## Arakhin Daf 33b

###### Arakhin 33b:1
[Arakhin 33b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ הֵן בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים — שְׁנֵי חֲצֵרִים שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמּוּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה מִימוֹת יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּבָתֵּי חֲצֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA** **And these are the houses of the** unwalled **courtyards** whose *halakha* was taught in the previous mishna: Any city in which there are **two courtyards** each containing **two houses, although it is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, their** halakhic status **is like that of the houses of** the unwalled **courtyards.**


###### Arakhin 33b:2
[Arakhin 33b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בָּתֵּי הַחֲצֵרִים״ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר אֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה״? אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם חוֹמָה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חוֹמָה. וְכַמָּה? בָּתִּים — שְׁנַיִם, חֲצֵירוֹת — שְׁנַיִם, שְׁתֵּי חֲצֵירוֹת שֶׁל שְׁנֵי בָתִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA** **The Sages taught: By inference from** that **which is stated: “The houses of the courtyards”** (Leviticus 25:31), **do I not know that they have no wall** around them? If so, **what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “Which have no wall”?** It means that there are certain places that **even though they have a wall,** they are considered **like** places **that do not have a wall. And how many,** i.e., what is considered such a place? The term **“houses”** indicates a minimum of **two,** and the term **“courtyards”** likewise indicates a minimum of **two.** Therefore, if a city has only **two courtyards** each containing **two houses,** its houses are considered like the houses of the unwalled courtyards.


###### Arakhin 33b:3
[Arakhin 33b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:3)

וְאֵימָא בַּיִת וְחָצֵר! אִם כֵּן לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲצֵרִים״, וְכִי תֵּימָא אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״חֲצֵרִים״ — חָצֵר בְּלֹא בַּיִת מַשְׁמַע, הַהוּא קַרְפֵּף אִיקְּרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** you can **say** that the phrase: Houses of the courtyards, means one **house and** one **courtyard,** i.e., one house in each courtyard. Consequently, if each courtyard contains two houses, the city should be considered like a walled city. The Gemara explains: **If so, let the Merciful One write: “Courtyards,”** without mentioning houses, as a courtyard must contain at least one house. **And if you would say: If the Merciful One had written** only: **“Courtyards,”** then one might mistakenly have concluded that the verse **indicates a courtyard without a house** and that if the courtyard contains a house then the city is considered walled, one could not have arrived at that conclusion, since **such** an area **is called an enclosure [*karpef* ],** not a courtyard.


###### Arakhin 33b:4
[Arakhin 33b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֲבִי אִמּוֹ לֵוִי — אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה. וְכֵן לֵוִי שֶׁיָּרַשׁ אֶת אֲבִי אִמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל — אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA** **An Israelite who inherited** a house in a walled city from **his mother’s father** who was **a Levite does not redeem** the house **in accordance with this procedure** delineated in the previous *mishnayot*; rather, if he sold the inherited house, he may redeem it always, like a Levite. **And likewise, a Levite who inherited** a house in a walled city from **his mother’s father** who was **an Israelite does not redeem** the house **in accordance with this procedure** delineated in the previous *mishnayot*.


###### Arakhin 33b:5
[Arakhin 33b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:5)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי בָתֵּי עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם הִוא אֲחוּזָּתָם״, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna provides the source for these *halakhot*: **As it is stated:** “And if a man purchases from the Levites, the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall go out during the Jubilee Year; **as the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession** among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 25:33). The verse indicates that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply **unless** the one selling the house **will be a Levite and** the house is located in **the cities of the Levites.** This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated only** with regard to a house **in the cities of the Levites,** even if the owner was not a Levite.


###### Arakhin 33b:6
[Arakhin 33b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** וְאֶלָּא כְּמַאן? כְּבֶן לֵוִי. וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: ״עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA** The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, if an Israelite sold a house in a walled city that he inherited from his mother’s father who was a Levite, he does not redeem it in accordance with the procedure delineated in the previous *mishnayot*. The Gemara asks: **Rather, like whom** does he redeem it? He redeems it **like a Levite. But** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **then teaches** that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply **unless** the one selling the house **will be a Levite and** the house is located in **the cities of the Levites.** If so, an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who is a Levite should redeem it in the manner of an Israelite.


###### Arakhin 33b:7
[Arakhin 33b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:7)

אֵימָא: אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל אֶלָּא כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי וְעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Say** that the mishna means that an Israelite who inherited a house in a walled city from his mother’s father who was a Levite **redeems** that house **only in accordance with this procedure** delineated in the previous *mishnayot*, i.e., he has only one year to redeem it, after which the house becomes the possession of the buyer in perpetuity. And this is always the *halakha* **unless** the one selling the house **will be a Levite and** the house is located **in the cities of the Levites,** in which case he can always redeem it. This is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Arakhin 33b:8
[Arakhin 33b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:8)

בִּשְׁלָמָא עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם — דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי בָּתֵּי עָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם״, אֶלָּא לֵוִי מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִגְאַל מִן הַלְוִיִּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** the house must be from **the cities of the Levites, as it is written: “As the houses of the cities of the Levites** are their possession” (Leviticus 25:33). **But from where do we** derive that the one selling the house must also be **a Levite** for these *halakhot* to apply? The Gemara responds: **As it is written** in the same verse: **“And if a man purchases from the Levites**…shall go out during the Jubilee Year.” The verse is referring specifically to a Levite who sells his house.


###### Arakhin 33b:9
[Arakhin 33b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:9)

תַּנְיָא: ״וַאֲשֶׁר יִגְאַל מִן הַלְוִיִּם״ — יָכוֹל לֵוִי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יִגְאַל, שֶׁזֶּה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ וְזֶה הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ, אֲבָל לֵוִי מִלֵּוִי לֹא, שֶׁזֶּה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ וְזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחוֹ — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַלְוִיִּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds that **it is** likewise **taught** in a *baraita*: Given that the verse already states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:32), why does the next verse state: **“And if a man purchases from the Levites**…shall go out during the Jubilee Year”?It is because one **might** have thought: **A Levite may** always **redeem from an Israelite** the house that he sold, **as this** Levite’s **power was enhanced,** in that he can redeem always, **and that** Israelite’s **power was diminished,** as he may redeem only within one year. **But a Levite may not** always redeem **from** another **Levite, as this** one’s **power was enhanced and that** one’s **power was** equally **enhanced.** Rather, the Levite may redeem only within one year of the sale. Therefore, **the verse states:** “And if a man purchases **from the Levites,”** which literally means: And if a man redeems from the Levites, which teaches that even a Levite who redeems a house purchased by another Levite can always redeem the house.


###### Arakhin 33b:10
[Arakhin 33b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:10)

״מִן הַלְוִיִּם״ — וְלֹא כׇּל הַלְוִיִּם, פְּרָט לְבֶן לֵוִי מַמְזֵר וְנָתִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: When the verse states: **“From the Levites,”** this teaches that some Levites may always redeem their houses, **but not all the Levites. Excluded is a Levite** who is **a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzer*], or a Gibeonite,** i.e., his mother is from the Gibeonites, as these are disqualified from entering the congregation of the Jewish people (see *Yevamot* 78a). If such a Levite inherited from his father and sold a house from the cities of the Levites, he does not redeem it as a Levite.


###### Arakhin 33b:11
[Arakhin 33b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:11)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין דְּבָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֲמוּרִים אֶלָּא בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם. אֲבָל עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לֵוִי — לָא אָמְרִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated only** with regard to a house **in the cities of the Levites,** even if the owner was not a Levite. The Gemara explains: **But** according to the Rabbis, **we do not say** that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply **unless** the one selling the house **will be a Levite.** Rather, the Rabbis hold that anyone who inherits a portion in a Levite city may redeem that portion as a Levite, even if he himself is not a Levite.


###### Arakhin 33b:12
[Arakhin 33b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:12)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵין עוֹשִׂין שָׂדֶה מִגְרָשׁ, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ שָׂדֶה, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ עִיר, וְלֹא עִיר מִגְרָשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The Levites received two thousand cubits surrounding their cities, one thousand cubits of empty lots and one thousand cubits for fields and vineyards. **One may neither render a field** an empty **lot nor** an empty **lot a field.** Similarly, one may neither incorporate an empty **lot** into **a city nor** render part of **a city** an empty **lot.**


###### Arakhin 33b:13
[Arakhin 33b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, אֲבָל בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין שָׂדֶה מִגְרָשׁ, וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ שָׂדֶה, מִגְרָשׁ עִיר, וְלֹא עִיר מִגְרָשׁ, שֶׁלֹּא יַחְרִיבוּ אֶת עָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹלָם, וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It applies **in the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites one may render a field** an empty **lot but not** an empty **lot a field,** and one may incorporate an empty **lot** into **a city but not** render part of **a city** an empty **lot,** in order to ensure **that they will not** thereby **destroy the cities of Israel. The priests and the Levites may sell** their fields and houses **always and may redeem** them **always, as it is stated: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption”** (Leviticus 25:32). Priests are also members of the tribe of Levi.


###### Arakhin 33b:14
[Arakhin 33b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים? בְּעָרֵי הַלְוִיִּם, אֲבָל בְּעָרֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין״ וְכוּ׳. דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא בְּדִלְוִיִּם לָא מְשַׁנֵּינַן, מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Elazar said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is **in the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites** one may render a field an empty lot but not an empty lot a field, and one may incorporate an empty lot into a city but not render part of a city an empty lot, in order to ensure that they will not thereby destroy the cities of Israel. The Gemara asks: **In any event, everyone** agrees that **in** the cities **of the Levites one may not change** a field into an empty lot or an empty lot into a city. **From where are these matters** derived?


###### Arakhin 33b:15
[Arakhin 33b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּשְׂדֵה מִגְרַשׁ עָרֵיהֶם לֹא יִמָּכֵר״. מַאי ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״? אִילֵּימָא לֹא יִמָּכֵר כְּלָל, וְהָא מִדִּכְתִיב: ״גְּאֻלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״, מִכְּלָל דִּמְזַבְּנִי. אֶלָּא מַאי ״לֹא יִמָּכֵר״? לֹא יְשַׁנֶּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar said: As the verse states: “But the fields of the open land about their cities may not be sold”** (Leviticus 25:34). **What** is the meaning of the phrase **“may not be sold”? If we say** it means that such fields **may not be sold at all,** that cannot be correct, as **from** the fact **that it is written: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption”** (Leviticus 25:32), one learns **by inference that** their fields **may be sold. Rather, what** is the meaning of the phrase **“may not be sold”?** It means that a field, an empty lot, or a city **may not be changed** from its current status.


###### Arakhin 33b:16
[Arakhin 33b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:16)

הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם מוֹכְרִין לְעוֹלָם וְגוֹאֲלִין לְעוֹלָם. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״גְּאֻלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **The priests and the Levites may sell** their fields and houses **always and may redeem** them **always.** With regard to this *halakha*, **the Sages taught: Why** must **the verse state: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption”** (Leviticus 25:32)? **Since it is stated** with regard to the ancestral field of an Israelite: **“According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you”** (Leviticus 25:15), from which it is derived that one cannot redeem an ancestral field less than two years after its sale, one **might** have thought that this should **also** be **so** with regard to **this** Levite who sold his field. Therefore, **the verse states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,”** which teaches that a Levite may redeem his field immediately.


###### Arakhin 33b:17
[Arakhin 33b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:17)

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיֹּבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, **since it is stated: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord,** as a field dedicated; his ancestral field shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), one **might** have thought that this should **also** be **so** with regard to **this** Levite who consecrated his field. Therefore, **the verse states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,”** which teaches that the field of a Levite is not transferred to the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year; rather, the Levite may always redeem it from the Temple treasury.


###### Arakhin 33b:18
[Arakhin 33b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:18)

לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְקָם הַבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר אֲשֶׁר לוֹ חוֹמָה לַצְּמִיתוּת״, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״גְּאוּלַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה לַלְוִיִּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Additionally, **since it is stated:** “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, **then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession** of the one who bought it **in perpetuity”** (Leviticus 25:30), one **might** have thought that this should **also** be **so** with regard to **this** Levite who sold his house in a walled city. Therefore, **the verse states: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption,”** indicating that the Levite may always redeem his house.


