Talmud - Arachin 33b ערכין ל״ג ב׳

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Arachin 33b examines how a city with two courtyards of two houses each is classified as unwalled despite an ancient wall, and addresses Levite house inheritance rules.