Arakhin 33b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

And these are the houses of the open courtyards

in which the law of “houses of the open courtyards” applies—apart from the villages that are not surrounded by a wall: a city in which there are only

two courtyards of two houses

in each courtyard,

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

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

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

From the implication of what is stated, “houses of the open courtyards,”

which implies that the houses are not in a city, but are only a settlement of courtyards,

do I not know that they have no wall,

and if so,

why do I need “that have no wall”?

To teach that there are “houses of the open courtyards”

that, even though they have a wall,

they are

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 open courtyards” that do not contain 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 raise an objection:

But say

one

house

and

its

one

courtyard,

and another one house and its courtyard [so that there are here two houses and two courtyards], which are not considered a city; but if there are two houses in each courtyard, they are like a walled city and not like houses of the open courtyards?

And we answer:

If so,

that the verse is speaking of one house in a courtyard,

let the Merciful One write “courtyards”

and not write “houses” at all; it would then be implied that there is a house in each courtyard, for only in such a manner is it a courtyard.

And if you would say: If the Merciful One had written

only

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

this is not so.

That

courtyard in which there is no house at all

is called a field enclosure!

And not a courtyard; and from the fact that “courtyards” is written, it is implied that there are houses in them. Inevitably, “and houses” comes to teach that even when there are two houses in each courtyard, this is not a walled city.

Mishna:

It is written: [Leviticus 25:32–33] “And concerning the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their possession, perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites” [they may redeem immediately, even before two years, their ancestral field; or, if they sold a house in a walled city, they redeem it forever, and it does not become finalized at the end of a year].

“And that which he redeems from the Levites, the sale of the house and the city of his possession [of a Levite], 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].” And included in the law of perpetual redemption of the Levites in houses of walled cities are:

a.

An Israelite who inherited

from

his Levite maternal grandfather

houses of walled cities in the cities of the Levites that they received in the Land, and sold them,

does not redeem according to this order

stated concerning an Israelite, whose sale becomes finalized after a year; rather, he redeems forever like a Levite, as it is written concerning them, “perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites,” since the city is one of the cities of the Levites.

b.

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

a house in a city surrounded by a wall in the other cities of Israel, and sold it,

does not redeem according to this order

stated concerning an Israelite, whose sale becomes finalized after a year; rather, he redeems 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 it implies:

until he himself is

a

Levite, and he sells from the cities of the Levites,

then specifically shall he have perpetual redemption. [The beginning and the end contradict one another: in the beginning it is written that it is sufficient for one of these conditions that he have perpetual redemption, whereas at the end the verse is precisely interpreted to mean that only when both conditions exist is there perpetual redemption; and this is explained in the Gemara],

the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: These matters

of perpetual redemption

are stated only concerning the cities of the Levites,

and do not depend at all on the seller; whenever it is one of the cities of the Levites, there is perpetual redemption, whether a Levite sold it or an Israelite sold it.

Gemara:

And we raise the contradiction between the beginning and the end with regard to the middle clause: It is written, “does not redeem according to this order [of an Israelite],”

but according to whose order

does he redeem?

Like a son of Levi!

And he has perpetual redemption. If so, it is implied that one condition is sufficient: either the house is inherited from the cities of the Levites, or the seller is a Levite.

And then it teaches

the opposite:

until he is a Levite and the cities of the Levites

together—then there is perpetual redemption—and one of them alone is not sufficient?!

And we answer:

Say that in the beginning and in the middle it means:

he does not redeem

“except” according to this order

of an Israelite, since in the beginning these are cities of the Levites but the seller is not a Levite, while at the end the seller is a Levite but the house is not from the cities of the Levites; therefore they do not have perpetual redemption,

until

the seller is

a Levite and it is a city of the Levites—the words of Rabbi.

And we raise an objection to Rabbi, who requires both conditions:

Granted, the cities of the Levites

are necessary, because

it is written, “for the houses of the cities of the Levites”; but

that a

Levite is also required—from where do we know it?

And we answer:

As it is written: “And the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their possession, perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites.

“And as for the cities of the Levites, the houses of the cities of their inheritance, the Levites shall have a permanent right of redemption.

And that which he redeems from the Levites

and the sale of the house and the city of his possession shall go out in the Jubilee.” Its meaning is that those Levites who redeem forever have the additional power that their house should return to them in the Jubilee if they do not redeem it [according to Zevach Todah]. And from the fact that “from” the Levites is written, it is implied that I granted permission to redeem only to some Levites and not to all of them, excluding a Levite who comes from a mamzeret and from a netina; and since even these were excluded from perpetual redemption, all the more so an Israelite who inherited from his maternal grandfather, a Levite, does not redeem, since he is a complete Israelite. [Likkutei Halakhot in explanation of Rashi’s words; see also Sefat Emet].

And we support this exposition:

and it was taught

that they expound in this manner:

“And that which he redeems from the Levites”—why do I need this?

For

one might

say that were it not for this verse, but only for the verse “perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites,”

a

Levite only

from an Israelite

who sold to him

would redeem! For this

seller, the Levite,

has the stronger power,

as it is written, “perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites,”

whereas this

Israelite who purchased

has the weaker power

with regard to his sale, which becomes finalized at the end of a year.

But a Levite from a Levite would not

have perpetual redemption,

because this

seller

has the stronger power, and this

purchaser, he too,

has the stronger power

to redeem forever, as does a seller,

the verse states: “And that which he redeems from the Levites.”

For it could have written, “And if he does not redeem, the sale of the house and the city of his possession shall go out in the Jubilee,” but it wrote “and that which he redeems from the Levites,” to teach that perpetual redemption shall be for 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 the Levites; it excludes a mamzer son of a Levite and a netin [who comes from a mamzeret or from a netina, Rashi], who does not redeem! And from here they prove that “from” the Levites is expounded as we expounded it.

who descends from a mamzeret or a netina, as Rashi explains; he cannot redeem. This proves that the word “from” in “from the Levites” is expounded as we have explained.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: These matters are stated only concerning the cities of the Levites.

And we explain:

But “until he is

also the seller

a Levite,” we do not say! [According to Likkutei Halakhot.]

[Based on Likkutei Halakhot.]

Mishna:

The Israelites were commanded [Numbers 35] to give the Levites cities from the inheritance of their possession, in which the Levites would dwell; and outside the city, one thousand cubits on every side of the city, they were commanded to give them as an open space, which was entirely empty and made for beautification. And another one thousand cubits on every side of the open space, they were commanded to give them for fields and vineyards.

And

they do not make

in the cities of the Levites the

field into an

open space,

which is for beautification and without sowing,

nor an open space into

a field, nor

the

open space into a

city,

with houses for dwelling,

nor

the

city into an

open space,

and the reason is explained in the Gemara.

And even in the other cities in the Land of Israel, they do not make a field into an open space, because of the settlement of the Land of Israel: when one reduces cultivation, this is the destruction of the Land of Israel. And likewise, they do not make the open space into a field, because this destroys the beauty of the city; and all the more so, they do not make the city into an open space, since this destroys the settlement of the city.

Rabbi Elazar said

to dispute the words of the first tanna:

When are these words spoken,

that all these changes are forbidden?

In the cities of the Levites; but in the cities of Israel they may make a field into an

open space,

and likewise an

open space into a

field,

and likewise an

open space into a

city.

But

not a city into an

open space,

even in the cities of Israel,

so that they should not destroy the cities of Israel [The explanation of the Mishna was written according to what appears from Maimonides; see Rashi and Tosafot Yom Tov.]

The priests and Levites may sell forever.

The priests and the Levites sell forever

Some explain: they may sell even in the Jubilee year itself. Rashi challenged this explanation and wrote: “It seems to me” that this teaches nothing [and because the Mishna writes, concerning consecrated property in chapter 8, “the priests and the Levites consecrate forever,” it also writes here, concerning a sale].

And they redeem forever,

for their houses of walled cities do not become finalized.

As it is stated: “Perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites.”

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar said: When are these words spoken? In the cities of the Levites; but in the cities of Israel they may make, and so on.

And we explain:

According to everyone,

and even according to Rabbi Elazar,

with regard to the Levites [in the cities belonging to the Levites],

[in the cities belonging to the Levites]

at least we do not alter

these changes.

From where are these matters? Rabbi Elazar said: For the verse says

concerning the cities of the Levites:

“And a field of the open space of their cities shall not be sold.” What does “shall not be sold” mean? If you say that it shall not be sold at all,

in its plain sense,

but since it is written, “Perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites,” it follows that they do sell [for if there is no sale, from where is redemption?].

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

Rather,

inevitably,

what does “shall not be sold” mean?

It shall not be changed;

rather, the field, the open space, and the city shall each remain as it is forever [Maimonides].

We learned in the Mishna:

The priests and the Levites sell forever and redeem forever.

The Sages taught: “Perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites”—why do I need this?

a.

Since it is stated: “According to the number of years of crops he shall sell to you,”

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

one might think that this one too,

the Levite,

likewise,

that if he sold a field that he had around the cities of the Levites, it would be forbidden for him to redeem it within two years.

The verse states: “Perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites.”

b.

Since it is stated

concerning the consecration of an ancestral field, that if someone redeemed it immediately from the consecrated property,

“And the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy to the Lord

as a field devoted; to the priest shall be its possession,” and it leaves him in the Jubilee for the priests,

one might think that this one too,

the Levite,

likewise,

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

The verse states: “Perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites.”

c.

Since it is stated

concerning the sale of houses of walled cities, that if he did not redeem it within a year,

“Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand permanently

for the purchaser thereof, and so on,”

one might think that this one too,

the Levite,

likewise; the verse states: “Perpetual redemption shall be for the Levites”!

And we raise an objection:

Granted, these first two

—the first laws learned from “perpetual redemption,” which concern fields—

indeed [it is reasonable],

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

But “houses of walled cities” for the Levites

in the cities of the Levites,

do they have them,

so that it could be said concerning them that if they sell them they may redeem forever?!

But it was taught

that they have no cities of

walled cities

at all:

These cities

[villages]

small

that are given to the Levites are not made into towers

nor large fortified cities

[surrounded by a wall—as Rashi says below],

large,

since in large fortified cities people gather for commerce, and the blood-avenger’s presence would be common there, and he would lie in wait for the murderer and kill him,

but rather intermediate towns,

without a wall?!

Rav Kahana said: It is not difficult; here,

where it is not applicable for the Levites to have a walled city,

when it was surrounded

by a wall

and ultimately settled

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

Here,

where it is proven from the beraita concerning “perpetual redemption” that it is possible to find a walled city among the Levites,

when it was settled and ultimately surrounded

after the cities were given to the Levites, they surrounded it themselves.

And we refute this:

And in such a case,

where it was settled first and ultimately surrounded by a wall,

is it

included among houses of walled

cities?! But it was taught

that this is not a wall:

“And if a man sells a house of habitation in a walled city,”

which implies a house that was inhabited and built in a walled city, to teach:

that it was surrounded and ultimately settled, and not that it was settled and ultimately surrounded!

And how did we establish it—that when it was settled and ultimately surrounded, this is the manner in which walled cities can exist among the Levites?

And we conclude the entire beraita:

One might even think that Israelites surrounded it

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

It is stated here:

“And if a man sells a house of habitation of a

walled city,” and it is stated elsewhere,

concerning the cities that Israel conquered from the kingdom of Og: “All these [the cities that they conquered] were fortified cities with

a wall

high, and so on,” and “wall–wall” is learned by means of a gzera shava.

Just as there,

with Og,

gentiles

surrounded them,

so here too,

with regard to the law of houses of walled cities, specifically

gentiles surrounded them.

One might

say that everything depends on those who surround it, and

even if gentiles surrounded it afterward,

after the Land was conquered?

It is stated here

concerning houses of walled cities,

“wall,” and it is stated elsewhere concerning the conquest of the kingdom of Og,

“wall,”

and we learn through that same gzera shava also that

just as there,

in the kingdom of Og,

gentiles

surrounded it

beforehand,

before it was conquered,

so here too,

specifically

gentiles beforehand.

And since we said that when it was settled and ultimately surrounded this is not a walled city, they offer another resolution:

Rav Yosef son of Rav Sala Chasida explained

[established]

before Rav Pappa

the matter proven from the beraita concerning “perpetual redemption,” that it is possible to find houses of walled cities in the cities of the Levites: