Arakhin 33b (לג:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

And these are the courtyard houses:

the cases in which the law of “courtyard houses” applies—apart from villages that are not surrounded by a wall: a city containing only

two courtyards belonging to two houses

in each courtyard,

even though it has been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, they are considered courtyard houses.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And the houses of the courtyards that have no surrounding wall,” and they expound:

From the implication of what is stated, ‘the houses of the courtyards,’

which indicates that the houses are not arranged as a city, but constitute only a settlement of courtyards,

do I not know that they have no wall?

And if so,

why must the verse state, ‘that have no wall’?

To teach that there are “houses of the courtyards”

which, even though they have a wall,

are nevertheless

like those that have no wall,

since they do not contain the measure of a city.

And how many are they,

those “houses of the courtyards” that do not have the measure of a city?

Houses: two,

as “houses” is written in the plural;

courtyards: two,

as “courtyards” is written in the plural, and the minimum of a plural is two—namely,

two courtyards of two—

two houses!

And we challenge this:

But perhaps it means one house

in

a courtyard

belonging to it, and another

house

in

a courtyard

belonging to it [so that there are two houses and two courtyards]? Such a settlement is not considered a city; but if there are two houses in each courtyard, it is considered a walled city rather than a courtyard settlement.

And we answer:

If so,

if the verse is speaking of one house in each courtyard,

the Merciful One should write ‘courtyards’

and should not write “houses” at all. It would then follow that each courtyard contains a house, since only in such a case is it a courtyard.

And if you would say: Had the Merciful One written

only

“courtyards,” it would imply a courtyard without a house,

that is not so.

That

a courtyard containing no house at all

is called a karpef,

not a courtyard. Therefore, the fact that “courtyards” is written implies that they contain a house. Necessarily, “and houses” comes to teach that even when each courtyard contains two houses, it is not a walled city.

Mishna:

It is written [Leviticus 25:32–33]: “And as for the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their possession, the Levites shall have an eternal redemption” [they may redeem their ancestral field immediately, even before two years have passed; and if they sold a house in a walled city, they may redeem it forever, and it does not become irrevocably acquired by the purchaser at the end of one year]. “And one who redeems from the Levites, the sale of the house and the city of his possession shall go out in the Jubilee, for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the Children of Israel [and therefore they have redemption, like fields].” Those included in the law of eternal redemption for Levites with regard to houses in walled cities are:

A.

An Israelite who inherited

from

his maternal grandfather, a Levite,

houses in walled cities that were among the Levites’ cities received in the Land, and sold them,

does not redeem them according to this procedure

applicable to an Israelite, whereby the house becomes irrevocably acquired after one year. Rather, he may redeem them forever, like a Levite, as it is written concerning them: “The Levites shall have an eternal redemption,” since the city is one of the Levites’ cities.

B.

And likewise, a Levite who inherited from his maternal grandfather, an Israelite,

does not redeem it according to this procedure

applicable to an Israelite, whereby it becomes irrevocably acquired after one year. Rather, he may redeem it forever, since the seller is a Levite.

As it is stated: ‘For the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession

among the Children of Israel,’ and this implies:

until he is

himself

a Levite, and the city is one of the Levites’ cities

that he sold; only then does he have eternal redemption. [This contradicts the beginning and the end of the clause: at the beginning it says that it is sufficient for one of these conditions to apply for eternal redemption, whereas at the end the verse is interpreted to mean that only when both conditions apply is there eternal redemption. The Gemara explains this.]

These are the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: This matter—

eternal redemption—

was stated only with regard to the cities of the Levites,

and it is not dependent on the seller at all. Whenever the property is in one of the Levites’ cities, it has eternal redemption, whether it was sold by a Levite or by an Israelite.

Gemara:

We challenge the contradiction between the beginning and the end of the middle clause. It states: “He

does not redeem according to this procedure [of an Israelite],”

but according to whose procedure does he redeem?

According to that of a Levite!

He therefore has eternal redemption, indicating that one condition is sufficient: either the house must have come from the inheritance of the Levites’ cities, or the seller must be a Levite.

And then it teaches

the opposite:

until he is a Levite and the city is one of the Levites’ cities

together; only then is there eternal redemption. One of the two conditions is not sufficient?!

And we answer:

Say that in the beginning and middle clauses,

the meaning is that he

does not redeem ‘except’ according to this procedure

of an Israelite. In the first clause, the city is one of the Levites’ cities but the seller is not a Levite; in the latter clause, the seller is a Levite but the house is not in one of the Levites’ cities. Therefore neither has eternal redemption.

Until

the seller is

a Levite and the city is one of the Levites’ cities—these are the words of Rabbi.

We challenge Rabbi, who requires both conditions:

Granted, the cities of the Levites

are required, because

it is written, ‘For the houses of the cities of the Levites’; but

from where do we know

that a Levite

is also required?

And we answer:

It is written: “And as for the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their possession, the Levites shall have an eternal redemption.

And one who redeems from the Levites

the sale of the house and the city of his possession shall go out in the Jubilee.” Its meaning is that those Levites who may redeem forever have the additional power that their house will return to them in the Jubilee if they do not redeem it [based on Zevach Todah]. Since it says “from the Levites,” this implies that I granted permission to redeem only to some Levites, but not to all. This excludes a Levite descended from a mamzeret and from a netina; and since even these are excluded from eternal redemption, all the more so an Israelite who inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Levite, may not redeem it, for he is a fully-fledged Israelite. [Likkutei Halakhot in explanation of Rashi’s words; see also Sefat Emet.]

We support this derivation:

and it was taught

that it is expounded as follows:

“And one who redeems from the Levites”—why is this stated?

For one

might

have thought that, were it not for this verse, but only for the verse “The Levites shall have an eternal redemption,” a

Levite

only

from an Israelite

who sold it to him

would redeem it! For the Levite who sold it

the seller

has the stronger legal position,

as it is written: “The Levites shall have an eternal redemption”;

whereas this

Israelite who purchased it

has the weaker legal position

with regard to his sale, which becomes irrevocable after one year.

But a Levite from a Levite would not

have eternal redemption,

for this

seller

has the stronger legal position, whereas this

purchaser too

has the stronger legal position

and may redeem it forever, as does a seller.

The verse therefore states: ‘And one who redeems from the Levites.’

The verse could have said, “And if he does not redeem it, the sale of the house and the city of his possession shall go out in the Jubilee.” Instead it says “and one who redeems from the Levites,” teaching that eternal redemption applies to Levites who sell, even if it happens that the redemption is “from the Levites” who purchase [Zevach Todah].

‘From the Levites,’

to teach:

but not all Levites; this excludes a mamzer Levite and a netin [a descendant of a mamzeret or a netina, Rashi], who may not redeem! From here they prove that “from” the Levites is expounded as we expounded it.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say, this matter was stated only with regard to the cities of the Levites.

And we explain:

But ‘until he is

also

a seller who is

a Levite’—we do not say that!

[Based on Likkutei Halakhot.]

Mishna:

The Israelites were commanded [Numbers 35] to give the Levites, from the inheritance of their possession, cities in which the Levites would dwell. Outside the city, they were commanded to give them a surrounding area of one thousand cubits, an open area entirely free of structures and intended for beautification. In addition, they were commanded to give them another thousand cubits surrounding the open area, for fields and vineyards.

And

one may not make

in the cities of the Levites the

field into a

open area

intended for beautification and not for sowing,

nor the open area into a

field, nor

the

open area into a

city,

with houses for dwelling,

nor

the

city into an

open area.

The reason is explained in the Gemara.

Also, in the other cities of the Land of Israel, one may not turn a field into an open area, because of the settlement of the Land of Israel: reducing the cultivated area constitutes the ruin of the Land of Israel. Likewise, one may not turn the open area into a field, because this ruins the beauty of the city; and certainly one may not turn the city into an open area, since this ruins the settlement of the city.

Rabbi Elazar said,

disputing the words of the first tanna:

When are these words stated,

that all these changes are prohibited?

With regard to the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites, one may make a field into an

open area,

and likewise an

open area into a

field,

and likewise an

open area into a

city.

But

not a city into an

open area,

even in the cities of the Israelites,

so that they will not ruin the cities of Israel [based on the interpretation of Maimonides; see Rashi and Tosafot Yom Tov].

The priests and Levites may sell forever.

Some explain this to mean that they may sell even in the Jubilee year itself. Rashi challenged this interpretation and wrote: “It seems to me” that the Mishna is teaching nothing here; rather, since it states in the Mishna [26a] concerning consecrated property, “the priests and Levites may consecrate forever,” it also states here, concerning a sale, that they may sell forever.

And they may redeem forever,

because their houses in walled cities do not become irrevocably acquired by the purchaser.

As it is stated: ‘The Levites shall have an eternal redemption.’

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar said: When are these words stated? With regard to the cities of the Levites; but in the cities of the Israelites one may make, etc.

And we explain:

Everyone

—including Rabbi Elazar—

agrees that

with regard to the Levites

[in the cities belonging to the Levites]

at least, we do not alter

these arrangements.

From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Elazar said: The verse states

concerning the cities of the Levites:

“And the field of the open area of their cities shall not be sold.” What is the meaning of ‘shall not be sold’? If we say that it may not be sold at all,

in its plain sense,

but since it is written, ‘The Levites shall have an eternal redemption,’ it follows that they do sell

[for if there is no sale, from where could there be redemption].

