What are the laws regarding non walled cities? How are the laws different regarding levites and preists?
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Arakhin 33
הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁנַת חֲמִשִּׁים אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: שְׁנַת חֲמִשִּׁים עוֹלָה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, לְמָה לִי? בִּשְׁמִיטִּין סַגִּיא! הָא וַדַּאי דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
וְלֹא מָנוּ שְׁמִיטִּין וְיוֹבְלוֹת? וְהָכְתִיב: ״מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים תְּשַׁלְּחוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו הָעִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר יִמָּכֵר לְךָ״!
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)?
וְהָוֵינַן בְּהוּ: ״מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים״? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים״! וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: שֵׁשׁ לַנִּמְכָּר, וְשֶׁבַע לַנִּרְצָע.
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.
הָהוּא בְּתוֹכָחָה כְּתִיב, וְקָאָמַר נָבִיא: הֲשִׁלַּחְתֶּם? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ וַיְשַׁלֵּחוּ״!
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יִרְמְיָה הֶחְזִירָן, וְיֹאשִׁיָּה בֶּן אָמוֹן מָלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן. וּמְנָא לַן דַּהֲדוּר? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הַמּוֹכֵר אֶל הַמִּמְכָּר לֹא יָשׁוּב״. אֶפְשָׁר יוֹבֵל בָּטֵל, וְנָבִיא מִתְנַבֵּא עָלָיו שֶׁיִּבְטַל? אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶחְזִירָן יִרְמְיָה.
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.
וּמְנָלַן דְּיֹאשִׁיָּה מָלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר מָה הַצִּיּוּן הַלָּז אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי רוֹאֶה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר הַקֶּבֶר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר בָּא מִיהוּדָה וַיִּקְרָא אֶת הַדְּבָרִים עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בֵּית אֵל״.
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).
וְכִי מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ בְּבֵית אֵל? אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהֶחְזִירָן יִרְמְיָהוּ, יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מָלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״גַּם יְהוּדָה שָׁת קָצִיר לָךְ בְּשׁוּבִי שְׁבוּת עַמִּי״.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים נוֹתְנִין לָהֶם כֹּחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה וְכֹחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת, וְנִגְאָלִין מִיָּד וְכׇל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ כְּבָתִּים, וְיוֹצְאִין בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף כְּשָׂדוֹת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל שְׂדֵה הָאָרֶץ יֵחָשֵׁב״ — הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה יוֹצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף, אַף בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים יוֹצְאִין בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף.
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.
אִי מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, אַף בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים אֵינָם נִגְאָלִים פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלָּה תִּהְיֶה לוֹ״ — מִיָּד. הוֹאִיל וְנָתַתָּ לָהֶם כֹּחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת וְכֹחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבַּבָּתִּים, יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצְאוּ בַּיּוֹבֵל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבַיּוֹבֵל יֵצֵא״.
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.”
מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְמַקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים, וּגְאָלוֹ אַחֵר מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּפָגַע בּוֹ יוֹבֵל בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה.
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.
לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ? אִי לְבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ — אִיחֲלֵיט לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ, אִי לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה מְדַמֵּית — לְכֹהֲנִים נָפְקָא, לְהָכִי אִצְטְרִיךְ ״וּבְיֹבֵל יָצָא״.
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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זְעֵירָא: מַאי אִירְיָא גְּאָלוֹ אַחֵר? אֲפִילּוּ לֹא גְּאָלוֹ נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן.
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.
מְנָלַן? מִבֶּן לֵוִי — מָה בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּמִמְכָּרוֹ, הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ; יִשְׂרָאֵל — שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּמִמְכָּרוֹ, אֵין דִּין שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ?
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?
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְיָצָא מִמְכָּר״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ עֲבָדָיו מִטַּלְטְלָיו וּשְׁטָרָיו, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּיִת וְעִיר אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.
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.
מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמְכַּר״? מִמְכָּריוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּחִנָּם, וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּחִנָּם, אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן.
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.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
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.
כְּשֶׁפָּרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיֹּבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ — שָׂדֶה הוּא דִּפְרַק לֵיהּ וְנָפְקָא לְכֹהֲנִים, אֲבָל הָנָךְ כִּדְקָיְימִי קָיְימִי.
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.
״וּבַיּוֹבֵל יֵצֵא״, לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְמוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים, וּפָגַע בּוֹ יוֹבֵל בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה.
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.
לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ? אִי לְבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ — אִיחֲלֵט לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ, אִי לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ — הַשְׁלָמָה בָּעֵי, לְהָכִי אִצְטְרִיךְ ״וּבַיּוֹבֵל יֵצֵא״.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֵל מִיָּד וְגוֹאֲלוֹ לְעוֹלָם; גְּאָלוֹ אַחֵר מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, הִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל וְלֹא נִגְאַל — חוֹזֵר לַבְּעָלִים בַּיּוֹבֵל.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים — שְׁנֵי חֲצֵרִים שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָתֵּי חֲצֵרִים.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר אֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה״? אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם חוֹמָה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה. וְכַמָּה? בָּתִּים — שְׁנַיִם, חֲצֵירוֹת — שְׁנַיִם, שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים.
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.
וְאֵימָא בַּיִת וְחָצֵר! אִם כֵּן לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲצֵרִים״, וְכִי תֵּימָא אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲצֵרִים״ — חָצֵר בְּלֹא בַּיִת מַשְׁמַע, הַהוּא קַרְפֵּף אִיקְּרִי.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ לֵוִי — אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה. וְכֵן לֵוִי שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֶת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה.
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.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי בָתֵּי עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם הִוא אֲחוּזָּתָם״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְאֶלָּא כְּמַאן? כְּבֶן לֵוִי. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: ״עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
אֵימָא: אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל אֶלָּא כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי בָּתֵּי עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם״, אֶלָּא לֵוִי מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִגְאַל מִן הַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
תַּנְיָא: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִגְאַל מִן הַלְוִיִּם״ — יָכוֹל לֵוִי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יִגְאַל, שֶׁזֶּה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ וְזֶה הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ, אֲבָל לֵוִי מִלֵּוִי לֹא, שֶׁזֶּה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ וְזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
״מִן הַלְוִיִּם״ — וְלֹא כׇּל הַלְוִיִּם, פְּרָט לְבֶן לֵוִי מַמְזֵר וְנָתִין.
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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם. אֲבָל עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי — לָא אָמְרִינַן.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין עוֹשִׂין שָׂדֶה מִגְרָשׁ, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ שָׂדֶה, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ עִיר, וְלֹא עִיר מִגְרָשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, אֲבָל בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין שָׂדֶה מִגְרָשׁ, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ שָׂדֶה, מִגְרָשׁ עִיר, וְלֹא עִיר מִגְרָשׁ, שֶׁלֹּא יַחְרִיבוּ אֶת עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹלָם, וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, אֲבָל בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין״ וְכוּ׳. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא בְּדִלְוִיִּם לָא מְשַׁנֵּינַן, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
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?
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּשְׂדֵה מִגְרַשׁ עָרֵיהֶם לֹא יִמָּכֵר״. מַאי ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא יִמָּכֵר כְּלָל, וְהָא מִדִּכְתִיב: ״גְּאֻלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״, מִכְּלָל דִּמְזַבְּנִי. אֶלָּא מַאי ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״? לֹא יְשַׁנֶּה.
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.
הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹלָם וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״גְּאֻלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
§ 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.
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיֹּבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְקָם הַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר אֲשֶׁר לוֹ חוֹמָה לַצְּמִיתוּת״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה לִלְוִיִּם מִי אִית לְהוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: עָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן לֹא כְּפָרִים קְטַנִּים וְלֹא כְּרַכִּים גְּדוֹלִים, אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת בֵּינוֹנִיּוֹת!
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.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — שֶׁהוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב, כָּאן — שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף.
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.
וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי הָוְיָא חוֹמָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִמְכֹּר בֵּית מוֹשַׁב עִיר חוֹמָה״ — שֶׁהוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב, וְלֹא שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף.
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.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ הִקִּיפוּהָ יִשְׂרָאֵל? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״חוֹמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חוֹמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן גּוֹיִם, אַף כָּאן גּוֹיִם.
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.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ הִקִּיפוּהָ גּוֹיִם לְאַחַר מִכֵּן? נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חוֹמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״חוֹמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן גּוֹיִם קוֹדֶם לָכֵן, אַף כָּאן גּוֹיִם קוֹדֶם לָכֵן!
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.
תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב סַלָּא חֲסִידָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהֶן
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,
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Lisa Lawrence
Neve Daniel, Israel
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
Arakhin 33
הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי: שְׁנַת חֲמִשִּׁים אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְיָן, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: שְׁנַת חֲמִשִּׁים עוֹלָה לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, לְמָה לִי? בִּשְׁמִיטִּין סַגִּיא! הָא וַדַּאי דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
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.
