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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 19, 2019 | 讟状讝 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Arakhin 33

What are the laws regarding non walled cities? How are the laws different regarding levites and preists?


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

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘砖诪讬讟讬谉 住讙讬讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

讜诇讗 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪拽抓 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 转砖诇讞讜 讗讬砖 讗转 讗讞讬讜 讛注讘专讬 讗砖专 讬诪讻专 诇讱

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鈥檛 it written that Jeremiah, who lived many years later, said: 鈥淎t 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鈥 (Jeremiah 34:14)?

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛讜 诪拽抓 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖砖 诇谞诪讻专 讜砖讘注 诇谞专爪注

The Gemara continues: And we discussed this verse: Why does it state: 鈥淎t the end of seven years you shall let go every man鈥? But isn鈥檛 it written in the same verse: 鈥淎nd has served you six years鈥? And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The verse is referring to two separate individuals. The phrase 鈥渁nd has served you six years鈥 is referring to a typical Hebrew slave who was sold, who goes free after six years (see Exodus 21:2), and the phrase 鈥渁t the end of seven years鈥 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.

讛讛讜讗 讘转讜讻讞讛 讻转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 谞讘讬讗 讛砖诇讞转诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诪注讜 讜讬砖诇讞讜

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鈥檛 it written there: 鈥淎nd they listened and let them go鈥 (Jeremiah 34:10)? Evidently, the entire passage is referring to matters occurring in the present.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬专诪讬讛 讛讞讝讬专谉 讜讬讗砖讬讛 讘谉 讗诪讜谉 诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讛讚讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛诪讜讻专 讗诇 讛诪诪讻专 诇讗 讬砖讜讘 讗驻砖专 讬讜讘诇 讘讟诇 讜谞讘讬讗 诪转谞讘讗 注诇讬讜 砖讬讘讟诇 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讞讝讬专谉 讬专诪讬讛

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淔or the seller shall not return to that which he has sold鈥 (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.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讬讗砖讬讛 诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诪讛 讛爪讬讜谉 讛诇讝 讗砖专 讗谞讬 专讗讛 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗诇讬讜 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讛拽讘专 讗讬砖 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗砖专 讘讗 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬拽专讗 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讬转 讗诇

And from where do we derive that Josiah ruled over all the ten tribes exiled by Assyria? As it is written: 鈥淎nd as Josiah turned himself, then he spied the sepulchres鈥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鈥 (II聽Kings 23:16鈥17).

讜讻讬 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讘讘讬转 讗诇 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讞讝讬专谉 讬专诪讬讛讜 讬讗砖讬讛讜 诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讙诐 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转 拽爪讬专 诇讱 讘砖讜讘讬 砖讘讜转 注诪讬

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The fact that the tribes returned may be derived from here: 鈥淎lso, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would return the captivity of My people鈥 (Hosea 6:11). That is, when the ten tribes will return from their captivity, a king of Judah will rule over them.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讞 讬驻讛 砖讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讻讞 讬驻讛 砖讘砖讚讜转 讜谞讙讗诇讬谉 诪讬讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻讘转讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讻砖讚讜转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 砖讚讛 讛讗专抓 讬讞砖讘 讛拽讬砖讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬讜爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讗祝 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝

GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讗讬 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讗讬谞诐 谞讙讗诇讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞转转 诇讛诐 讻讞 讬驻讛 砖讘砖讚讜转 讜讻讞 砖讚讛 砖讘讘转讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讘讬讜讘诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗

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: 鈥淭hey may be redeemed,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee.鈥

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讜讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讘砖谞讛 砖谞讬讛

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.

诇诪讗讬 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讞诇讬讟 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 讗讬 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗

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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee,鈥 to teach that houses in unwalled courtyards which were consecrated and redeemed by another are returned to their owners in the Jubilee Year.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝注讬专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讙讗诇讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讗 驻讚讬讜谉

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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee.鈥 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.

诪谞诇谉 诪讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘诪诪讻专讜 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘诪诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 讚讬谉 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜

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?

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬爪讗 诪诪讻专 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚讬讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 讜砖讟专讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 讜注讬专 讗讞讝转讜

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 25:33). From the phrase 鈥渢hat was sold鈥hall go out鈥 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: 鈥淗ouse鈥n the city of his possession,鈥 which teaches that these items do not return to the Levite without redemption.

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪诪讻专 诪诪讻专讬讜 讬讜爪讗 讘讞谞诐 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘讞谞诐 讗诇讗 讘驻讚讬讜谉

The baraita continues: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hat was sold鈥? The verse teaches that a house or field that was sold by a Levite leaves the possession of the buyer and enters the Levite鈥檚 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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜

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.

讻砖驻专讟 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讘诇 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 砖讚讛 讛讜讗 讚驻专拽 诇讬讛 讜谞驻拽讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讛谞讱 讻讚拽讬讬诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬

When the verse specified with regard to an ancestral field: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讘砖谞讛 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Oshaya, why do I need the phrase 鈥渁nd they shall go out in the Jubilee鈥? 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.

诇诪讗讬 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讞诇讟 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 讗讬 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讛砖诇诪讛 讘注讬 诇讛讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee,鈥 to teach that in such a case the house of an unwalled courtyard returns to the possession of the original owner.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜讗诇 诪讬讚 讜讙讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇诐 讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇 讞讜讝专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讞爪专讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 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 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讘转讬 讞爪专讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讘转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讞爪讬专讜转 砖谞讬诐 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐

GEMARA The Sages taught: By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淭he houses of the courtyards鈥 (Leviticus 25:31), do I not know that they have no wall around them? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淲hich have no wall鈥? 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 鈥渉ouses鈥 indicates a minimum of two, and the term 鈥渃ourtyards鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讬转 讜讞爪专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞爪专讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞爪专讬诐 讞爪专 讘诇讗 讘讬转 诪砖诪注 讛讛讜讗 拽专驻祝 讗讬拽专讬

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: 鈥淐ourtyards,鈥 without mentioning houses, as a courtyard must contain at least one house. And if you would say: If the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淐ourtyards,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖专讗诇 砖讬专砖 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 诇讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 讻住讚专 讛讝讛 讜讻谉 诇讜讬 砖讬专砖 讗转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 讻住讚专 讛讝讛

MISHNA An Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother鈥檚 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鈥檚 father who was an Israelite does not redeem the house in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot.

砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讘转讬 注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讞讝转诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 讜注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐

The mishna provides the source for these halakhot: As it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讙诪壮 讜讗诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 讜注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 father who is a Levite should redeem it in the manner of an Israelite.

讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 讗诇讗 讻住讚专 讛讝讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 讜注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means that an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讘转讬 注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讜讬 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专 讬讙讗诇 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, the house must be from the cities of the Levites, as it is written: 鈥淎s the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd if a man purchases from the Levites鈥hall go out during the Jubilee Year.鈥 The verse is referring specifically to a Levite who sells his house.

转谞讬讗 讜讗砖专 讬讙讗诇 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜讬 诪讬砖专讗诇 讬讙讗诇 砖讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讜讝讛 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讗讘诇 诇讜讬 诪诇讜讬 诇讗 砖讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讜讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐

The Gemara adds that it is likewise taught in a baraita: Given that the verse already states: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32), why does the next verse state: 鈥淎nd if a man purchases from the Levites鈥hall go out during the Jubilee Year鈥?It is because one might have thought: A Levite may always redeem from an Israelite the house that he sold, as this Levite鈥檚 power was enhanced, in that he can redeem always, and that Israelite鈥檚 power was diminished, as he may redeem only within one year. But a Levite may not always redeem from another Levite, as this one鈥檚 power was enhanced and that one鈥檚 power was equally enhanced. Rather, the Levite may redeem only within one year of the sale. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man purchases from the Levites,鈥 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.

诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛诇讜讬诐 驻专讟 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 诪诪讝专 讜谞转讬谉

The baraita continues: When the verse states: 鈥淔rom the Levites,鈥 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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗讘诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 注讬专 讜诇讗 注讬专 诪讙专砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗讘诇 讘注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 注讬专 讜诇讗 注讬专 诪讙专砖 砖诇讗 讬讞专讬讘讜 讗转 注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32). Priests are also members of the tribe of Levi.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗讘诇 讘注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 讘讚诇讜讬诐 诇讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 注专讬讛诐 诇讗 讬诪讻专 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讻诇诇 讜讛讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬诪讻专 诇讗 讬砖谞讛

Rabbi Elazar said: As the verse states: 鈥淏ut the fields of the open land about their cities may not be sold鈥 (Leviticus 25:34). What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渕ay not be sold鈥? 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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32), one learns by inference that their fields may be sold. Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渕ay not be sold鈥? It means that a field, an empty lot, or a city may not be changed from its current status.

讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32)? Since it is stated with regard to the ancestral field of an Israelite: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,鈥 which teaches that a Levite may redeem his field immediately.

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讘诇 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

Furthermore, since it is stated: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,鈥 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.

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽诐 讛讘讬转 讗砖专 讘注讬专 讗砖专 诇讜 讞讜诪讛 诇爪诪讬转转 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

Additionally, since it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,鈥 indicating that the Levite may always redeem his house.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 注专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讗 讻驻专讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讻讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 注讬讬专讜转 讘讬谞讜谞讬讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜拽祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬砖讘 讻讗谉 砖讬砖讘 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讜拽祝

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.

讜讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讞讜诪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 注讬专 讞讜诪讛 砖讛讜拽祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬砖讘 讜诇讗 砖讬砖讘 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讜拽祝

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city鈥 (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.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讬驻讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讞讜诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city,鈥 and it is stated below, with regard to the conquest of the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan: 鈥淎ll these were fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars鈥 (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.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讬驻讜讛 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讻谉 谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讜诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讞讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讙讜讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讙讜讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉

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, 鈥渨alls,鈥 and it is stated here 鈥渨alled.鈥 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.

转专讙诪讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 住诇讗 讞住讬讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讛谉

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Sala 岣sida, 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 33

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 33

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘砖诪讬讟讬谉 住讙讬讗 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

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.

讜诇讗 诪谞讜 砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讬讜讘诇讜转 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪拽抓 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 转砖诇讞讜 讗讬砖 讗转 讗讞讬讜 讛注讘专讬 讗砖专 讬诪讻专 诇讱

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鈥檛 it written that Jeremiah, who lived many years later, said: 鈥淎t 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鈥 (Jeremiah 34:14)?

讜讛讜讬谞谉 讘讛讜 诪拽抓 砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖砖 诇谞诪讻专 讜砖讘注 诇谞专爪注

The Gemara continues: And we discussed this verse: Why does it state: 鈥淎t the end of seven years you shall let go every man鈥? But isn鈥檛 it written in the same verse: 鈥淎nd has served you six years鈥? And Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: The verse is referring to two separate individuals. The phrase 鈥渁nd has served you six years鈥 is referring to a typical Hebrew slave who was sold, who goes free after six years (see Exodus 21:2), and the phrase 鈥渁t the end of seven years鈥 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.

讛讛讜讗 讘转讜讻讞讛 讻转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 谞讘讬讗 讛砖诇讞转诐 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诪注讜 讜讬砖诇讞讜

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鈥檛 it written there: 鈥淎nd they listened and let them go鈥 (Jeremiah 34:10)? Evidently, the entire passage is referring to matters occurring in the present.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讬专诪讬讛 讛讞讝讬专谉 讜讬讗砖讬讛 讘谉 讗诪讜谉 诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讜诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讛讚讜专 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛诪讜讻专 讗诇 讛诪诪讻专 诇讗 讬砖讜讘 讗驻砖专 讬讜讘诇 讘讟诇 讜谞讘讬讗 诪转谞讘讗 注诇讬讜 砖讬讘讟诇 讗诇讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讞讝讬专谉 讬专诪讬讛

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淔or the seller shall not return to that which he has sold鈥 (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.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讬讗砖讬讛 诪诇讱 注诇讬讛谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诪讛 讛爪讬讜谉 讛诇讝 讗砖专 讗谞讬 专讗讛 讜讬讗诪专讜 讗诇讬讜 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讛拽讘专 讗讬砖 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗砖专 讘讗 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讜讬拽专讗 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讘讬转 讗诇

And from where do we derive that Josiah ruled over all the ten tribes exiled by Assyria? As it is written: 鈥淎nd as Josiah turned himself, then he spied the sepulchres鈥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鈥 (II聽Kings 23:16鈥17).

讜讻讬 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讬讗砖讬讛讜 讘讘讬转 讗诇 讗诇讗 讻砖讛讞讝讬专谉 讬专诪讬讛讜 讬讗砖讬讛讜 诪诇讱 注诇讬讛诐 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讙诐 讬讛讜讚讛 砖转 拽爪讬专 诇讱 讘砖讜讘讬 砖讘讜转 注诪讬

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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: The fact that the tribes returned may be derived from here: 鈥淎lso, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would return the captivity of My people鈥 (Hosea 6:11). That is, when the ten tribes will return from their captivity, a king of Judah will rule over them.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛诐 讻讞 讬驻讛 砖讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讜讻讞 讬驻讛 砖讘砖讚讜转 讜谞讙讗诇讬谉 诪讬讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻讘转讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讻砖讚讜转

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 砖讚讛 讛讗专抓 讬讞砖讘 讛拽讬砖讜 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讬讜爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讗祝 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝

GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讗讬 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 讘驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗祝 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讗讬谞诐 谞讙讗诇讬诐 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讬讚 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞转转 诇讛诐 讻讞 讬驻讛 砖讘砖讚讜转 讜讻讞 砖讚讛 砖讘讘转讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讘讬讜讘诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗

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: 鈥淭hey may be redeemed,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee.鈥

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讜讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讘砖谞讛 砖谞讬讛

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.

诇诪讗讬 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讞诇讬讟 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 讗讬 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗

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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee,鈥 to teach that houses in unwalled courtyards which were consecrated and redeemed by another are returned to their owners in the Jubilee Year.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讝注讬专讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 讙讗诇讜 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘诇讗 驻讚讬讜谉

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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee.鈥 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.

诪谞诇谉 诪讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讛 讘谉 诇讜讬 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讘诪诪讻专讜 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘诪诪讻专讜 讗讬谉 讚讬谉 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讘讛拽讚砖讜

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?

讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讬爪讗 诪诪讻专 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讗驻讬诇讜 注讘讚讬讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 讜砖讟专讬讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讬转 讜注讬专 讗讞讝转讜

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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Leviticus 25:33). From the phrase 鈥渢hat was sold鈥hall go out鈥 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: 鈥淗ouse鈥n the city of his possession,鈥 which teaches that these items do not return to the Levite without redemption.

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪诪讻专 诪诪讻专讬讜 讬讜爪讗 讘讞谞诐 讜讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 讬讜爪讗 讘讞谞诐 讗诇讗 讘驻讚讬讜谉

The baraita continues: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淭hat was sold鈥? The verse teaches that a house or field that was sold by a Levite leaves the possession of the buyer and enters the Levite鈥檚 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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛讻诇 讛讬讜 讘讻诇诇 讜谞转谉 讛讻住祝 讜拽诐 诇讜

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.

讻砖驻专讟 讛讻转讜讘 讘砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讘诇 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 砖讚讛 讛讜讗 讚驻专拽 诇讬讛 讜谞驻拽讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讛谞讱 讻讚拽讬讬诪讬 拽讬讬诪讬

When the verse specified with regard to an ancestral field: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 讘砖谞讛 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Oshaya, why do I need the phrase 鈥渁nd they shall go out in the Jubilee鈥? 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.

诇诪讗讬 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬讞诇讟 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 讗讬 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讚诪讬转 诇讬讛 讛砖诇诪讛 讘注讬 诇讛讻讬 讗爪讟专讬讱 讜讘讬讘诇 讬爪讗

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鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd they shall go out in the Jubilee,鈥 to teach that in such a case the house of an unwalled courtyard returns to the possession of the original owner.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜讗诇 诪讬讚 讜讙讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇诐 讙讗诇讜 讗讞专 诪讬讚 讛拽讚砖 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇 讞讜讝专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 砖谞讬 讞爪专讬诐 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 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 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讘转讬 讞爪专讬诐

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讘转讬 讛讞爪专讬诐 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 讻诪讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讞讜诪讛 讜讻诪讛 讘转讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讞爪讬专讜转 砖谞讬诐 砖转讬 讞爪讬专讜转 砖诇 砖谞讬 讘转讬诐

GEMARA The Sages taught: By inference from that which is stated: 鈥淭he houses of the courtyards鈥 (Leviticus 25:31), do I not know that they have no wall around them? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淲hich have no wall鈥? 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 鈥渉ouses鈥 indicates a minimum of two, and the term 鈥渃ourtyards鈥 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.

讜讗讬诪讗 讘讬转 讜讞爪专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞爪专讬诐 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞爪专讬诐 讞爪专 讘诇讗 讘讬转 诪砖诪注 讛讛讜讗 拽专驻祝 讗讬拽专讬

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: 鈥淐ourtyards,鈥 without mentioning houses, as a courtyard must contain at least one house. And if you would say: If the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淐ourtyards,鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖专讗诇 砖讬专砖 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 诇讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 讻住讚专 讛讝讛 讜讻谉 诇讜讬 砖讬专砖 讗转 讗讘讬 讗诪讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 讻住讚专 讛讝讛

MISHNA An Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother鈥檚 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鈥檚 father who was an Israelite does not redeem the house in accordance with this procedure delineated in the previous mishnayot.

砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讘转讬 注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讛讜讗 讗讞讝转诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 讜注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐

The mishna provides the source for these halakhot: As it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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.

讙诪壮 讜讗诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讘谉 诇讜讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 讜注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐

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鈥檚 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鈥檚 father who is a Levite should redeem it in the manner of an Israelite.

