Arakhin 33

הניחא לרבנן דאמרי שנת חמשים אינה מן המנין אלא לרבי יהודה דאמר שנת חמשים עולה לכאן ולכאן למה לי בשמיטין סגיא הא ודאי דלא כרבי יהודה

The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the Rabbis, who say that the fiftieth year is not included in the counting of the cycle of Sabbatical Years. It was therefore necessary to count the Jubilee Year. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted for here and for there, i.e., it is both the fiftieth year of the previous cycle and the first year of the subsequent cycle, why do I need for them to count the Jubilee Years? If the Jubilee Year is not in effect, then it is enough to count the Sabbatical Years. The Gemara explains: That baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

ולא מנו שמיטין ויובלות והכתיב מקץ שבע שנים תשלחו איש את אחיו העברי אשר ימכר לך

The Gemara asks: And did they not count Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years once the tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled? But isn’t it written that Jeremiah, who lived many years later, said: “At the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that has been sold unto you, and has served you six years, you shall let him go free from you; but your fathers did not listen unto Me, nor inclined their ear” (Jeremiah 34:14)?

והוינן בהו מקץ שבע שנים והכתיב ועבדך שש שנים ואמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שש לנמכר ושבע לנרצע

The Gemara continues: And we discussed this verse: Why does it state: “At the end of seven years you shall let go every man”? But isn’t it written in the same verse: “And has served you six years”? And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse is referring to two separate individuals. The phrase “and has served you six years” is referring to a typical Hebrew slave who was sold, who goes free after six years (see Exodus 21:2), and the phrase “at the end of seven years” is referring to a slave whose ear was pierced with an awl to extend his tenure. Such an individual remains a slave until the Jubilee Year, even if that is the following year, i.e., the end of the seventh year. If so, the verse indicates that the Jubilee Year was in effect in the times of Jeremiah, even though the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled.

ההוא בתוכחה כתיב וקאמר נביא השלחתם והכתיב וישמעו וישלחו

The Gemara answers: That verse was not stated by Jeremiah in the form of a command; rather, it is written in the form of reproof. That is, the prophet Jeremiah is saying to the Jewish people: Did you send free the pierced slaves when the Jubilee Year was observed? The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written there: “And they listened and let them go” (Jeremiah 34:10)? Evidently, the entire passage is referring to matters occurring in the present.

אלא אמר רבי יוחנן ירמיה החזירן ויאשיה בן אמון מלך עליהן ומנא לן דהדור דכתיב כי המוכר אל הממכר לא ישוב אפשר יובל בטל ונביא מתנבא עליו שיבטל אלא מלמד שהחזירן ירמיה

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Indeed, the Jubilee Year was not in effect once the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled. But Jeremiah brought back all the exiled tribes, and Josiah, son of Amon, ruled over them. And from where do we derive that Jeremiah brought them back? As it is written: “For the seller shall not return to that which he has sold” (Ezekiel 7:13). Ezekiel prophesied that there will come a time when fields will not be returned to the owners in the Jubilee Year. Now, is it possible that the Jubilee Year had already been nullified and yet the prophet is prophesying that it will be annulled in the future? Rather, this teaches that Jeremiah brought back the exiled tribes.

ומנלן דיאשיה מלך עליהן דכתיב ויאמר מה הציון הלז אשר אני ראה ויאמרו אליו אנשי העיר הקבר איש האלהים אשר בא מיהודה ויקרא את הדברים על המזבח בית אל

And from where do we derive that Josiah ruled over all the ten tribes exiled by Assyria? As it is written: “And as Josiah turned himself, then he spied the sepulchres…then he said: What monument is that which I see? And the men of the city told him: It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel” (II Kings 23:16–17).

וכי מה טיבו של יאשיהו בבית אל אלא כשהחזירן ירמיהו יאשיהו מלך עליהם רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מהכא גם יהודה שת קציר לך בשובי שבות עמי

Now, what connection does Josiah, king of Judah, have with the altar at Bethel, a city in the kingdom of Israel? Rather, this indicates that when Jeremiah brought back the ten tribes, Josiah ruled over them. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The fact that the tribes returned may be derived from here: “Also, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would return the captivity of My people” (Hosea 6:11). That is, when the ten tribes will return from their captivity, a king of Judah will rule over them.