וְלֹא מָנוּ שְׁמִיטִּין וְיוֹבְלוֹת? וְהָכְתִיב: ״מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים תְּשַׁלְּחוּ אִישׁ אֶת אָחִיו הָעִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר יִמָּכֵר לְךָ״!
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)?
וְהָוֵינַן בְּהוּ: ״מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים״? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים״! וְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: שֵׁשׁ לַנִּמְכָּר, וְשֶׁבַע לַנִּרְצָע.
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.
הָהוּא בְּתוֹכָחָה כְּתִיב, וְקָאָמַר נָבִיא: הֲשִׁלַּחְתֶּם? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ וַיְשַׁלֵּחוּ״!
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.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יִרְמְיָה הֶחְזִירָן, וְיֹאשִׁיָּה בֶּן אָמוֹן מָלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן. וּמְנָא לַן דַּהֲדוּר? דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הַמּוֹכֵר אֶל הַמִּמְכָּר לֹא יָשׁוּב״. אֶפְשָׁר יוֹבֵל בָּטֵל, וְנָבִיא מִתְנַבֵּא עָלָיו שֶׁיִּבְטַל? אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶחְזִירָן יִרְמְיָה.
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.
וּמְנָלַן דְּיֹאשִׁיָּה מָלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר מָה הַצִּיּוּן הַלָּז אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי רוֹאֶה, וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָיו אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר הַקֶּבֶר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר בָּא מִיהוּדָה וַיִּקְרָא אֶת הַדְּבָרִים עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בֵּית אֵל״.
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).
וְכִי מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ בְּבֵית אֵל? אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהֶחְזִירָן יִרְמְיָהוּ, יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ מָלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם. רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״גַּם יְהוּדָה שָׁת קָצִיר לָךְ בְּשׁוּבִי שְׁבוּת עַמִּי״.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים נוֹתְנִין לָהֶם כֹּחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה וְכֹחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת, וְנִגְאָלִין מִיָּד וְכׇל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ כְּבָתִּים, וְיוֹצְאִין בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף כְּשָׂדוֹת.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל שְׂדֵה הָאָרֶץ יֵחָשֵׁב״ — הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה יוֹצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף, אַף בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים יוֹצְאִין בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף.
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.
אִי מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת בְּפָחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, אַף בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים אֵינָם נִגְאָלִים פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלָּה תִּהְיֶה לוֹ״ — מִיָּד. הוֹאִיל וְנָתַתָּ לָהֶם כֹּחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת וְכֹחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבַּבָּתִּים, יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצְאוּ בַּיּוֹבֵל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּבַיּוֹבֵל יֵצֵא״.
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.”
מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְמַקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים, וּגְאָלוֹ אַחֵר מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּפָגַע בּוֹ יוֹבֵל בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה.
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.
לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ? אִי לְבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ — אִיחֲלֵיט לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ, אִי לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה מְדַמֵּית — לְכֹהֲנִים נָפְקָא, לְהָכִי אִצְטְרִיךְ ״וּבְיֹבֵל יָצָא״.
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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זְעֵירָא: מַאי אִירְיָא גְּאָלוֹ אַחֵר? אֲפִילּוּ לֹא גְּאָלוֹ נָמֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּלֹא פִּדְיוֹן.
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.
מְנָלַן? מִבֶּן לֵוִי — מָה בֶּן לֵוִי שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ בְּמִמְכָּרוֹ, הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ; יִשְׂרָאֵל — שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּמִמְכָּרוֹ, אֵין דִּין שֶׁהוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ?
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?
וְהָתָם מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְיָצָא מִמְכָּר״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי אֲפִילּוּ עֲבָדָיו מִטַּלְטְלָיו וּשְׁטָרָיו, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּיִת וְעִיר אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.
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.
מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִמְכַּר״? מִמְכָּריוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּחִנָּם, וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ יוֹצֵא בְּחִנָּם, אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן.
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.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַכֹּל הָיוּ בִּכְלַל ״וְנָתַן הַכֶּסֶף וְקָם לוֹ״.
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.
כְּשֶׁפָּרַט הַכָּתוּב בִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיֹּבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״ — שָׂדֶה הוּא דִּפְרַק לֵיהּ וְנָפְקָא לְכֹהֲנִים, אֲבָל הָנָךְ כִּדְקָיְימִי קָיְימִי.
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.
״וּבַיּוֹבֵל יֵצֵא״, לְמָה לִי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְמוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים, וּפָגַע בּוֹ יוֹבֵל בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה.