讗讬诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 讗诇讗 讻住讚专 讛讝讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 讜注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬

The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means that an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讘转讬 注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讜讬 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专 讬讙讗诇 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐

The Gemara asks: Granted, the house must be from the cities of the Levites, as it is written: 鈥淎s the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd if a man purchases from the Levites鈥hall go out during the Jubilee Year.鈥 The verse is referring specifically to a Levite who sells his house.

转谞讬讗 讜讗砖专 讬讙讗诇 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讜讬 诪讬砖专讗诇 讬讙讗诇 砖讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讜讝讛 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 讗讘诇 诇讜讬 诪诇讜讬 诇讗 砖讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 讜讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐

The Gemara adds that it is likewise taught in a baraita: Given that the verse already states: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32), why does the next verse state: 鈥淎nd if a man purchases from the Levites鈥hall go out during the Jubilee Year鈥?It is because one might have thought: A Levite may always redeem from an Israelite the house that he sold, as this Levite鈥檚 power was enhanced, in that he can redeem always, and that Israelite鈥檚 power was diminished, as he may redeem only within one year. But a Levite may not always redeem from another Levite, as this one鈥檚 power was enhanced and that one鈥檚 power was equally enhanced. Rather, the Levite may redeem only within one year of the sale. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man purchases from the Levites,鈥 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.

诪谉 讛诇讜讬诐 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛诇讜讬诐 驻专讟 诇讘谉 诇讜讬 诪诪讝专 讜谞转讬谉

The baraita continues: When the verse states: 鈥淔rom the Levites,鈥 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.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗诪讜专讬诐 讗诇讗 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗讘诇 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诇讜讬 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 注讬专 讜诇讗 注讬专 诪讙专砖

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗讘诇 讘注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 讜诇讗 诪讙专砖 砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 注讬专 讜诇讗 注讬专 诪讙专砖 砖诇讗 讬讞专讬讘讜 讗转 注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32). Priests are also members of the tribe of Levi.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注专讬 讛诇讜讬诐 讗讘诇 讘注专讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 讜讻讜壮 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讬讛讗 讘讚诇讜讬诐 诇讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讚讛 诪讙专砖 注专讬讛诐 诇讗 讬诪讻专 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诇讗 讬诪讻专 讻诇诇 讜讛讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讝讘谞讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讗 讬诪讻专 诇讗 讬砖谞讛

Rabbi Elazar said: As the verse states: 鈥淏ut the fields of the open land about their cities may not be sold鈥 (Leviticus 25:34). What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渕ay not be sold鈥? 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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32), one learns by inference that their fields may be sold. Rather, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渕ay not be sold鈥? It means that a field, an empty lot, or a city may not be changed from its current status.

讛讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛诇讜讬诐 诪讜讻专讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 讜讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇注讜诇诐 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:32)? Since it is stated with regard to the ancestral field of an Israelite: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,鈥 which teaches that a Levite may redeem his field immediately.

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讘诇 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

Furthermore, since it is stated: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,鈥 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.

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽诐 讛讘讬转 讗砖专 讘注讬专 讗砖专 诇讜 讞讜诪讛 诇爪诪讬转转 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇诇讜讬诐

Additionally, since it is stated: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (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: 鈥淭he Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,鈥 indicating that the Levite may always redeem his house.

讘砖诇诪讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诇讞讬讬 讗诇讗 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 诇诇讜讬诐 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 注专讬诐 讛诇诇讜 讗讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 讗讜转谉 诇讗 讻驻专讬诐 拽讟谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讻专讻讬诐 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讗诇讗 注讬讬专讜转 讘讬谞讜谞讬讜转

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜拽祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬砖讘 讻讗谉 砖讬砖讘 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讜拽祝

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.

讜讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讬 讛讜讬讗 讞讜诪讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 注讬专 讞讜诪讛 砖讛讜拽祝 讜诇讘住讜祝 讬砖讘 讜诇讗 砖讬砖讘 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛讜拽祝

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city鈥 (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.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讬驻讜讛 讬砖专讗诇 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讞讜诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讙讜讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讙讜讬诐

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: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city,鈥 and it is stated below, with regard to the conquest of the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan: 鈥淎ll these were fortified cities, with high walls, gates, and bars鈥 (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.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讛拽讬驻讜讛 讙讜讬诐 诇讗讞专 诪讻谉 谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讞讜诪讛 讜谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讞讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讙讜讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 讙讜讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇讻谉

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, 鈥渨alls,鈥 and it is stated here 鈥渨alled.鈥 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.

转专讙诪讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 住诇讗 讞住讬讚讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讜 诇讛谉

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Sala 岣sida, 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,

Scroll To Top