###### Arakhin 33b:19
[Arakhin 33b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:19)

בִּשְׁלָמָא הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי לְחַיֵּי, אֶלָּא בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה לִלְוִיִּם מִי אִית לְהוּ? וְהָתַנְיָא: עָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן לֹא כְּפָרִים קְטַנִּים וְלֹא כְּרַכִּים גְּדוֹלִים, אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת בֵּינוֹנִיּוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** with regard to **these** first **two** *halakhot*, which deal with the field of a Levite, **it is well. But** with regard to the last *halakha*, why is it necessary for the verse to exclude the houses of Levites? **Do Levites have houses of walled cities? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **these cities** given to the Levites, **one does not establish them, neither** in **small villages nor** in **large cities; rather,** they must be **intermediate towns,** which are not surrounded by walls.


###### Arakhin 33b:20
[Arakhin 33b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:20)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן — שֶׁהוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב, כָּאן — שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said:** This is **not difficult. Here,** the *baraita* that states that the cities of the Levites were not surrounded by walls is referring to a city **that was** initially **surrounded** by a wall **and was ultimately settled. There,** the *baraita* that states that Levites do have houses of walled cities is referring to an intermediate town **that was** first **settled** by the Levites **and was ultimately surrounded** by a wall in the times of Joshua.


###### Arakhin 33b:21
[Arakhin 33b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:21)

וְכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא מִי הָוְיָא חוֹמָה? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִמְכֹּר בֵּית מוֹשַׁב עִיר חוֹמָה״ — שֶׁהוּקַּף וּלְבַסּוֹף יָשַׁב, וְלֹא שֶׁיָּשַׁב וּלְבַסּוֹף הוּקַּף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **a case like this,** where the city was first settled and only then surrounded by a wall, **is it** considered **a wall** to the extent that the houses inside the city are considered in a walled city? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city”** (Leviticus 25:29). This is referring to a city **that was** initially **surrounded** by a wall **and was ultimately settled, and not** to a city **that was** first **settled and was ultimately surrounded** by a wall.


###### Arakhin 33b:22
[Arakhin 33b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:22)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ הִקִּיפוּהָ יִשְׂרָאֵל? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״חוֹמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חוֹמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן גּוֹיִם, אַף כָּאן גּוֹיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that it is considered a walled city **even** if **Jews surrounded it** with a wall and only then built houses inside it. Therefore, **it is stated here:** “And if a man sells a dwelling house in **a walled** city,” **and it is stated below,** with regard to the conquest of the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan: “All these were fortified cities, with high **walls,** gates, and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:5). **Just as below,** the verse is referring to cities whose surrounding walls were constructed by **gentiles, so too here,** the verse is referring only to cities whose walls were constructed by **gentiles.**


###### Arakhin 33b:23
[Arakhin 33b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:23)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ הִקִּיפוּהָ גּוֹיִם לְאַחַר מִכֵּן? נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״חוֹמָה״, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״חוֹמָה״, מָה לְהַלָּן גּוֹיִם קוֹדֶם לָכֵן, אַף כָּאן גּוֹיִם קוֹדֶם לָכֵן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that **even** if **gentiles surrounded** the city with a wall **after** the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, it should be considered a walled city. Therefore, **it is stated below,** with regard to the conquest of the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, **“walls,”** and **it is stated here “walled.” Just as below,** the surrounding walls of the cities were constructed by **gentiles before** the Jews conquered the land, **so too here,** the verse is referring to cities whose walls were constructed by **gentiles before** the conquest of Eretz Yisrael. This *baraita* apparently contradicts the resolution suggested by Rav Kahana, as a city that was first settled and only then surrounded by a wall is not included in the *halakhot* of houses in walled cities.


###### Arakhin 33b:24
[Arakhin 33b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/33b:24)

תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב סַלָּא חֲסִידָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לָהֶן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef, son of Rav Sala Ḥasida, interpreted** the *baraita* **before Rav Pappa:** Actually, the first *baraita* is referring to a city that was initially surrounded by a wall and then settled by Levites. And as for the *baraita* that teaches that Levite cities may not be surrounded by a wall, it is nevertheless possible that a Levite city was initially surrounded by a wall in a case **where,** when Eretz Yisrael was divided among the tribes of Israel, walled cities **fell** by lottery **to** the Levites,