1)

(a)The problem with the Pasuk in Yirmiyah (in connection with Tzidkiyah Hamelech) "Mikeitz Sheva Shanim Tishl'chu Ish es Achiv ha'Ivri ... ") is that - according to the Pasuk in Re'ei, an Eved Ivri goes free after six years, not seven.

(b)When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered 'Sheish le'Nimkar, Sheva li'Retzi'ah', he meant that - Yirmiyah was referring to six years from the time of the sale, but seven years until the Yovel, should the servant decides to remain longer (and the Yovel occur in the following year, as indeed it did then, as we learned above).

(c)This was said in the reign of Tzidkiyah Hamelech (long after the era of Sancheriv).

(d)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's answer therefore clashes with what we just learned that - the Yovel no longer applied from the time that Sancheriv exiled the two and a half tribes.

2)

(a)We reject the suggestion that the Pasuk in Yirmiyah was a rebuke on the past (for not having sent away their servants up to now) - because the Pasuk goes on to describe how they obeyed the Navi's command, and sent their servants away.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan solves the discrepancy, based on the Pasuk "Ki ha'Mocher el ha'Mimkar (with reference to the Yovel year) Lo Yashuv" - a proof that they did observe the Yovel even in the days of Tzidkiyahu (as will be explained shortly).

(c)When Yoshiyahu Hamelech asked the men of Beis-El about the marker that he saw (marking a special grave) - they replied that it was the grave of the man of G-d (Ido) who came from Yehudah and prophesied on the Mizbe'ach all that Yoshiyah had just done to it.

(d)From the fact that Yoshiyahu was in Beis-El, Rebbi Yochanan proves that - Yirmiyah returned Reuven, Gad and half of Menasheh from exile, and that Yoshiyah ha'Melech ruled over them.

(e)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns it from the Pasuk in Hoshe'a "Gam Yehudah Shas Katzir lach be'Shuvi Sh'vus Ami" - because, seeing as "Katzir" means 'a king' (like 'Katzin' [since a 'Resh' and a 'Nun' are sometimes interchangeable]), the Pasuk means that Yehudah appointed a king over the ten tribes when they returned from exile.

3)

(a)"Batei ha'Chatzerim" are - houses in an open town.

(b)The owner of "Batei ha'Chatzerim" has the best of both worlds. Batei ha'Chatzerim resemble ...

1. ... Batei Arei Chomah inasmuch as - they can be redeemed immediately and up to twelve months.

2. ... a Sadeh Achuzah - in that they revert to the owner in the Yovel, and he can redeem them by paying the purchaser for the years that he did not work with them.

(c)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "al S'dei ha'Aretz Yechashev" that - Batei ha'Chatzerim like Sadeh Achuzah, revert to the owner in the Yovel and via Gera'on Kesef (deducting the money, as we just explained).

2. ... "Ge'ulah Tih'yeh lo" - that he can redeem them any time within the first year, should he so wish.

(d)The problem with the Tana's next statement, which learns that Batei ha'Chatzerim revert to the owner in the Yovel from "u'va'Yovel Yeitzei" is - why do we need this D'rashah, since we already know it from "al S'dei ha'Aretz Yechashev"?

4)

(a)Rav Huna solves the problem by establishing the D'rashah in a case where the owner declared the house Hekdesh, and after somebody else redeemed it from Hekdesh, Yovel occurred in the second year. If we compared this case to ...

1. ... Batei Arei Chomah - the house would go to the purchaser.

2. ... Sadeh Achuzah - it would go to the Kohanim of that Mishmar.

(b)Rav Huna needs to say that the Yovel occurred in the second year, because had it occurred in the first year - it would go back to the original owner (as we already learned).

(c)Rebbi Ze'ira asked why Rav Huna needs to say that somebody else redeemed the house; to which Abaye (or Rebbi Avahu) answered - so that people should not say that Hekdesh goes out to Chulin without a Pidyon.

(d)And we extrapolate this from a ben Levi - who has all the advantages when it comes to a sale, yet he is obligated to redeem his property from Hekdesh (as we will now see). How much more so a ben Yisrael, who does not have all the advantages by a sale!

5)

(a)A Beraisa discusses the Pasuk "va'asher Yig'al min ha'Levi'im, ve'Yatza Mimkar Bayis ve'Ir Achuzaso ba'Yovel". The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "Bayis ve'Ir Achuzaso" that - the Avadim, Metaltelin and Sh'taros that a ben Levi have sold do not revert to him in the Yovel.

2. ... "Mimkar" that - it is only property which he sells that reverts to him in the Yovel, but not which he declares Hekdesh.

(b)Rebbi Oshaya disagrees with Rav Huna (mentioned in the previous question). He learns from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Nasan ha'Kesef ve'Kam lo" that - whoever redeems one's property from Hekdesh may keep it.

(c)And from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah ha'Sadeh" be'Tzeiso ba'Yovel Kodesh la'Hashem" he learns that - Sadeh Achuzah is the one exception, where the person who redeemed it must give it to the Kohanim when the Yovel arrives ...

(d)... to preclude the equivalent case of Batei ha'Chatzerim, which remain in the realm of "ve'Nasan ha'Kesef ve'Kam lo" (not like Rav Huna).

6)

(a)Rav Papa explains that "u'va'Yovel Yeitzei", according to Rebbi Oshaya, comes to teach us the Din in a case of Batei ha'Chatzerim where Yovel occurred in the second year of the sale. The equivalent Din by ...

1. ... Batei Arei Chomah - would be that the purchaser may now retain it.

2. ... Sadeh Achuzah is that - he would require a second year after the Yovel, before the seller would be permitted to redeem it.

(b)The Beraisa rules that someone who is Makdish a house in Batei ha'Chatzerim ...

1. ... S'tam - may redeem it at any time, even from the hand of someone who redeemed it from Hekdesh.

2. ... in a case where somebody else redeemed it from Hekdesh and the Yovel arrived - it reverts to the original owner ...

(c)... like Rav Huna (and a Tiyuvta on Rebbi Oshaya).

7)

(a)Our Mishnah defines a walled town with two courtyards, each containing two houses as - an open town (pertaining to the Parshah of Batei ha'Chatzerim, and not Batei Arei Chomah).

(b)The Lashon "Batei ha'Chatzerim" implies - houses in a town that consists of courtyards, and that is not surrounded by a wall.

(c)The Beraisa explains the Pasuk " ... asher Ein lahem Chomah" to mean that - even if it has a wall, it is as if it did not have one.

8)

(a)We know that "Batei ha'Chatzerim" ...

1. ... comprises two courtyards, each with two houses - because both "Batei" and "Chatzerim" imply at least two.

2. ... means two houses in each Chatzer, and not just one - because then the Torah ought to have written "Chatzerim" without 'Batei' (since a Chatzer automatically implies a courtyard including a house) ...

(b)... because a courtyard without a house is called a Karfaf, and not a Chatzer.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah initially rules that a Yisrael who inherits his maternal grandfather who is a Levi, and a Levi who inherits his maternal grandfather who is a Yisrael - are not subject to the restrictions of Batei Arei Chomah (whose sale becomes final after one year). They are permitted to redeem their houses even after one year).

(b)Rebbi then learns from the Pasuk " ... ki Batei Arei ha'Levi'im Hi Achuzasam" that - it is only a Levi who inherits from a Levi whose sale has the Din of Batei Arei ha'Levi'im, but not the two cases that we just discussed (a contradiction with the opening statement).

(c)The Chachamim - restrict the Din of Batei Arei ha'Levi'im to their own towns, and not to property that a Levi inherited from his maternal grandfather (like Rebbi). They disagree with Rebbi however, regarding a Yisrael who inherited property from his maternal grandfather who is a Levi (see 10b).

(d)Seeing as the first two statements in the Mishnah contradict each other, we amend the statement 'Eino Go'el ke'Seider ha'Zeh' to read - 'Eino Go'el ad she'Yehei ke'Seider ha'Zeh'.

10)

(a)Rebbi learns from ...

1. ... "ki Batei Arei ha'Levi'im" that - the special Dinim of Batei Arei ha'Levi'im are confined to the forty-eight towns of the Levi'im, as we explained.