מתני׳ בתי החצרים נותנין להם כח יפה שבבתי ערי חומה וכח יפה שבשדות ונגאלין מיד וכל שנים עשר חדש כבתים ויוצאין ביובל ובגרעון כסף כשדות

MISHNA With regard to the houses of the unwalled courtyards mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 25:31), i.e., houses in villages that are not surrounded by walls, one accords them the exceptional provisions that apply to houses of walled cities and the exceptional provisions that apply to fields. Therefore, they are redeemed immediately and for the entire twelve months following the sale, like in the sale of houses of walled cities, and not like fields, which may be redeemed only after two years. And they leave the possession of the buyer during the Jubilee Year or with a per annum deduction from the money of the sale price, like the sale of fields. By contrast, houses of walled cities become the possession of the buyer in perpetuity after one year, and if they are redeemed within the year, one pays the full sale price.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן על שדה הארץ יחשב הקישו הכתוב לשדה אחוזה מה שדה אחוזה יוצא ביובל ובגרעון כסף אף בתי החצרים יוצאין ביובל ובגרעון כסף

GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: “But the houses of the courtyards that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country; they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:31). The verse juxtaposed houses of unwalled courtyards to an ancestral field: Just as an ancestral field leaves the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year or with a per annum deduction from the money of the sale price, so too, houses of the unwalled courtyards leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year or with the per annum deduction from the money of the sale price.

אי מה שדה אחוזה אינה נגאלת בפחות משתי שנים אף בתי החצרים אינם נגאלים פחות משתי שנים תלמוד לומר גאלה תהיה לו מיד הואיל ונתת להם כח יפה שבשדות וכח שדה שבבתים יכול לא יצאו ביובל תלמוד לומר וביבל יצא

The baraita continues: If one derives the halakha from an ancestral field, then just as an ancestral field may not be redeemed less than two years after its sale, so too, houses of the unwalled courtyards may not be redeemed less than two years after their sale. Therefore, the verse states: “They may be redeemed,” indicating that they may be redeemed immediately. The baraita continues: Since you have accorded houses of the unwalled courtyards the exceptional provisions that apply to fields and the exceptional provisions that apply to the houses of walled cities, one might have thought that they do not leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse states: “And they shall go out in the Jubilee.”

מאי קאמר אמר רב הונא לא נצרכא אלא למקדיש בית בבתי החצרים וגאלו אחר מיד הקדש ופגע בו יובל בשנה שניה

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the baraita saying in the last clause, i.e., why might one think that such houses do not leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year? After all, ancestral fields leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year, and the tanna teaches that the exceptional provisions of an ancestral field apply to houses in unwalled courtyards. Rav Huna said: The verse is necessary only for the case of one who consecrates a house among the houses of the unwalled courtyards, and another redeemed it from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the Jubilee Year arrived in the second year after its redemption.

למאי מדמית ליה אי לבתי ערי חומה מדמית ליה איחליט ליה ללוקח אי לשדה אחוזה מדמית לכהנים נפקא להכי אצטריך וביבל יצא

Rav Huna elaborates: To what will you compare this case? If you compare this house to houses of walled cities that were consecrated and redeemed by another, then the house belongs to the buyer in perpetuity by the end of the first year (see 31b). If you compare it to an ancestral field that was consecrated and redeemed by another, it leaves to the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year (see 25a). For this reason it was necessary for the verse to state: “And they shall go out in the Jubilee,” to teach that houses in unwalled courtyards which were consecrated and redeemed by another are returned to their owners in the Jubilee Year.

מתקיף לה רב זעירא מאי איריא גאלו אחר אפילו לא גאלו נמי אמר ליה אביי שלא יאמרו הקדש יוצא בלא פדיון

Rav Zeira objects to this: Why is it necessary to interpret this verse as referring specifically to a case where another redeemed the house from the Temple treasury? Even if another did not redeem it, the house should also be returned to its owner in the Jubilee Year, as the verse states simply: “And they shall go out in the Jubilee.” Abaye said to Rav Zeira: An unredeemed house is not returned to its owners in the Jubilee Year, so that people will not say that consecrated property can leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption.

מנלן מבן לוי מה בן לוי שיפה כחו בממכרו הורע כחו בהקדשו ישראל שהורע כחו בממכרו אין דין שהורע כחו בהקדשו

The Gemara adds: And from where do we derive that consecrated property does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption? We derive it from the halakha with regard to a Levite: And what, if with regard to a Levite, whose power is enhanced with regard to his sale, as a Levite may always redeem a field or house that he sold (see mishna in 33b), his power is diminished with regard to his consecration, as a field that he consecrated does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury until he redeems it; then with regard to an Israelite, whose power is diminished with regard to his sale, since if he sells an ancestral field he may not redeem it for the first two years, and he may redeem a house of a walled city only within one year of the sale, is it not logical that his power is diminished with regard to his consecration and that if he consecrated a house of an unwalled courtyard he must redeem it from the Temple treasury before it enters his possession?

והתם מנלן דתניא ויצא ממכר שומע אני אפילו עבדיו מטלטליו ושטריו תלמוד לומר בית ועיר אחזתו

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to a Levite, from where do we derive that his consecrated property does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if a man purchases from the Levites, the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall go out during the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:33). From the phrase “that was sold…shall go out” I would derive that any item sold by a Levite returns to him in the Jubilee Year, even his slaves, movable property, and promissory notes. Therefore, the verse states: “House…in the city of his possession,” which teaches that these items do not return to the Levite without redemption.

מה תלמוד לומר ממכר ממכריו יוצא בחנם ואין הקדש יוצא בחנם אלא בפדיון

The baraita continues: What is the meaning when the verse states: “That was sold”? The verse teaches that a house or field that was sold by a Levite leaves the possession of the buyer and enters the Levite’s possession for free in the Jubilee Year, but the consecration of a Levite does not leave for free in the Jubilee Year; rather, it leaves only with redemption.

ופליגא דרבי אושעיא דאמר רבי אושעיא הכל היו בכלל ונתן הכסף וקם לו

The Gemara notes: And Rav Huna, who says that a house in an unwalled courtyard that was consecrated and subsequently redeemed by another returns to the original owner in the Jubilee Year, disagrees with Rabbi Oshaya. As Rabbi Oshaya says: All items were included in the command: And he will give the money and it will be assured to him (see Leviticus 27:19), i.e., one who redeems an item from the Temple treasury becomes its owner in all regards.

כשפרט הכתוב בשדה אחוזה והיה השדה בצאתו ביבל קדש לה׳ שדה הוא דפרק ליה ונפקא לכהנים אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי

When the verse specified with regard to an ancestral field: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field dedicated; his ancestral field shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), one derives that it is only with regard to a field that one can redeem it and yet it leaves the possession of the Temple treasury to enter the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year. But with regard to these houses in unwalled courtyards that were consecrated and redeemed by another, they remain in their current state, i.e., in the possession of the one who redeemed them.

וביבל יצא למה לי אמר רב פפא לא נצרכא אלא למוכר בית בבתי החצרים ופגע בו יובל בשנה שניה

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Oshaya, why do I need the phrase “and they shall go out in the Jubilee”? Rav Pappa said: It is necessary only for the case of one who sells a house among the houses of the unwalled courtyards and the Jubilee Year arrived in the second year. The verse indicates that the house is nevertheless returned to the seller.

למאי מדמית ליה אי לבתי ערי חומה מדמית ליה איחלט ליה ללוקח אי לשדה אחוזה מדמית ליה השלמה בעי להכי אצטריך וביבל יצא

Rav Pappa elaborates: To what will you compare this case? If you compare this case to one of the houses of walled cities that was sold, then the house belongs to the buyer in perpetuity at the end of the first year. And if you compare it to the case of an ancestral field that was sold, then it requires completion of another year after the Jubilee Year, as taught in a baraita cited earlier (29b): If the buyer consumed an ancestral field’s produce for one year before the Jubilee Year, he completes another year after the Jubilee Year. For this reason it was necessary for the verse to state: “And they shall go out in the Jubilee,” to teach that in such a case the house of an unwalled courtyard returns to the possession of the original owner.

תניא כוותיה דרב הונא ותיובתא דרבי אושעיא המקדיש בית בבתי החצרים הרי זה גואל מיד וגואלו לעולם גאלו אחר מיד הקדש הגיע יובל ולא נגאל חוזר לבעלים ביובל

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, and this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to one who consecrates a house among the houses of unwalled courtyards, this individual may redeem the house immediately and he may redeem it always. If another individual redeemed it from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the original owner, the house returns to the owner in the Jubilee Year.

מתני׳ ואלו הן בתי החצרים שני חצרים של שני בתים אף על פי שמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון הרי הן כבתי חצרים

MISHNA And these are the houses of the unwalled courtyards whose halakha was taught in the previous mishna: Any city in which there are two courtyards each containing two houses, although it is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, their halakhic status is like that of the houses of the unwalled courtyards.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן ממשמע שנאמר בתי החצרים איני יודע שאין להם חומה מה תלמוד לומר אשר אין להם חומה אף על פי שיש להם חומה כמי שאין להם חומה וכמה בתים שנים חצירות שנים שתי חצירות של שני בתים

GEMARA The Sages taught: By inference from that which is stated: “The houses of the courtyards” (Leviticus 25:31), do I not know that they have no wall around them? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Which have no wall”? It means that there are certain places that even though they have a wall, they are considered like places that do not have a wall. And how many, i.e., what is considered such a place? The term “houses” indicates a minimum of two, and the term “courtyards” likewise indicates a minimum of two. Therefore, if a city has only two courtyards each containing two houses, its houses are considered like the houses of the unwalled courtyards.

ואימא בית וחצר אם כן ליכתוב רחמנא חצרים וכי תימא אי כתב רחמנא חצרים חצר בלא בית משמע ההוא קרפף איקרי

The Gemara objects: But you can say that the phrase: Houses of the courtyards, means one house and one courtyard, i.e., one house in each courtyard. Consequently, if each courtyard contains two houses, the city should be considered like a walled city. The Gemara explains: If so, let the Merciful One write: “Courtyards,” without mentioning houses, as a courtyard must contain at least one house. And if you would say: If the Merciful One had written only: “Courtyards,” then one might mistakenly have concluded that the verse indicates a courtyard without a house and that if the courtyard contains a house then the city is considered walled, one could not have arrived at that conclusion, since such an area is called an enclosure [karpef ], not a courtyard.

מתני׳ ישראל שירש אבי אמו לוי אינו גואל כסדר הזה וכן לוי שירש את אבי אמו ישראל אינו גואל כסדר הזה

MISHNA An Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who was a Levite does not redeem the house in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot; rather, if he sold the inherited house, he may redeem it always, like a Levite. And likewise, a Levite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who was an Israelite does not redeem the house in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot.

שנאמר כי בתי ערי הלוים הוא אחזתם עד שיהא לוי וערי הלוים דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים אין דברים הללו אמורים אלא בערי הלוים

The mishna provides the source for these halakhot: As it is stated: “And if a man purchases from the Levites, the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall go out during the Jubilee Year; as the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 25:33). The verse indicates that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply unless the one selling the house will be a Levite and the house is located in the cities of the Levites. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated only with regard to a house in the cities of the Levites, even if the owner was not a Levite.

גמ׳ ואלא כמאן כבן לוי והדר תני עד שיהא לוי וערי הלוים

GEMARA The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if an Israelite sold a house in a walled city that he inherited from his mother’s father who was a Levite, he does not redeem it in accordance with the procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot. The Gemara asks: Rather, like whom does he redeem it? He redeems it like a Levite. But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then teaches that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply unless the one selling the house will be a Levite and the house is located in the cities of the Levites. If so, an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who is a Levite should redeem it in the manner of an Israelite.

אימא אינו גואל אלא כסדר הזה עד שיהא לוי וערי הלוים דברי רבי

The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means that an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who was a Levite redeems that house only in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot, i.e., he has only one year to redeem it, after which the house becomes the possession of the buyer in perpetuity. And this is always the halakha unless the one selling the house will be a Levite and the house is located in the cities of the Levites, in which case he can always redeem it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

בשלמא ערי הלוים דכתיב כי בתי ערי הלוים אלא לוי מנלן דכתיב ואשר יגאל מן הלוים

The Gemara asks: Granted, the house must be from the cities of the Levites, as it is written: “As the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession” (Leviticus 25:33). But from where do we derive that the one selling the house must also be a Levite for these halakhot to apply? The Gemara responds: As it is written in the same verse: “And if a man purchases from the Levites…shall go out during the Jubilee Year.” The verse is referring specifically to a Levite who sells his house.

תניא ואשר יגאל מן הלוים יכול לוי מישראל יגאל שזה יפה כחו וזה הורע כחו אבל לוי מלוי לא שזה יפה כחו וזה יפה כחו תלמוד לומר מן הלוים

The Gemara adds that it is likewise taught in a baraita: Given that the verse already states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32), why does the next verse state: “And if a man purchases from the Levites…shall go out during the Jubilee Year”?It is because one might have thought: A Levite may always redeem from an Israelite the house that he sold, as this Levite’s power was enhanced, in that he can redeem always, and that Israelite’s power was diminished, as he may redeem only within one year. But a Levite may not always redeem from another Levite, as this one’s power was enhanced and that one’s power was equally enhanced. Rather, the Levite may redeem only within one year of the sale. Therefore, the verse states: “And if a man purchases from the Levites,” which literally means: And if a man redeems from the Levites, which teaches that even a Levite who redeems a house purchased by another Levite can always redeem the house.

מן הלוים ולא כל הלוים פרט לבן לוי ממזר ונתין

The baraita continues: When the verse states: “From the Levites,” this teaches that some Levites may always redeem their houses, but not all the Levites. Excluded is a Levite who is a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzer], or a Gibeonite, i.e., his mother is from the Gibeonites, as these are disqualified from entering the congregation of the Jewish people (see Yevamot 78a). If such a Levite inherited from his father and sold a house from the cities of the Levites, he does not redeem it as a Levite.

וחכמים אומרים אין דברים הללו אמורים אלא בערי הלוים אבל עד שיהא לוי לא אמרינן

The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated only with regard to a house in the cities of the Levites, even if the owner was not a Levite. The Gemara explains: But according to the Rabbis, we do not say that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply unless the one selling the house will be a Levite. Rather, the Rabbis hold that anyone who inherits a portion in a Levite city may redeem that portion as a Levite, even if he himself is not a Levite.

מתני׳ אין עושין שדה מגרש ולא מגרש שדה ולא מגרש עיר ולא עיר מגרש

MISHNA: The Levites received two thousand cubits surrounding their cities, one thousand cubits of empty lots and one thousand cubits for fields and vineyards. One may neither render a field an empty lot nor an empty lot a field. Similarly, one may neither incorporate an empty lot into a city nor render part of a city an empty lot.

אמר רבי אלעזר במה דברים אמורים בערי הלוים אבל בערי ישראל עושין שדה מגרש ולא מגרש שדה מגרש עיר ולא עיר מגרש שלא יחריבו את ערי ישראל הכהנים והלוים מוכרין לעולם וגואלין לעולם שנאמר גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים

Rabbi Elazar said: In what case is this statement said? It applies in the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites one may render a field an empty lot but not an empty lot a field, and one may incorporate an empty lot into a city but not render part of a city an empty lot, in order to ensure that they will not thereby destroy the cities of Israel. The priests and the Levites may sell their fields and houses always and may redeem them always, as it is stated: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32). Priests are also members of the tribe of Levi.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אלעזר במה דברים אמורים בערי הלוים אבל בערי ישראל עושין וכו׳ דכולי עלמא מיהא בדלוים לא משנינן מנא הני מילי

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar said: In what case is this statement said? It is in the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites one may render a field an empty lot but not an empty lot a field, and one may incorporate an empty lot into a city but not render part of a city an empty lot, in order to ensure that they will not thereby destroy the cities of Israel. The Gemara asks: In any event, everyone agrees that in the cities of the Levites one may not change a field into an empty lot or an empty lot into a city. From where are these matters derived?

אמר רבי אלעזר דאמר קרא ושדה מגרש עריהם לא ימכר מאי לא ימכר אילימא לא ימכר כלל והא מדכתיב גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים מכלל דמזבני אלא מאי לא ימכר לא ישנה

Rabbi Elazar said: As the verse states: “But the fields of the open land about their cities may not be sold” (Leviticus 25:34). What is the meaning of the phrase “may not be sold”? If we say it means that such fields may not be sold at all, that cannot be correct, as from the fact that it is written: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32), one learns by inference that their fields may be sold. Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase “may not be sold”? It means that a field, an empty lot, or a city may not be changed from its current status.

הכהנים והלוים מוכרין לעולם וגואלין לעולם תנו רבנן גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר במספר שני תבואת ימכר לך יכול אף זה כן תלמוד לומר גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים

§ The mishna teaches: The priests and the Levites may sell their fields and houses always and may redeem them always. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught: Why must the verse state: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32)? Since it is stated with regard to the ancestral field of an Israelite: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15), from which it is derived that one cannot redeem an ancestral field less than two years after its sale, one might have thought that this should also be so with regard to this Levite who sold his field. Therefore, the verse states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,” which teaches that a Levite may redeem his field immediately.

לפי שנאמר והיה השדה בצאתו ביבל קדש לה׳ יכול אף זה כן תלמוד לומר גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים

Furthermore, since it is stated: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field dedicated; his ancestral field shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), one might have thought that this should also be so with regard to this Levite who consecrated his field. Therefore, the verse states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,” which teaches that the field of a Levite is not transferred to the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year; rather, the Levite may always redeem it from the Temple treasury.

לפי שנאמר וקם הבית אשר בעיר אשר לו חומה לצמיתת יכול אף זה כן תלמוד לומר גאלת עולם תהיה ללוים

Additionally, since it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30), one might have thought that this should also be so with regard to this Levite who sold his house in a walled city. Therefore, the verse states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,” indicating that the Levite may always redeem his house.

בשלמא הני תרתי לחיי אלא בתי ערי חומה ללוים מי אית להו והתניא ערים הללו אין עושין אותן לא כפרים קטנים ולא כרכים גדולים אלא עיירות בינוניות

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to these first two halakhot, which deal with the field of a Levite, it is well. But with regard to the last halakha, why is it necessary for the verse to exclude the houses of Levites? Do Levites have houses of walled cities? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to these cities given to the Levites, one does not establish them, neither in small villages nor in large cities; rather, they must be intermediate towns, which are not surrounded by walls.

אמר רב כהנא לא קשיא כאן שהוקף ולבסוף ישב כאן שישב ולבסוף הוקף

Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita that states that the cities of the Levites were not surrounded by walls is referring to a city that was initially surrounded by a wall and was ultimately settled. There, the baraita that states that Levites do have houses of walled cities is referring to an intermediate town that was first settled by the Levites and was ultimately surrounded by a wall in the times of Joshua.

וכי האי גוונא מי הויא חומה והתניא ואיש כי ימכר בית מושב עיר חומה שהוקף ולבסוף ישב ולא שישב ולבסוף הוקף

The Gemara asks: And in a case like this, where the city was first settled and only then surrounded by a wall, is it considered a wall to the extent that the houses inside the city are considered in a walled city? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29). This is referring to a city that was initially surrounded by a wall and was ultimately settled, and not to a city that was first settled and was ultimately surrounded by a wall.

יכול אפילו הקיפוה ישראל נאמר כאן חומה ונאמר להלן חומה מה להלן גוים אף כאן גוים

The baraita continues: One might have thought that it is considered a walled city even if Jews surrounded it with a wall and only then built houses inside it. Therefore, it is stated here: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city,” and it is stated below, with regard to the conquest of the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan: “All these were fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:5). Just as below, the verse is referring to cities whose surrounding walls were constructed by gentiles, so too here, the verse is referring only to cities whose walls were constructed by gentiles.

יכול אפילו הקיפוה גוים לאחר מכן נאמר להלן חומה ונאמר כאן חומה מה להלן גוים קודם לכן אף כאן גוים קודם לכן

The baraita continues: One might have thought that even if gentiles surrounded the city with a wall after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, it should be considered a walled city. Therefore, it is stated below, with regard to the conquest of the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, “walls,” and it is stated here “walled.” Just as below, the surrounding walls of the cities were constructed by gentiles before the Jews conquered the land, so too here, the verse is referring to cities whose walls were constructed by gentiles before the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. This baraita apparently contradicts the resolution suggested by Rav Kahana, as a city that was first settled and only then surrounded by a wall is not included in the halakhot of houses in walled cities.

תרגמה רב יוסף בריה דרב סלא חסידא קמיה דרב פפא כגון שנפלו להן

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Sala Ḥasida, interpreted the baraita before Rav Pappa: Actually, the first baraita is referring to a city that was initially surrounded by a wall and then settled by Levites. And as for the baraita that teaches that Levite cities may not be surrounded by a wall, it is nevertheless possible that a Levite city was initially surrounded by a wall in a case where, when Eretz Yisrael was divided among the tribes of Israel, walled cities fell by lottery to the Levites,