ערכין לב

ערכין לב

מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְהִלֵּל לְתַקּוֹנֵי נְתִינָה בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ הָוְיָא נְתִינָה, הָא בְּעָלְמָא נְתִינָה בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ לָא הָוְיָא נְתִינָה.

The Gemara elaborates: From the fact that it was necessary for Hillel to institute that giving against the will of the receiver is considered giving, in the case of houses of walled cities, one may infer that in general, giving against the will of the recipient is not considered giving.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: וְדִילְמָא כִּי אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ לְהִלֵּל לְתַקּוֹנֵי שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, אֲבָל בְּפָנָיו — בֵּין מִדַּעְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ הָוְיָא מַתָּנָה!

Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say that it was Rav Ashi who objected: But perhaps when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer; but if he repays the buyer in his presence, then whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רָבָא: מִתַּקָּנָתוֹ שֶׁל הִלֵּל — הֲרֵי זֶה ״גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, וּנְתָנָהּ לוֹ, בֵּין מִדַּעְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — הָוְיָא נְתִינָה. וְכִי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ לְהִלֵּל לְתַקּוֹנֵי — שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, אֲבָל בְּפָנָיו — בֵּין מִדַּעְתּוֹ בֵּין בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ הָוְיָא נְתִינָה.

There are those who say an opposite version of this discussion, i.e., that Rava says: One may infer from the ordinance of Hillel that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and she gave it to him, whether it was with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is a valid act of giving. And this is because when it was necessary for Hillel to institute this ordinance, it was specifically for a case where the seller gives the money not in the presence of the buyer. But if the seller repays him in his presence, whether the buyer was repaid with his consent or whether it was against his will, it is considered a valid act of giving.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב פָּפָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: וְדִילְמָא בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, מִדַּעְתּוֹ — אִין, בְּעַל כׇּרְחוֹ — לָא, וְהִלֵּל מַאי דְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ תַּקֵּין!

Rav Pappa objects to this, and some say it was Rav Shimi bar Ashi who objected: But perhaps, whether she gives him the money in his presence or not in his presence, if she gives it with his consent, yes, it is valid, but if she gives it against his will, it is not considered a valid act of giving. And Hillel instituted what was necessary, to remedy the practical occurrence that buyers would hide themselves at the end of the year. But even if the seller finds the buyer and the buyer refuses to accept payment, it would be necessary for Hillel to institute an ordinance.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה — הֲרֵי הוּא כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, חוּץ מִן הַשָּׂדוֹת. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הַשָּׂדוֹת. בַּיִת הַבָּנוּי בַּחוֹמָה — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כּוֹתֶל הַחִיצוֹן הִיא חוֹמָתוֹ.

MISHNA The halakhic status of any area that is located within the city wall is like that of the houses of walled cities in terms of its redemption, except for the fields located therein. Rabbi Meir says: Even the fields are included in this category. With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities. Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall, and therefore it has the status of a house in a walled city.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: בֵּית — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּיִת, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי בַדִּים וּבָתֵּי מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת וּמִגְדָּלוֹת וְשׁוֹבָכִין וּבוֹרוֹת וְשִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף הַשָּׂדוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּיִת״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). I have derived only that this is the halakha with regard to a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” indicating that anything situated within the city is included. If so, one might have thought that I should include even the fields that are inside the city. Therefore, the verse states: “House,” which excludes a field; it does not resemble a house in any way, since it does not contain any items. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נאמר ״בַּיִת״ — אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בַּיִת, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי בַדִּים וּבָתֵּי מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת, וּמִגְדָּלוֹת וְשׁוֹבָכִין, וּבוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, וַאֲפִילּוּ שָׂדוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר״.

Rabbi Meir says: The verse states: “House.” I have derived only a house; from where is it derived to include olive presses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits, ditches, and caves, and even fields? The verse states: “That is in the walled city,” to include anything inside the city.

וְאֶלָּא הָא כְּתִיב ״בַּיִת״! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב קַטִּינָא: חוֹלְסִית וּמְצוּלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: חוֹלְסִית וּמְצוּלָה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כְּבָתִּים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כְּשָׂדוֹת.

The Gemara questions the statement of Rabbi Meir: But isn’t it written: “House”? If Rabbi Meir includes even a field, what is excluded by the word “house”? Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Ketina said: Actually, everyone agrees that the term “house” serves to exclude a field. The difference of opinion between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a quarry and a sand bed. According to Rabbi Meir, such areas are considered similar to houses and are therefore included in the halakha. The Gemara adds: And it is likewise taught in a baraita: With regard to a quarry and a sand bed inside the walls of a city, Rabbi Meir says: They are considered like houses, and Rabbi Yehuda says: They are considered like fields.

