Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 18, 2019 | 讟状讜 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Arakhin 32

By what definition is a city considered a walled city? Did the kedusha by which cities were sanctified in the time of Yehoshua, get cancelled by the destruction of the Temple or did it last? If it didn’t last, then Ezra eneded to rededicate the land regarding shmita, Jubilee year and walled cities.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讛诇诇 诇转拽讜谞讬 谞转讬谞讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛 讛讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞转讬谞讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讛诇诇 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讛


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转拽谞转讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛 讜讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讛诇诇 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 诇讗 讜讛诇诇 诪讗讬 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 转拽讬谉


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讚讜转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛砖讚讜转 讘讬转 讛讘谞讜讬 讘讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讜转诇 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讛讬讗 讞讜诪转讜


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.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘转讬 讘讚讬诐 讜讘转讬 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜诪讙讚诇讜转 讜砖讜讘讻讬谉 讜讘讜专讜转 讜砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘注讬专 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛砖讚讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淭hen the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (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: 鈥淭hat is in the walled city,鈥 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: 鈥淗ouse,鈥 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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘转讬 讘讚讬诐 讜讘转讬 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜诪讙讚诇讜转 讜砖讜讘讻讬谉 讜讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讚讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘注讬专


Rabbi Meir says: The verse states: 鈥淗ouse.鈥 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: 鈥淭hat is in the walled city,鈥 to include anything inside the city.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讞讜诇住讬转 讜诪爪讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讜诇住讬转 讜诪爪讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讘转讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讚讜转


The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Meir: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗ouse鈥? If Rabbi Meir includes even a field, what is excluded by the word 鈥渉ouse鈥? Rav 岣sda said that Rav Ketina said: Actually, everyone agrees that the term 鈥渉ouse鈥 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.


讘讬转 讛讘谞讜讬 讘讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜转讜专讚诐 讘讞讘诇 讘注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 讻讬 讘讬转讛 讘拽讬专 讛讞讜诪讛 讜讘讞讜诪讛 讛讬讗 讬讜砖讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘讞讜诪讛 讛讬讗 讬讜砖讘转 讜诇讗 讘注讬专 讞讜诪讛


搂 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 Yo岣nan says: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (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 鈥渟he dwelt upon the wall鈥 means she was a resident of the wall itself, but not a resident of the city enclosed within the wall.


诪转谞讬壮 注讬专 砖讙讙讜转讬讛 讞讜诪转讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讗讬谞讛 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 砖诇砖 讞爪专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻讙讜谉 拽爪专讛 讛讬砖谞讛 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讞拽专讛 砖诇 讙讜砖 讞诇讘 讜讬讜讚驻转 讛讬砖谞讛 讜讙诪诇讗 讜讙讚讜讚 讜讞讚讬讚 讜讗讜谞讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉


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 [岣kra] of Gush 岣lav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and 岣did, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讗讬讙专 住讘讬讘 驻专讟 诇讟讘专讬讛 砖讬诪讛 讞讜诪转讛


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: 鈥淭he house that is in the city that has a wall鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut the houses of the villages that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country,鈥 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.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜讗 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉


Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: 鈥淲hich has [lo] a wall,鈥 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.


讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讙诪诇讗 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讙讚讜讚 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讞讚讬讚 讜讗讜谞讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


搂 The mishna teaches: And these are the houses of walled cities: The ancient fort of Tzippori, and the fortress of Gush 岣lav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and 岣did, 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 岣did 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?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 讙诪诇讗 讘讙诇讬诇 注讚 讙讚讜讚 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讞讚讬讚 讜讗讜谞讜 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛


Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: Until Gamla in the Galilee, i.e., all towns in the Galilee from Gamla southward were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun; and likewise, all towns until Gedod in Transjordan, which is the easternmost city, were surrounded by a wall; and 岣did and Ono and Jerusalem in Judea were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讙诪诇讗 讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙诪诇讗 讚砖讗专 讗专爪讜转 讙讚讜讚 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙讚讜讚 讚砖讗专 讗专爪讜转 讗讬谞讱 讚诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讻讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛


Rava said a different explanation: The baraita is elucidating the mishna, which mentions these cities. The baraita is teaching that the Gamla referred to in the mishna is the one in the Galilee, to the exclusion of any Gamla found in other lands, i.e., Judea and Transjordan. Likewise, Gedod is the one in Transjordan, to the exclusion of Gedod in other lands, Judea and the Galilee. In the same vein, 岣did, Ono, and Jerusalem are specifically the cities in Judea known by those names. With regard to those other cities mentioned in the mishna, e.g., Yodfat, since there are no cities in other lands with similar names, it was not necessary for the tanna of the baraita to state them.


讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讬 诪讬讞诇讟 讘讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讘讬转 讞诇讜讟 讘讛


The Gemara asks: And is ownership of a house in Jerusalem transferred in perpetuity to the buyer after one year, in the manner of houses of walled cities? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, one of which is that ownership of a house situated in Jerusalem is not transferred in perpetuity one year after its sale?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讜诇讗 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讘讬转 讞诇讜讟 讘讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 讛讘讬转 讞诇讜讟 讘讛谉 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转专讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜讜


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tanna means that ownership of a house may be transferred in perpetuity in any city that is like Jerusalem, i.e., which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, but the halakha with regard to such a city is not like Jerusalem itself, since while with regard to Jerusalem, ownership of a house inside it is not transferred in perpetuity, here, with regard to cities similar to Jerusalem, a house in them may be transferred in perpetuity to the buyer. Rav Ashi said a different answer: Didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say in resolution of another difficulty: There were two places called Kadesh? Here, too, one can say that there were two places called Jerusalem in Judea, and the mishna is referring to the one where ownership of houses transfers in perpetuity.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐 讗讘诇 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讟诇讜 诪砖讘讟诇讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讗专抓 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗


搂 With regard to the cities listed in the mishna, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: Why did the Sages count specifically these cities as those walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? They counted them because when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and sanctified them; but the sanctity of the first walled cities was nullified when the sanctity of the land was nullified and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua consecrated it for its time, until the exile, but did not consecrate Eretz Yisrael forever.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讛讬讜 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖砖讬诐 注讬专 讻诇 讞讘诇 讗专讙讘 讻诇 讗诇讛 注专讬诐 讘爪专讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐 拽讬讚砖讜诐 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚讜砖讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讗讜诐


The Gemara asks: But raise a contradiction from another baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: And were these cities enumerated in the mishna the only walled cities from the days of Joshua? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭here was not a city that we took not from them; sixty cities, all the region of Argob鈥ll these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:4鈥5)? Rather, why did the Sages specifically count these cities? They counted them because when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and sanctified them. The Gemara interjects: Can the baraita really mean that they sanctified them? But we say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to sanctify them. Rather, the baraita means that they found these cities and counted them in the mishna.


讜诇讗 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖转注诇讛 诇讱 诪住讜专转 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讘讜转讬讱 砖诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛诇诇讜 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗


The baraita continues: And not only these; rather, with regard to any city for which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it is surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot of walled cities are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time and consecrated it forever. Evidently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜讗 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉


The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that this is a dispute between two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. And if you wish, say instead that one of the baraitot, specifically the second one, was actually said by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: 鈥淲hich has [lo] a wall,鈥 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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 讛砖讘讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讘讬 住讻讜转 讜讬砖讘讜 讘住讻讜转 讻讬 诇讗 注砖讜 诪讬诪讬 讬砖讜注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻谉 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 讜转讛讬 砖诪讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讗讚 讗驻砖专 讘讗 讚讜讚 讜诇讗 注砖讜 住讜讻讜转 注讚 砖讘讗 注讝专讗


搂 The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time, but did not consecrate it forever? As it is taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to the return from Babylonia: 鈥淎nd all the congregation of those that were coming back out of the captivity made sukkot, and dwelt in sukkot, for since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, unto that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great joy鈥 (Nehemiah 8:17). Now, is it possible that King David came and the Jews in his time and all subsequent generations did not make sukkot, until Ezra came?


讗诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讘讬讗转诐 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 诇讘讬讗转诐 讘讬诪讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讛 讘讬讗转诐 讘讬诪讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讜拽讚砖讜 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 讘讬讗转谉 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讜拽讚砖讜 注专讬 讞讜诪讛


Rather, when the verse states: 鈥淔or since the days of Joshua,鈥 it means to compare their arrival in Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra to their arrival in the days of Joshua: Just as with regard to their arrival in the days of Joshua, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities, so too, with regard to their arrival in the days of Ezra, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities.


讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讬讗讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诇 讛讗专抓 讗砖专 讬专砖讜 讗讘转讬讱 讜讬专砖转讛 诪拽讬砖 讬专讜砖转讱 诇讬专讜砖转 讗讘讜转讬讱 诪讛 讬专讜砖转 讗讘讜转讬讱 讘讞讬讚讜砖 讻诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗祝 讬专讜砖转讱 讘讞讬讚讜砖 讻诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜


And so it says with regard to the return of the Jews from exile: 鈥淎nd the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:5). The verse compares your possession to the possession of your fathers: Just as the possession of your fathers came with the renewal of all these matters, i.e., the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year, and terumot and tithes, so too your possession comes with the renewal of all these matters, as the initial consecration was nullified.


讜讗讬讚讱 讚讘注讬 专讞诪讬 注诇 讬爪专 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讘讟诇讬讛 讜讗讙讬谉 讝讻讜转讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻讬 住讜讻讛


The Gemara asks: And the tanna who maintains the other opinion, that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal, how does he interpret the verse in Nehemiah? The Gemara answers that when the verse states: 鈥淔or since the days of Joshua,鈥 this is not referring to actual sukkot; rather, the verse means that Ezra prayed for mercy with regard to the evil inclination of idol worship and nullified it, and the merit of his prayer protected them like a sukka.


讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 拽驻讬讚 拽专讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚讬讛讜砖注 讚讘讻诇 讚讜讻转讗 讻转讬讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讬砖讜注 讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖讛 诇讗 讘注讗 专讞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讝讻讜转讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讬讛讜砖注 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬


The Gemara adds: And this is the reason that the verse criticizes Joshua for not praying for the removal of this inclination himself. How is this criticism indicated in the verse? As in every other place in the Bible, his name is written as: Yehoshua, and here it is written: Yeshua. The Gemara explains why the verse singles out Joshua for criticism: Granted, Moses, the first leader of the Jewish people, did not pray for mercy that this inclination should be removed, as at the time there was no merit of Eretz Yisrael; but Joshua, who had the merit of Eretz Yisrael, why didn鈥檛 he pray for mercy that this inclination should be nullified?


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讬专砖讜 讗讘转讬讱 讜讬专砖转讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讬专砖讜 讗讘讜转讬讱 讬专砖转 讗转


The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion that the initial consecration was not nullified, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淲hich your fathers possessed and you shall possess it鈥? This verse apparently indicates that it was necessary to sanctify Eretz Yisrael a second time. The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, this is what the verse is saying: Since your fathers possessed the land, you too possess it, and there is no need to sanctify it again.


讜诪讬 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讛砖转讗 诪砖讙诇讜 砖讘讟 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖讘讟 讙讚 讜讞爪讬 砖讘讟 诪谞砖讛 讘讟诇讜 讬讜讘诇讜转 注讝专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻诇 讛拽讛诇 讻讗讞讚 讗专讘注 专讘讜讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讜砖砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖砖讬诐 讛讜讛 诪谞讬


The baraita cited earlier teaches that the Jews began counting the Jubilee Year upon their return from exile. The Gemara asks: But did they count Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years in the days of Ezra? Now, if from the time that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled (see I聽Chronicles 5:26) the counting of Jubilee Years was nullified, despite the fact that a majority of Jews lived in Eretz Yisrael, then in the time of Ezra, about which it is written: 鈥淭he whole congregation together was 42,360鈥 (Ezra 2:64), would they have counted Jubilee Years?


讚转谞讬讗 诪砖讙诇讜 砖讘讟 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖讘讟 讙讚 讜讞爪讬 砖讘讟 讛诪谞砖讛 讘讟诇讜 讬讜讘诇讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽专讗转诐 讚专讜专 讘讗专抓 诇讻诇 讬砖讘讬讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讻诇 讬讜砖讘讬讛 注诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讙诇讜 诪拽爪转谉


As it is taught in a baraita: From the time that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled, the counting of Jubilee Years was nullified, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a Jubilee for you鈥 (Leviticus 25:10), indicating that the halakhot of the Jubilee Year apply only when all its inhabitants are in Eretz Yisrael, and not when some of them have been exiled.


讬讻讜诇 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讜讛谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉 砖讘讟 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖讘讟 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讘谞讬诪讬谉 讬讛讗 讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 讬砖讘讬讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讜砖讘讬讛 讻转讬拽讜谞谉 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉


The baraita continues: One might have thought that if all the Jews were living in Eretz Yisrael, but they are intermingled, e.g., the tribe of Benjamin is living in the portion of the tribe of Judah, and the tribe of Judah in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin, that the Jubilee Year should be in effect. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o all its inhabitants,鈥 which teaches that the Jubilee Year applies only when its inhabitants are living according to their proper arrangment, and not when they are intermingled. How, then, could those who returned from exile have counted the Jubilee Years?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讜 讬讜讘诇讜转 诇拽讚砖 砖诪讬讟讬谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: They counted Jubilee Years in order to sanctify Sabbatical Years. That is, at the end of every seven cycles of the Sabbatical Year they would count the fiftieth year as a Jubilee Year, so that the next Sabbatical cycle would begin in its proper time, in the fifty-first year. Nevertheless, the halakhot of the Jubilee Year were not in effect.


  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 32

诪讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讛诇诇 诇转拽讜谞讬 谞转讬谞讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛 讛讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞转讬谞讛 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 诇讛诇诇 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 诪转谞讛


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.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转拽谞转讜 砖诇 讛诇诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 注诇 诪谞转 砖转转谞讬 诇讬 诪讗转讬诐 讝讜讝 讜谞转谞讛 诇讜 讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛 讜讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讛诇诇 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 讗讘诇 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诪讚注转讜 讘讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 讛讜讬讗 谞转讬谞讛


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.


诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讘讬谉 讘驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 讘驻谞讬讜 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谉 讘注诇 讻专讞讜 诇讗 讜讛诇诇 诪讗讬 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 转拽讬谉


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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜诪讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讚讜转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛砖讚讜转 讘讬转 讛讘谞讜讬 讘讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讜转诇 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讛讬讗 讞讜诪转讜


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.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘转讬 讘讚讬诐 讜讘转讬 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜诪讙讚诇讜转 讜砖讜讘讻讬谉 讜讘讜专讜转 讜砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘注讬专 讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛砖讚讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛


GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淭hen the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity鈥 (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: 鈥淭hat is in the walled city,鈥 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: 鈥淗ouse,鈥 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.


专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讬转 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讬转 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讘转讬 讘讚讬诐 讜讘转讬 诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜诪讙讚诇讜转 讜砖讜讘讻讬谉 讜讘讜专讜转 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖讚讜转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘注讬专


Rabbi Meir says: The verse states: 鈥淗ouse.鈥 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: 鈥淭hat is in the walled city,鈥 to include anything inside the city.


讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘 拽讟讬谞讗 讞讜诇住讬转 讜诪爪讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞讜诇住讬转 讜诪爪讜诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻讘转讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻砖讚讜转


The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Meir: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淗ouse鈥? If Rabbi Meir includes even a field, what is excluded by the word 鈥渉ouse鈥? Rav 岣sda said that Rav Ketina said: Actually, everyone agrees that the term 鈥渉ouse鈥 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.


讘讬转 讛讘谞讜讬 讘讞讜诪讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜转讜专讚诐 讘讞讘诇 讘注讚 讛讞诇讜谉 讻讬 讘讬转讛 讘拽讬专 讛讞讜诪讛 讜讘讞讜诪讛 讛讬讗 讬讜砖讘转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘专 讻驻砖讟讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讘讞讜诪讛 讛讬讗 讬讜砖讘转 讜诇讗 讘注讬专 讞讜诪讛


搂 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 Yo岣nan says: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (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 鈥渟he dwelt upon the wall鈥 means she was a resident of the wall itself, but not a resident of the city enclosed within the wall.


诪转谞讬壮 注讬专 砖讙讙讜转讬讛 讞讜诪转讛 讜砖讗讬谞讛 诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讗讬谞讛 讻讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 砖诇砖 讞爪专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻讙讜谉 拽爪专讛 讛讬砖谞讛 砖诇 爪讬驻讜专讬 讜讞拽专讛 砖诇 讙讜砖 讞诇讘 讜讬讜讚驻转 讛讬砖谞讛 讜讙诪诇讗 讜讙讚讜讚 讜讞讚讬讚 讜讗讜谞讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讻谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉


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 [岣kra] of Gush 岣lav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and 岣did, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞讜诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讗讬讙专 住讘讬讘 驻专讟 诇讟讘专讬讛 砖讬诪讛 讞讜诪转讛


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: 鈥淭he house that is in the city that has a wall鈥 (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: 鈥淏ut the houses of the villages that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country,鈥 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.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜讗 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉


Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: 鈥淲hich has [lo] a wall,鈥 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.


讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讻讜壮 转谞讗 讙诪诇讗 讘讙诇讬诇 讜讙讚讜讚 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讞讚讬讚 讜讗讜谞讛 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


搂 The mishna teaches: And these are the houses of walled cities: The ancient fort of Tzippori, and the fortress of Gush 岣lav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and 岣did, 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 岣did 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?


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注讚 讙诪诇讗 讘讙诇讬诇 注讚 讙讚讜讚 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讞讚讬讚 讜讗讜谞讜 讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讘讬讛讜讚讛


Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: Until Gamla in the Galilee, i.e., all towns in the Galilee from Gamla southward were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun; and likewise, all towns until Gedod in Transjordan, which is the easternmost city, were surrounded by a wall; and 岣did and Ono and Jerusalem in Judea were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun.


专讘讗 讗诪专 讙诪诇讗 讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙诪诇讗 讚砖讗专 讗专爪讜转 讙讚讜讚 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讙讚讜讚 讚砖讗专 讗专爪讜转 讗讬谞讱 讚诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讻讜转讬讬讛讜 诇讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛


Rava said a different explanation: The baraita is elucidating the mishna, which mentions these cities. The baraita is teaching that the Gamla referred to in the mishna is the one in the Galilee, to the exclusion of any Gamla found in other lands, i.e., Judea and Transjordan. Likewise, Gedod is the one in Transjordan, to the exclusion of Gedod in other lands, Judea and the Galilee. In the same vein, 岣did, Ono, and Jerusalem are specifically the cities in Judea known by those names. With regard to those other cities mentioned in the mishna, e.g., Yodfat, since there are no cities in other lands with similar names, it was not necessary for the tanna of the baraita to state them.


讜讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诪讬 诪讬讞诇讟 讘讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 注砖专讛 讚讘专讬诐 谞讗诪专讜 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讘讬转 讞诇讜讟 讘讛


The Gemara asks: And is ownership of a house in Jerusalem transferred in perpetuity to the buyer after one year, in the manner of houses of walled cities? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, one of which is that ownership of a house situated in Jerusalem is not transferred in perpetuity one year after its sale?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讜诇讗 讻讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讗讬诇讜 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讛讘讬转 讞诇讜讟 讘讛 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 讛讘讬转 讞诇讜讟 讘讛谉 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转专讬 拽讚砖 讛讜讜 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讛讜讜


Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The tanna means that ownership of a house may be transferred in perpetuity in any city that is like Jerusalem, i.e., which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, but the halakha with regard to such a city is not like Jerusalem itself, since while with regard to Jerusalem, ownership of a house inside it is not transferred in perpetuity, here, with regard to cities similar to Jerusalem, a house in them may be transferred in perpetuity to the buyer. Rav Ashi said a different answer: Didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef say in resolution of another difficulty: There were two places called Kadesh? Here, too, one can say that there were two places called Jerusalem in Judea, and the mishna is referring to the one where ownership of houses transfers in perpetuity.


转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐 讗讘诇 专讗砖讜谞讜转 讘讟诇讜 诪砖讘讟诇讛 拽讚讜砖转 讛讗专抓 拽住讘专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗


搂 With regard to the cities listed in the mishna, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: Why did the Sages count specifically these cities as those walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? They counted them because when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and sanctified them; but the sanctity of the first walled cities was nullified when the sanctity of the land was nullified and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua consecrated it for its time, until the exile, but did not consecrate Eretz Yisrael forever.


讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜讻讬 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讛讬讜 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖砖讬诐 注讬专 讻诇 讞讘诇 讗专讙讘 讻诇 讗诇讛 注专讬诐 讘爪专讜转 讗诇讗 诇诪讛 诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讻砖注诇讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 诪爪讗讜 讗诇讜 讜拽讬讚砖讜诐 拽讬讚砖讜诐 讛讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇拽讚讜砖讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讗讜诐


The Gemara asks: But raise a contradiction from another baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: And were these cities enumerated in the mishna the only walled cities from the days of Joshua? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭here was not a city that we took not from them; sixty cities, all the region of Argob鈥ll these cities were fortified with high walls, gates, and bars鈥 (Deuteronomy 3:4鈥5)? Rather, why did the Sages specifically count these cities? They counted them because when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and sanctified them. The Gemara interjects: Can the baraita really mean that they sanctified them? But we say later in the same baraita that it is not necessary to sanctify them. Rather, the baraita means that they found these cities and counted them in the mishna.


讜诇讗 讗诇讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讻诇 砖转注诇讛 诇讱 诪住讜专转 讘讬讚讱 诪讗讘讜转讬讱 砖诪讜拽驻转 讞讜诪讛 诪讬诪讜转 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 讛诇诇讜 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗


The baraita continues: And not only these; rather, with regard to any city for which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it is surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot of walled cities are observed in it, due to the fact that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time and consecrated it forever. Evidently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal.


讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗诪专讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讜讗 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜讛讬讛 诇讜 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉


The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that this is a dispute between two tanna鈥檌m, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. And if you wish, say instead that one of the baraitot, specifically the second one, was actually said by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: 鈥淲hich has [lo] a wall,鈥 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.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 拽讬讚砖讛 诇砖注转讛 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 诇注转讬讚 诇讘讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注砖讜 讘谞讬 讛讙讜诇讛 讛砖讘讬诐 诪谉 讛砖讘讬 住讻讜转 讜讬砖讘讜 讘住讻讜转 讻讬 诇讗 注砖讜 诪讬诪讬 讬砖讜注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讻谉 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 讜转讛讬 砖诪讞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讗讚 讗驻砖专 讘讗 讚讜讚 讜诇讗 注砖讜 住讜讻讜转 注讚 砖讘讗 注讝专讗


搂 The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael consecrated it for its time, but did not consecrate it forever? As it is taught in a baraita: It is written with regard to the return from Babylonia: 鈥淎nd all the congregation of those that were coming back out of the captivity made sukkot, and dwelt in sukkot, for since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, unto that day the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great joy鈥 (Nehemiah 8:17). Now, is it possible that King David came and the Jews in his time and all subsequent generations did not make sukkot, until Ezra came?


讗诇讗 诪拽讬砖 讘讬讗转诐 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 诇讘讬讗转诐 讘讬诪讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讛 讘讬讗转诐 讘讬诪讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讜拽讚砖讜 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 讘讬讗转谉 讘讬诪讬 注讝专讗 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讜拽讚砖讜 注专讬 讞讜诪讛


Rather, when the verse states: 鈥淔or since the days of Joshua,鈥 it means to compare their arrival in Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra to their arrival in the days of Joshua: Just as with regard to their arrival in the days of Joshua, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities, so too, with regard to their arrival in the days of Ezra, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and they sanctified walled cities.


讜讗讜诪专 讜讛讘讬讗讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诇 讛讗专抓 讗砖专 讬专砖讜 讗讘转讬讱 讜讬专砖转讛 诪拽讬砖 讬专讜砖转讱 诇讬专讜砖转 讗讘讜转讬讱 诪讛 讬专讜砖转 讗讘讜转讬讱 讘讞讬讚讜砖 讻诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗祝 讬专讜砖转讱 讘讞讬讚讜砖 讻诇 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜


And so it says with regard to the return of the Jews from exile: 鈥淎nd the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it鈥 (Deuteronomy 30:5). The verse compares your possession to the possession of your fathers: Just as the possession of your fathers came with the renewal of all these matters, i.e., the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year, and terumot and tithes, so too your possession comes with the renewal of all these matters, as the initial consecration was nullified.


讜讗讬讚讱 讚讘注讬 专讞诪讬 注诇 讬爪专 讚注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讘讟诇讬讛 讜讗讙讬谉 讝讻讜转讗 注诇讬讬讛讜 讻讬 住讜讻讛


The Gemara asks: And the tanna who maintains the other opinion, that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal, how does he interpret the verse in Nehemiah? The Gemara answers that when the verse states: 鈥淔or since the days of Joshua,鈥 this is not referring to actual sukkot; rather, the verse means that Ezra prayed for mercy with regard to the evil inclination of idol worship and nullified it, and the merit of his prayer protected them like a sukka.


讜讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗 拽驻讬讚 拽专讗 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚讬讛讜砖注 讚讘讻诇 讚讜讻转讗 讻转讬讘 讬讛讜砖注 讜讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讬砖讜注 讘砖诇诪讗 诪砖讛 诇讗 讘注讗 专讞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讝讻讜转讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诇讗 讬讛讜砖注 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讝讻讜转讗 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诇讬讘注讬 专讞诪讬


The Gemara adds: And this is the reason that the verse criticizes Joshua for not praying for the removal of this inclination himself. How is this criticism indicated in the verse? As in every other place in the Bible, his name is written as: Yehoshua, and here it is written: Yeshua. The Gemara explains why the verse singles out Joshua for criticism: Granted, Moses, the first leader of the Jewish people, did not pray for mercy that this inclination should be removed, as at the time there was no merit of Eretz Yisrael; but Joshua, who had the merit of Eretz Yisrael, why didn鈥檛 he pray for mercy that this inclination should be nullified?


讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讬专砖讜 讗讘转讬讱 讜讬专砖转讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讬专砖讜 讗讘讜转讬讱 讬专砖转 讗转


The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion that the initial consecration was not nullified, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淲hich your fathers possessed and you shall possess it鈥? This verse apparently indicates that it was necessary to sanctify Eretz Yisrael a second time. The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, this is what the verse is saying: Since your fathers possessed the land, you too possess it, and there is no need to sanctify it again.


讜诪讬 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讛砖转讗 诪砖讙诇讜 砖讘讟 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖讘讟 讙讚 讜讞爪讬 砖讘讟 诪谞砖讛 讘讟诇讜 讬讜讘诇讜转 注讝专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻诇 讛拽讛诇 讻讗讞讚 讗专讘注 专讘讜讗 讗诇驻讬诐 讜砖砖 诪讗讜转 讜砖砖讬诐 讛讜讛 诪谞讬


The baraita cited earlier teaches that the Jews began counting the Jubilee Year upon their return from exile. The Gemara asks: But did they count Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years in the days of Ezra? Now, if from the time that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled (see I聽Chronicles 5:26) the counting of Jubilee Years was nullified, despite the fact that a majority of Jews lived in Eretz Yisrael, then in the time of Ezra, about which it is written: 鈥淭he whole congregation together was 42,360鈥 (Ezra 2:64), would they have counted Jubilee Years?


讚转谞讬讗 诪砖讙诇讜 砖讘讟 专讗讜讘谉 讜砖讘讟 讙讚 讜讞爪讬 砖讘讟 讛诪谞砖讛 讘讟诇讜 讬讜讘诇讜转 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽专讗转诐 讚专讜专 讘讗专抓 诇讻诇 讬砖讘讬讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讻诇 讬讜砖讘讬讛 注诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讙诇讜 诪拽爪转谉


As it is taught in a baraita: From the time that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled, the counting of Jubilee Years was nullified, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a Jubilee for you鈥 (Leviticus 25:10), indicating that the halakhot of the Jubilee Year apply only when all its inhabitants are in Eretz Yisrael, and not when some of them have been exiled.


讬讻讜诇 讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讜讛谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉 砖讘讟 讘谞讬诪讬谉 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讜砖讘讟 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讘谞讬诪讬谉 讬讛讗 讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻诇 讬砖讘讬讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讬讜砖讘讬讛 讻转讬拽讜谞谉 讜诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛谉 诪注讜专讘讬谉


The baraita continues: One might have thought that if all the Jews were living in Eretz Yisrael, but they are intermingled, e.g., the tribe of Benjamin is living in the portion of the tribe of Judah, and the tribe of Judah in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin, that the Jubilee Year should be in effect. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭o all its inhabitants,鈥 which teaches that the Jubilee Year applies only when its inhabitants are living according to their proper arrangment, and not when they are intermingled. How, then, could those who returned from exile have counted the Jubilee Years?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讜 讬讜讘诇讜转 诇拽讚砖 砖诪讬讟讬谉


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: They counted Jubilee Years in order to sanctify Sabbatical Years. That is, at the end of every seven cycles of the Sabbatical Year they would count the fiftieth year as a Jubilee Year, so that the next Sabbatical cycle would begin in its proper time, in the fifty-first year. Nevertheless, the halakhot of the Jubilee Year were not in effect.


Scroll To Top