2. ... the word "min" (in the Pasuk "va'Asher Yig'al min ha'Levi'im") that - some Levi'im are precluded from the leniences of Batei Arei ha'Levi'im (a Levi who is a Mamzer and, how much so a Yisrael who inherited property from his paternal grandfather who is a Levi).

3. ... "ha'Levi'im" (there) that - even a Levi who sold property to a fellow Levi is subject to these leniencies.

(b)According to the Chachamim of Rebbi - it is only property that a Levi inherits from his paternal grandfather that is precluded from the Din of Batei Arei ha'Levi'im, but not a Yisrael who inherited his paternal grandfather who is a Levi.

11)

(a)The Mishnah now discusses a Migrash - an open space of a thousand Amos outside the town that is left empty, a field and a town.

(b)The Tana forbids turning ...

1. .. a field into a Migrash or a Migrash into a field ...

2. ... a Migrash into a town or a town into a Migrash.

(c)According to Rebbi Elazar, these rulings are restricted to the towns of the Levi'im. He concedes however - that the last prohibition applies to other towns as well ...

(d)... because it is forbidden to destroy towns in Eretz Yisrael.

(e)Finally, the Tana learns from the Pasuk "Ge'ulas Olam Tih'yeh la'Levi'im" that - a Levi is permitted to sell forever (even in the Yovel year itself) and to redeem forever (even immediately after the sale).

12)

(a)The Pasuk "u'Sadeh Migrash Areihem Lo Yimacher" (written in connection with the towns of the Levi'im) cannot be taken literally - in light of the Pasuk "Ge'ulas Olam Tih'yeh la'Levi'im" (because what is not sold is obviously not subject to redemption).

(b)Rebbi Elazar therefore interprets it to mean that - it may not be changed (as we learned in our Mishnah [even according to Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua who permits changing towns that do not belong to the Levi'im]).

(c)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ge'ulas Olam Tih'yeh la'Levi'im" that - a Levi who ...

1. ... sells a Sadeh Achuzah - may redeem it even after two years.

2. ... declares his field Hekdesh and someone else redeemed it - gets it back in the Yovel.

3. ... sells a house in a walled town - is permitted to redeem it even after one year.

13)

(a)Based on the fact that the Arei Levi'im are also towns of refuge - the Beraisa restricts the size of these towns to medium size, without a wall. They cannot be ...

1. ... small villages - because then the refugees will not be able to set up a working community.

2. ... large towns - so as not to encourage the Go'el ha'Dam (the relatives of the murdered men) to slip in and hide among the crowds, before avenging their murdered brother's blood.

(b)The problem this creates with the Beraisa that we just learned is - the third D'rashah, which refers to a Levi selling a house in a walled town, which implies that the Levi'im did own walled towns).

(c)Rav Kahana draws a distinction between a town that was walled before Yisrael captured the land - which the Levi'im did indeed not possess, and one that they themselves walled only afterwards - which they possibly did.

14)

(a)We query this however, from a Beraisa, where the Tana extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Ish ki Yimkor Beis Moshav Ir Chomah" that - the town must have been walled before Yisrael inhabited it.

(b)The Tana also learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Chomah" "Chomah" (from the Pasuk in Devarim "Kol Eileh Arim Betzuros Chomah Gevohah ... " in connection with the area that Yisrael captured from Og Melech ha'Bashan) that - even a town which they walled themselves before inhabiting it, does not qualify as an Ir Chomah.

(c)And we learn from the same Gezeirah-Shavah that - even if Nochrim built a wall around the town before Yisrael inhabited it, it is not considered an Ir Chomah.

(d)We query Rav Yosef b'rei de'Rav Sala Chasida's answer, that the Beraisa is speaking about walled towns that fell to the Levi'im via the lots drawn by Yehoshua on the grounds that - the walls of such towns stood to be demolished, and not sold.

(e)Nevertheless, based on his answer, Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa - where they sold the town before demolishing the walls, and the Tana is teaching us that the sale is not permanent (and when the town is returned, they remain obligated to demolish the walls).