Arakhin 32b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

Abaye said: This is what he is saying:

All the towns that are

up to Gamla—

in the Galilee, and

all the towns that are

up to Gadod—

in Transjordan, and Hadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem in Judea—

they are surrounded by a wall.

Rava said another explanation:

Certainly, there were other towns surrounded by a wall both in the Galilee and in Transjordan; rather, the tanna mentioned

Gamla in the Galilee—

to exclude

towns whose name also was

“Gamla” of other lands

[in the Land of Israel], which were not surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun. And likewise he mentioned

Gadod in Transjordan—

to exclude

towns whose name also was

“Gadod” of other lands,

but

these

[other] towns surrounded by a wall in the Galilee and in Transjordan,

since there are not

cities whose names were

like theirs

[like them] in other lands,

it was not necessary for him

for the tanna to mention them.

And they raise an objection to this, for it is written in the Mishna and in the beraita that Jerusalem is a city surrounded by a wall:

And in Jerusalem, is a house repossessed

[repossessed]

in it

according to the law of a house in the cities surrounded by a wall?

But it was taught: Ten things were said concerning Jerusalem—

as they were enumerated in Bava Kamma 82b, and one of them is—

the house

is not repossessed in it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The fact that the tanna mentioned Jerusalem does not come to say that the law of houses in cities surrounded by a wall applies in Jerusalem; rather, it comes to teach us what is considered a “walled city.” Every city that is

like Jerusalem, which is surrounded by a wall

already

from the days of Joshua son of Nun

is considered a walled city [Rabbenu Gershom],

but not like Jerusalem, for whereas in Jerusalem the house is not repossessed in it, whereas here—

in the towns surrounded by a wall already from the days of Joshua son of Nun, like Jerusalem—

the house is repossessed in them.

Rav Ashi said

another answer:

Did Rav Yosef not say

[in tractate Makkot]:

There are two

towns whose name

was “Kedesh”?! Here too, there are two

Jerusalems!

One is the known one, in which a house is not repossessed. And the other is another one—which was also surrounded by a wall—in which the house is repossessed.

It was taught: Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei said: Why did the Sages enumerate

in our Mishna

these

eight cities that are surrounded by a wall, when there were many cities like them, as explained in the Mishna, “and all that are like them” [Rashi, Megilla 10a]? Because

when the people of the exile went up

with Ezra and returned to the Land

they found

[along their way into the Land, Rashi, Shevuot 16a; and the Raavad in the Sifra explained that they found them built with their walls , that is, the walls of the others had already been destroyed in the days of Ezra—and so the Sefat Emet explained]

these

enumerated in the Mishna

and sanctified them

[with two thank-offerings and with song],

but the first ones

that had been surrounded by a wall

were nullified

for the sanctity of the Land did not apply to them, and the law of cities surrounded by a wall did not apply to them

when

[when it was destroyed—the Raavad in the Sifra]

the Land

at the destruction of the First Temple, and Ezra did not sanctify them.

And we explain:

He holds

Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei:

The first sanctity

that Joshua sanctified

sanctified it for its time, but did not sanctify it for the future

so that that sanctity does not apply when they returned from the exile [Rabbenu Gershom; see Rashi, Megilla 10a, s.v. “for the future”], and therefore the law of cities surrounded by a wall did not apply to these.

And we raise an objection:

But it contradicts

another beraita, in which it is written:

Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei said: Were these

cities surrounded by a wall enumerated in our Mishna

alone?! But it has already been said—

in Moses’ conquest of the land of Og in Transjordan—“And we captured all his cities at that time, etc.,

sixty cities, the entire region of Argov

the kingdom of Og in Bashan.

All these were fortified cities

with a high wall, gates, and bars,” thus there were other cities surrounded by a wall?

Rather, why did the Sages enumerate these? When the people of the exile went up, they found these and sanctified them.

And we explain:

Sanctified them?!

But we say below

in the continuation of the beraita

that it is not necessary to sanctify them!

Rather,

say this:

They found these and counted them!

And we return to the substance of the beraita:

And not these alone

have the status of cities surrounded by a wall,

but every city concerning which you have a tradition in your hands from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun

even if they did not return and sanctify it,

all these mitzvot

that apply in cities surrounded by a wall—sending out a leper, reading the Megilla on the fifteenth of Adar, and the house is repossessed in it at the end of a year [Rashi, Megilla 10b], and fields are not made from the open spaces of the cities [Rashi, Shevuot 16a]—

apply in it, because the first sanctity sanctified it for its time and sanctified it for the future!

And it is clear that Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei holds that the first sanctity sanctified even for the future, unlike what is explained in the earlier beraita, and this is a contradiction?

And we answer:

If you wish, say: Two tannaim

taught these beraitot, and

according to Rabbi Ishmael

one taught that his view was that it did not sanctify for the future, and one taught that his view was that it sanctified.

And if you wish, say: One of them

of these beraitot—namely, the beraita that says that it sanctified for the future—was not said by Rabbi Ishmael son of Rabbi Yosei, but

it was said by Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei,

as

it was taught

above:

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei says: “That has no wall,” even though it does not have one now

wall

and it had one previously

therefore

the law of houses in cities surrounded by a wall applies in it; thus he holds that although it was destroyed, the sanctity was not nullified.

And we explain:

What is the reason of the one who says that the first sanctity sanctified it for its time but did not sanctify it for the future? For it is written

in Nehemiah: “

And the entire congregation that had returned from the captivity

[in the days of Ezra]

made booths and dwelt in booths, for they had not done so

[booths]

since the days of Jeshua son of Nun, thus the Children of Israel

until that day,

and there was very great joy.” Is it possible that David came and they did not make booths, Solomon came and they did not make booths, until Ezra came?! Rather, Scripture compares their coming

of Israel

in the days of Ezra to their coming in the days of Joshua: Just as upon their coming in the days of Joshua they counted

[they began to count]

Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years and sanctified cities surrounded by a wall, so too upon their coming in the days of Ezra they counted Sabbatical Years

[and became obligated in tithes]

and Jubilee Years and “sanctified cities surrounded by a wall.”

It follows that they had to sanctify a second time and did not rely on the first sanctity from the days of Joshua.

And it says

the verse—and one can also learn from it that it is necessary to sanctify a second time—“And the Lord your God will return your captivity, etc.,

and the Lord your God will bring you

[when you return from the exile]

to the Land that your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it”; it compares your inheritance to the inheritance of your fathers: Just as your fathers’ inheritance involved the renewal of all these matters, so too your inheritance involves the renewal of all these matters!

It follows that they had to sanctify a second time [Rabbenu Gershom].

And we raise an objection:

But the other

tanna who holds that the first sanctity sanctified for the future—how will he interpret the verse in Nehemiah, that they had not made booths until the days of Ezra?

And we answer: “Booths” does not have its plain meaning; rather,

Ezra required

Ezra

mercy concerning the inclination toward idolatry and nullified it, and the merit

of Ezra

shielded them

over Israel

like a booth!

And this is what Scripture was particular about concerning Joshua

[that Scripture was particular about Joshua] specifically: Scripture mentioned him and not others, and also

everywhere it is written “Joshua,” but here it is written

in a disparaging form: For they had not done so since the days of

“Jeshua”

son of Nun. And the reason is that

granted that Moses did not request mercy

concerning the nullification of the inclination toward idolatry,

for he did not have

for him

the merit of the Land of Israel

since he did not enter the Land of Israel,

but Joshua, who had the merit of the Land of Israel

Scripture was particular about him:

Why did he not request

[ask for]

mercy?

They raise another objection against the tanna who holds that the first sanctity sanctified for the future:

But it is written: “That your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it,”

and this proves that they must sanctify again, which is because it did not sanctify for the future?

And we answer:

This is what the verse is saying

the verse:

Since your fathers inherited it, you shall inherit it

by virtue of that sanctity, and it is not necessary to sanctify again.

And we express astonishment at the earlier beraita, which says that in the days of Ezra they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years:

And did they

[indeed]

count

in the days of Ezra

Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years?! Now, once

only

the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh

were exiled in the days of Sennacherib, while the rest of Israel was still in its place,

the Jubilee Years were nullified!

In the days of

Ezra, concerning whom it is written: “The entire congregation as one

[that came up from the exile]

forty-two thousand three hundred and sixty,”

which was not even a tenth of Israel [Rabbenu Gershom], while the rest of Israel was in its exiles—

would he count?!

And they bring a beraita that when the tribes were exiled, Jubilee Years were nullified:

For it was taught: Once the tribe of Reuben, the tribe of Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled, Jubilee Years were nullified, as it is stated: “And you shall proclaim liberty

[in the Jubilee]

throughout the Land for all its inhabitants

[the Hebrew slaves],” and they expound:

When all its inhabitants

that is, all Israel—

are upon it

then the Jubilee applies,

but not when some of them are exiled! It could be

that if

all its inhabitants

were

upon it and they were intermingled

together in the Land—

with the tribe of Benjamin in the

portion of

Judah, and the tribe of Judah in the

portion of

Benjamin

[Rabbenu Gershom]—

the Jubilee should apply? The verse therefore says: “For all its inhabitants”—

when its inhabitants are in their proper arrangement, but not when they are intermingled!

And if so, it is difficult: How is it possible that in the days of Ezra, when all its inhabitants were not upon it, they counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years? And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

What they said in the beraita, that in the days of Ezra they “counted Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years,” does not mean that they counted Jubilee Years so that the release of slaves and the return of the sale of ancestral fields to their owners would be practiced in them; rather, it concerns another matter:

They counted Jubilee Years in order to sanctify Sabbatical Years

in their proper time, for the Sabbatical Year—which applies even when all its inhabitants are not upon it—depends in its counting on the counting of the Jubilee Year: the Jubilee Year is not counted as the first year of the Sabbatical Year that follows it; rather, they count the first year of the Sabbatical Year after the Jubilee Year, and for this purpose they counted the Jubilee Years.