בַּיִת הַבָּנוּי בַּחוֹמָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ, ״וַתּוֹרִידֵם בַּחֶבֶל בְּעַד הַחַלּוֹן כִּי בֵיתָהּ בְּקִיר הַחוֹמָה וּבַחוֹמָה הִיא יוֹשָׁבֶת״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סָבַר כִּפְשָׁטֵיהּ דִּקְרָא, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר: ״בַּחוֹמָה הִיא יוֹשָׁבֶת״ וְלֹא בְּעִיר חוֹמָה.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a house that is built in the wall itself, Rabbi Yehuda says: Its halakhic status is not like that of the houses of walled cities, and Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall of the house is considered the city wall. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And both of them derived their opinions from one verse: “Then she let them down by a cord through the window; for her house was upon the side of the wall; and she dwelt upon the wall” (Joshua 2:15). Rabbi Shimon holds that the last phrase should be understood in accordance with the simple meaning of the verse, that her house was attached to the outer wall and it was considered inside the walled city; and Rabbi Yehuda holds that “she dwelt upon the wall” means she was a resident of the wall itself, but not a resident of the city enclosed within the wall.

מַתְנִי׳ עִיר שֶׁגַּגּוֹתֶיהָ חוֹמָתָהּ, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, אֵינָהּ כְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה: שָׁלֹשׁ חֲצֵרוֹת שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, מוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, כְּגוֹן קַצְרָה הַיְּשָׁנָה שֶׁל צִיפּוֹרִי, וְחַקְרָה שֶׁל גּוּשׁ חָלָב, וְיוֹדְפַת הַיְּשָׁנָה, וְגַמְלָא, וּגְדוֹד, וְחָדִיד, וְאוֹנוֹ, וִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכֵן כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.

MISHNA The halakhic status of a house in a city whose houses are attached and their rooftops constitute the top of its wall, and likewise, the status of a house in a city that is not surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, even if a surrounding wall was constructed during a later period, is not like that of the houses of walled cities. And these are the houses of walled cities: Any city in which there are at least three courtyards, each containing two houses, and which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, e.g., the ancient fort [katzra] of Tzippori, and the fortress [ḥakra] of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חוֹמָה״ — וְלֹא שׁוּר אִיגָּר, ״סָבִיב״ — פְּרָט לִטְבֶרְיָה שִׂימָה חוֹמָתָהּ.

GEMARA With regard to the statement of the mishna that the halakhic status of a house in a city whose rooftops constitute the top of its wall is not like that of the houses of walled cities, the Sages taught: When the verse states: “The house that is in the city that has a wall” (Leviticus 25:30), this is referring specifically to a city that has an actual wall and not merely a wall of roofs. When the next verse states: “But the houses of the villages that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country,” this serves to exclude Tiberias from being considered a walled city, as the sea is its wall on one side and it is not fully encircled by a physical wall.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹא חוֹמָה״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְהָיָה לוֹ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן.

Rabbi Eliezer bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall,” with lo written with an alef, according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that even if a city does not have a wall now, but it had a wall before, in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.

וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: גַּמְלָא בַּגָּלִיל, וּגְדוֹד בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְחָדִיד וְאוֹנוֹ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם בִּיהוּדָה. מַאי קָאָמַר?

§ The mishna teaches: And these are the houses of walled cities: The ancient fort of Tzippori, and the fortress of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise other similar cities. The Sages taught in a baraita: Gamla is in the Galilee, and Gedod is in Transjordan, and Ḥadid and Ono and Jerusalem are in Judea. The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of this baraita saying? Are these the only walled cities in the Galilee, Transjordan, and Judea?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכִי קָאָמַר — עַד גַּמְלָא בַּגָּלִיל, עַד גְּדוֹד בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, וְחָדִיד וְאוֹנוֹ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם בִּיהוּדָה.

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

רָבָא אָמַר: גַּמְלָא בַּגָּלִיל, לְאַפּוֹקֵי גַּמְלָא דִּשְׁאָר אֲרָצוֹת; גְּדוֹד בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן, לְאַפּוֹקֵי גְּדוֹד דִּשְׁאָר אֲרָצוֹת; אִינָךְ דְּלָא אִיכָּא דִּכְוָתַיְיהוּ — לָא אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ.

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

וִירוּשָׁלַיִם מִי מִיחֲלַט בַּהּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: עֲשָׂרָה דְּבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, אֵין הַבַּיִת חָלוּט בָּהּ!

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם דְּמוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, וְלֹא כִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, דְּאִילּוּ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אֵין הַבַּיִת חָלוּט בָּהּ, וְאִילּוּ הָכָא הַבַּיִת חָלוּט (בהן) [בָּהּ]. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לָאו אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף תְּרֵי קָדֵשׁ הֲווֹ? הָכָא נָמֵי תְּרֵי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם הֲווֹ.

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

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: לָמָּה מָנוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת אֵלּוּ, שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה מָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּם, אֲבָל רִאשׁוֹנוֹת בָּטְלוּ מִשֶּׁבָּטְלָה קְדוּשַּׁת הָאָרֶץ. קָסָבַר: קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ, וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.

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

וּרְמִינְהִי: אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: וְכִי אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד הָיוּ? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״שִׁשִּׁים עִיר כׇּל חֶבֶל אַרְגּוֹב… כׇּל אֵלֶּה עָרִים בְּצוּרוֹת״! אֶלָּא לָמָּה מָנוּ חֲכָמִים אֶת אֵלּוּ? שֶׁכְּשֶׁעָלוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה מָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וְקִידְּשׁוּם. קִידְּשׁוּם? הָא אָמְרִינַן דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לְקַדּוֹשִׁינְהוּ! אֶלָּא מְנָאוּם.

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

וְלֹא אֵלּוּ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא כֹּל שֶׁתַּעֲלֶה לְךָ מָסוֹרֶת בְּיָדְךָ מֵאֲבוֹתֶיךָ שֶׁמּוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן — כׇּל מִצְוֹת הַלָּלוּ נוֹהֲגוֹת בָּהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא!

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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר יוֹסֵי אַמְרַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹא חוֹמָה״ — אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְהָיָה לוֹ קוֹדֶם לָכֵן.

The Gemara responds: If you wish, say that this is a dispute between two tanna’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. And if you wish, say instead that one of the baraitot, specifically the second one, was actually said by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says: Since the verse states: “Which has [lo] a wall,” with lo written with an alef, according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that even if a city does not have a wall now, but it had a wall before, in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְּנֵי הַגּוֹלָה הַשָּׁבִים מִן הַשְּׁבִי סוּכּוֹת וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בַסּוּכּוֹת כִּי לֹא עָשׂוּ מִימֵי יֵשׁוּעַ בִּן נוּן כֵּן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגוֹ׳ וַתְּהִי שִׂמְחָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד״. אֶפְשָׁר בָּא דָּוִד וְלֹא עָשׂוּ סוּכּוֹת עַד שֶׁבָּא עֶזְרָא?

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

אֶלָּא מַקִּישׁ בִּיאָתָם בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא לְבִיאָתָם בִּימֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מָה בִּיאָתָם בִּימֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מָנוּ שְׁמִיטִּין וְיוֹבְלוֹת וְקִדְּשׁוּ עָרֵי חוֹמָה, אַף בִּיאָתָן בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא מָנוּ שְׁמִיטִּין וְיוֹבְלוֹת וְקִדְּשׁוּ עָרֵי חוֹמָה.

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

וְאוֹמֵר: ״וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יָרְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ״, מַקִּישׁ יְרוּשָּׁתְךָ לִירוּשַּׁת אֲבוֹתֶיךָ — מָה יְרוּשַּׁת אֲבוֹתֶיךָ בְּחִידּוּשׁ כׇּל דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ, אַף יְרוּשָּׁתְךָ בְּחִידּוּשׁ כׇּל דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ.

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

וְאִידַּךְ? דִּבְעוֹ רַחֲמֵי עַל יֵצֶר דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וּבַטְּלֵיהּ, וְאַגֵּין זְכוּתָא עֲלַיְיהוּ כִּי סוּכָּה.

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

וְהַיְינוּ דְּקָא קָפֵיד קְרָא עִילָּוֵיהּ דִּיהוֹשֻׁעַ, דִּבְכֹל דּוּכְתָּא כְּתִיב ״יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״, וְהָכָא כְּתִיב ״יֵשׁוּעַ״. בִּשְׁלָמָא מֹשֶׁה לָא בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי, דְּלָא הֲוָה זְכוּתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ זְכוּתָא דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַמַּאי לָא לִיבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי?

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

וְהָא כְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר יָרְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּיָרְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ — יָרַשְׁתָּ אַתְּ.

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

וּמִי מָנוּ שְׁמִיטִּין וְיוֹבְלוֹת? הַשְׁתָּא מִשֶּׁגָּלוּ שֵׁבֶט רְאוּבֵן וְשֵׁבֶט גָּד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה בָּטְלוּ יוֹבְלוֹת, עֶזְרָא דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״כׇּל הַקָּהָל כְּאֶחָד אַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא אַלְפַּיִם וְשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁשִּׁים״ הֲוָה מָנֵי?

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

דְּתַנְיָא: מִשֶּׁגָּלוּ שֵׁבֶט רְאוּבֵן וְשֵׁבֶט גָד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשֶּׁה בָּטְלוּ יוֹבְלוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּקְרָאתֶם דְּרוֹר בָּאָרֶץ לְכׇל יֹשְׁבֶיהָ״, בִּזְמַן שֶׁכֹּל יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ, וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁגָּלוּ מִקְצָתָן.

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

יָכוֹל הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ וְהֵן מְעוֹרָבִין, שֵׁבֶט בִּנְיָמִין בִּיהוּדָה וְשֵׁבֶט יְהוּדָה בְּבִנְיָמִין, יְהֵא יוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְכׇל יֹשְׁבֶיהָ״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבֶיהָ כְּתִיקּוּנָן, וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְעוֹרָבִין!

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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מָנוּ יוֹבְלוֹת לְקַדֵּשׁ שְׁמִיטִּין.

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