As stated in Halachah 15, it is not significant whether the city is surrounded by a wall at the present time. Instead, we are speaking about cities that were walled when Joshua conquered Eretz Yisrael.
I.e., the year mentioned in the Leviticus 25:29 is not a calendar year, beginning on Rosh HaShanah, but a twelve month period beginning from the day of sale.
In contrast to the laws of a field that is an ancestral heritage, as mentioned in Chapter.11, Halachah.4 The return of the purchaser’s money in full resembles a loan at interest In contrast to the laws of a field that is an ancestral heritage, as mentioned in Chapter.11, Halachah.4 The return of the purchaser’s money in full resembles a loan at interest for the benefit he had in using the property is comparable to interest paid for the principal - nevertheless, because a sale is involved, there is no prohibition (Arachin 9:3).
In contrast to the law regarding an ancestral heritage (Chapter 11, Halachah 18).
In contrast to the law regarding an ancestral heritage (ibid.: 17).
Permanently, for it does not return to the owner in the Jubilee. See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 9:4).
Arachin 32b derives these concepts from the exegesis of relevant verses.
Permanently, for it does not return to the owner in the Jubilee. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Arichin 9:4).
Who was also the first purchaser.
The Rambam is referring to a difference of opinion in Arachin, Joe. cit., whether after twelve months, the house remains in the possession of the second purchaser or reverts to the first. Although one might argue that the Torah specifies that if the house is not redeemed it becomes the property of the first seller, that rationale is not accepted for the reason the Rambam states.
For as indicated by Chapter 11, Halachah 19, a present is equivalent to a sale.
Le., until the end of a 13 month period.
Le., an ordinary year with only one Adar.
For it is a full twelve months after that sale and that sale was made after the extra month of the leap year had been completed.
And if that day passes, he will not be able to redeem it.
This is an ordinance established by Hillel the Elder to protect the rights of the seller (Arachin 9:4). The rationale is that since the purchaser has no choice whether to accept the money or not, it is sufficient for the money to be deposited in the court for him (Arachin 32a).
We are not concerned with the date on which it was consecrated. Instead, it is the date from which it was redeemed from the Temple treasury which concerns us, for that is when it was so1d and it is its sale that brings about a change in ownership.
I.e., for the sake of his descendants and the Temple treasury does not have descendants (Arachin 32b).
The statement (Leviticus 25:30): “It shall not return in the Jubilee” applies both before the house becomes the permanent property of the purchaser and afterwards.
Again, what is significant is not the present state of the city, but its state at the time of Joshua’s conquest, as stated in Halachah 1.5
Since the sale involves a house, the seller has this advantage over the seller of a field.
For Leviticus 25:31 states that they will be considered as a field.
Arachin 33a [quoted by the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 9:7)] explains that since the above verse specifies that these homes can be redeemed and that they are returned in the Jubilee, we derive the concept that their redemption involves a reduction of the cost of the field.
I.e., it can be redeemed only within a year and does not return in the Jubilee.
For a house is not considered a house unless it is at least four cubit~_ by four cubits (Sukkah 3b). This concept applies in several different contexts, for example, the requirement to place a mezuzah (Hilchot Mezuzah 6:1) or toconstruct a guardrail (Hilchot Rotzeach 11:1).
As the Rambam states in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:14, Jerusalem was never divided among the tribes. For that reason, a person can never permanently acquire property there. Instead, houses there are bound by the laws that apply to houses in settlements (see Rashi. Arachin 32b; Bava Kama 82b).
Arachin 9:5 records a difference of opinion on this issue betwee_n Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon. Both of them base their opinion on the exegesis of the Biblical story of Rachab’s home in Joshua, ch..2
Megillah 5b explains that this refers to a situation where the city is not surrounded by a wall, but instead, its houses are built next to each other, so that it appears that it is surrounded by a wall (Rav Yosef Corcus).
For example, as in the instance of Tiberias which was surrounded by a wall on one side and the sea on the other.
Instead, they are governed by the laws applying to homes in a settlement.
Otherwise, it is not large enough to be called a city.
Interestingly, the Talmud also mentions these laws with regard to reading a Megilah in a walled city (Megilah 3b), but the Rambam does not quote them there, only here.
Arachin 9:6 gives as examples: Ancient Yodefat, Gamla, Chadid, Gedod, and Ono.
Arachin 9:6 gives as examples: Ancient Yodefat, Gamla, Chadid, Gedod, and Ono.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that once a city’s walls are destroyed, the city loses its unique status. The Radbaz and the Kessel Mishneh explain that the Rambam is referring to the situation in the First Temple era. If a city had a wall at the time of Joshua’s conquest, but that wall was tom down, the status of the city did not change throughout that era. See also the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Arachin 9:6).
And the sanctity of the land was nullified, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:15, Hilchot Terumah 1 :26..
As stated in those sources, in contrast to the sanctification in the time of Joshua, the sanctification of the land by Ezra was only Rabbinic in origin. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Joe. cit.), the Rambam states that the cities that were walled at the time of Ezra were given the status of walled cities. From the Radbaz and the Kessel Mishneh, it appears that the cities that were given the status of walled _cities by the people who returned with Ezra were cities that were considered walled cities in the era of the First Temple.
I.e., when the Jews return to Eretz Yisrael led by Mashiach.
The Ra’avad and others question the Rambam’s statements, because he accepts the principal (see Hilchot Beit HaBechirah, loc. cit.) that through Ezra’s consecration, the land was consecrated until and including the ultimate future. Kina ‘at Eliyahu suggests a resolution based on the fact that the sanctification of the land by Ezra was only Rabbinic in origin, while the sanctification by Mashiach will have the power of Scriptural Law. Hence, a new sanctification will be necessary.
