And if you wish, say that the fact that the sword is worse than death is learned from a verse: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” (Psalms 116:15).

Famine is worse than the sword. If you wish, say that this is derived by way of logical reasoning: This one, who dies of famine, suffers greatly before departing from this world, but that one, who dies by the sword, does not suffer. If you wish, say instead that the fact that famine is worse than the sword is learned from a verse: “More fortunate were the victims of the sword than the victims of famine” (Lamentations 4:9). And captivity is worse than all of them, as it includes all of them, i.e., famine, the sword, and death.