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.
לְמַאי מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ? אִי לְבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ — אִיחֲלֵט לֵיהּ לְלוֹקֵחַ, אִי לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה מְדַמֵּית לֵיהּ — הַשְׁלָמָה בָּעֵי, לְהָכִי אִצְטְרִיךְ ״וּבַיּוֹבֵל יֵצֵא״.
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.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָותֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים — הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֵל מִיָּד וְגוֹאֲלוֹ לְעוֹלָם; גְּאָלוֹ אַחֵר מִיַּד הֶקְדֵּשׁ, הִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל וְלֹא נִגְאַל — חוֹזֵר לַבְּעָלִים בַּיּוֹבֵל.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים — שְׁנֵי חֲצֵרִים שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָתֵּי חֲצֵרִים.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר אֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה״? אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם חוֹמָה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה. וְכַמָּה? בָּתִּים — שְׁנַיִם, חֲצֵירוֹת — שְׁנַיִם, שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים.
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.
וְאֵימָא בַּיִת וְחָצֵר! אִם כֵּן לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲצֵרִים״, וְכִי תֵּימָא אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲצֵרִים״ — חָצֵר בְּלֹא בַּיִת מַשְׁמַע, הַהוּא קַרְפֵּף אִיקְּרִי.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ לֵוִי — אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה. וְכֵן לֵוִי שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֶת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה.
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.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי בָתֵּי עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם הִוא אֲחוּזָּתָם״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וְאֶלָּא כְּמַאן? כְּבֶן לֵוִי. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: ״עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
אֵימָא: אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל אֶלָּא כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי בָּתֵּי עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם״, אֶלָּא לֵוִי מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִגְאַל מִן הַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
תַּנְיָא: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִגְאַל מִן הַלְוִיִּם״ — יָכוֹל לֵוִי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יִגְאַל, שֶׁזֶּה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ וְזֶה הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ, אֲבָל לֵוִי מִלֵּוִי לֹא, שֶׁזֶּה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ וְזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
״מִן הַלְוִיִּם״ — וְלֹא כׇּל הַלְוִיִּם, פְּרָט לְבֶן לֵוִי מַמְזֵר וְנָתִין.
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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם. אֲבָל עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי — לָא אָמְרִינַן.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין עוֹשִׂין שָׂדֶה מִגְרָשׁ, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ שָׂדֶה, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ עִיר, וְלֹא עִיר מִגְרָשׁ.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, אֲבָל בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין שָׂדֶה מִגְרָשׁ, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ שָׂדֶה, מִגְרָשׁ עִיר, וְלֹא עִיר מִגְרָשׁ, שֶׁלֹּא יַחְרִיבוּ אֶת עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹלָם, וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, אֲבָל בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין״ וְכוּ׳. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא בְּדִלְוִיִּם לָא מְשַׁנֵּינַן, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
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?
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּשְׂדֵה מִגְרַשׁ עָרֵיהֶם לֹא יִמָּכֵר״. מַאי ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא יִמָּכֵר כְּלָל, וְהָא מִדִּכְתִיב: ״גְּאֻלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״, מִכְּלָל דִּמְזַבְּנִי. אֶלָּא מַאי ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״? לֹא יְשַׁנֶּה.
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.
הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹלָם וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״גְּאֻלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
§ 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.
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיֹּבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְקָם הַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר אֲשֶׁר לוֹ חוֹמָה לַצְּמִיתוּת״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה לִלְוִיִּם מִי אִית לְהוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: עָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן לֹא כְּפָרִים קְטַנִּים וְלֹא כְּרַכִּים גְּדוֹלִים, אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת בֵּינוֹנִיּוֹת!
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.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — שֶׁהוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב, כָּאן — שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף.
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.
וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי הָוְיָא חוֹמָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִמְכֹּר בֵּית מוֹשַׁב עִיר חוֹמָה״ — שֶׁהוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב, וְלֹא שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף.
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.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ הִקִּיפוּהָ יִשְׂרָאֵל? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״חוֹמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חוֹמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן גּוֹיִם, אַף כָּאן גּוֹיִם.
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.
יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ הִקִּיפוּהָ גּוֹיִם לְאַחַר מִכֵּן? נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חוֹמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״חוֹמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן גּוֹיִם קוֹדֶם לָכֵן, אַף כָּאן גּוֹיִם קוֹדֶם לָכֵן!
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.
תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב סַלָּא חֲסִידָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהֶן
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,
Follow