Rather,

necessarily,

what is the meaning of ‘shall not be sold’?

It shall not be altered.

Rather, the field, the open area, and the city must each remain forever as it is [Maimonides].

We learned in the Mishna:

The priests and Levites may sell forever and redeem forever.

The Sages taught: ‘The Levites shall have an eternal redemption’—why is this stated?

A.

Since it is stated, ‘According to the number of years of produce shall he sell to you,’

and we learned that it is prohibited to redeem an ancestral field within the first two years after its sale [above, at the beginning of this chapter],

one might have thought that this too,

the Levite,

is subject to this

and, if he sold a field that he owned around the cities of the Levites, he would be prohibited from redeeming it within two years.

The verse therefore states: ‘The Levites shall have an eternal redemption.’

B.

Since it is stated

with regard to the consecration of an ancestral field that, if another person redeemed it immediately from the Temple treasury,

‘the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord,’

and “like a field placed under the ban, its possession shall be the priest’s,” meaning that it leaves the redeemer’s possession in the Jubilee and goes to the priests,

one might have thought that this too,

the Levite,

is subject to this

and, if he consecrated his fields surrounding the cities of the Levites and did not redeem them, he would lose them in the Jubilee.

The verse therefore states: ‘The Levites shall have an eternal redemption.’

C.

Since it is stated

with regard to the sale of houses in walled cities that, if the house is not redeemed within one year,

‘the house that is in the walled city shall be established permanently

for its purchaser, etc.,’

one might have thought that this too,

the Levite,

is subject to this. The verse therefore states: ‘The Levites shall have an eternal redemption’!

And we challenge this:

Granted, these first two

laws—the first two laws derived from “eternal redemption”—concern fields;

that is fine

[it is understandable], since they had fields in the cities of the Levites and it was necessary to teach us the law of their redemption.

But do Levites have ‘houses in walled cities’

in the cities of the Levites

at all,

such that it could be said concerning them that, if they sold them, they could redeem them forever?

But was it not taught

that they have no walled cities at all of this kind:

These cities

that are given to the Levites

may not be made into small

[villages]

or into large

settlements, since they are cities of refuge for an unintentional killer, and there must be a settlement there to serve as a place of refuge for killers,

nor into large cities

[surrounded by walls, as Rashi explains below]

because

in large cities people gather for commerce, so that the blood avenger’s presence would be common there, and he might lie in wait for the killer and kill him.

Rather, they must be intermediate-sized towns

without a wall?!

Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult. Here,

where it is not possible for the Levites to have a walled city, is a city that was

surrounded

by a wall

and was settled only afterward

[settled with houses—Rashi, Makkot 7a].

Here,

where the baraita proves that it is possible to find a walled city among the Levites, is a city that was

settled and surrounded only afterward,

for after the cities had been given to the Levites, they surrounded them with walls. They did so.

We refute this answer:

And in such a case,

where the city was settled first and surrounded by a wall afterward,

is it

included among the houses of

walled cities?! But was it not taught

that this is not considered a qualifying wall:

‘And if a man sells a house that is a dwelling in a walled city,’

which implies a house that was settled and built in a walled city? This teaches

that it was surrounded and only afterward settled, not that it was settled and only afterward surrounded!

How, then, did we establish that a city of the Levites can be a walled city when it was settled first and surrounded afterward?

We conclude the entire baraita:

One might even have thought that if Israelites surrounded it

after they conquered the Land, and afterward it was settled, it would be considered a walled city.

It is stated here:

“And if a man sells a house that is a dwelling in a city

with a wall,’ and it is stated elsewhere

with regard to the cities that the Israelites conquered from the kingdom of Og: “All these [the cities they conquered] were fortified cities,

with a wall

high, etc.” The terms “wall” and “wall” are derived by means of a gzera shava.

Just as there,

in the kingdom of Og,

gentiles

surrounded the cities,

so here,

with regard to the law of houses in walled cities, it is specifically when they were surrounded by

gentiles. One might have thought

that everything depends on those who surround the city, and

even if gentiles surrounded it afterward,

after the Land had been conquered, it would qualify.

It is stated here

with regard to houses in walled cities:

‘wall,’ and it is stated elsewhere

with regard to the conquest of the kingdom of Og:

‘wall,’

and the same gzera shava teaches also that

just as there,

in the kingdom of Og,

gentiles

surrounded the cities

beforehand,

before they were conquered,

so here too,

specifically

gentiles must have surrounded it beforehand.

And since we have said that a city settled first and surrounded afterward is not a walled city, we offer another resolution:

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Sala Ḥasida, interpreted

[established]

before Rav Pappa

the matter that is proven from the baraita concerning “eternal redemption,” namely, that it is possible to find houses in walled cities among the cities of the Levites: