Version #1 (Gemara - Rava): From Hillel's enactment we deduce that if a man said "this is your Get on condition that you give to me 200 Zuz," she is divorced only if he willingly accepts the money from her, but not if she forces him to take it.

An enactment was needed to allow the seller to return the money to the buyer against his will. Normally, this does not work. (Tosfos - if it did work, without any enactment the seller could ask a friend to acquire on behalf of the buyer!)

Objection (Rav Papa): Perhaps the enactment was needed because the buyer would hide, but if the buyer is here, the seller can return the money even against the buyer's will! (Rashi - one cannot acquire on behalf of the buyer because there are two "problems". It is in his absence, and it is against his will.)

Version #2 (Rava): From Hillel's enactment we deduce that if a man said "this is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz," if she gives the money she is divorced, whether or not he accepted it willingly.

The enactment was needed because the buyer would hide, but if the buyer is here, the seller can return the money against his will!

Objection (Rav Papa): Perhaps it does not help to give against the buyer's will;

Even if the buyer would have been there, an enactment would have been needed!

(Mishnah): Anything inside the wall has the law of Bayis Ir Chomah, except for fields;

R. Meir says, even fields are included.

R. Yehudah says, a house built in the wall of the city is not a Bayis Ir Chomah;

R. Shimon says, its outer wall is the city wall. (It is a Bayis Ir Chomah.)

(Gemara - Beraisa - R. Yehudah) "Bayis" teaches only (that the law of Bayis Ir Chomah applies to) houses;

Question: What is the source to include olivepresses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits and caves?

Answer: It says "Asher ba'Ir."

Suggestion: Perhaps even fields are included!

Rejection: "Bayis" excludes fields.

R. Meir says "Bayis" teaches only houses;

Question: What is the source to include olivepresses, bathhouses, towers, dovecotes, pits caves and even fields?

Answer: It says "Asher ba'Ir."

Question: It says "Bayis"! (How can R. Meir include fields, which do not resemble houses at all?)

Answer (Rav Chisda): They argue only about Chulsis and Metzulah (places unfit for farming for they are rocky, sandy, right by the river or full of water, but R. Meir agrees that fields are not included).

Support (Beraisa - R. Meir): Chulsis and Metzulah are like houses (for the law of Bayis Ir Chomah);

R. Yehudah says, they are like fields.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): A house built in the wall is not a Bayis Ir Chomah...

(R. Yochanan): R. Yehudah and R. Shimon expound the same verse:

R. Shimon explains "... Ki Veisah b'Kir ha'Chomah uva'Chomah Hi Yosheves" simply. (Rachav's house is considered Bayis Ir Chomah);

R. Yehudah explains that she lives in the wall, but not in a walled city.

(Mishnah): If the roofs of the houses comprise the wall of the city, or if the wall is not from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, it is not considered a walled city;

A walled city must have (at least) three Chatzeros (courtyards), each of which has (at least) two houses;

The following are walled cities. The old Ketzarah of Tzipori, Chakrah of Gush Chalav... Yerushalayim and all cities like them.

(Gemara - Beraisa): "Chomah" excludes a wall of houses. "Soviv" excludes Tiverya, for in one direction it is guarded by the sea, and not a wall;

R. Eliezer bar Yosi says, "Asher Lo Chomah" teaches that even if it currently does not have a wall, but once it did, it is considered a walled city. (Tosfos - "Lo" is spelled with an "Aleph" but pronounced as if it had a "Vov". This suggests that in some sense it lacks a wall, and in another sense it has (e.g. once had) one.)

(Mishnah): The following are walled cities...

(Beraisa): Gamla in Galil, Gedud in Ever ha'Yarden, Chadid, Onah and Yerushalayim in Yehudah (are walled cities).

Question: What does this mean? (Surely, these are not the only walled cities!)

Answer #1 (Abaye): All the cities until Gamla (but not north of it) in Galil are walled cities, and also all the cities (going eastward) until Gedud in Ever ha'Yarden, and until Chadid, Onah and Yerushalayim in Yehudah (Rashi. R. Gershom - any city (with a wall from the days of Yehoshua) no smaller than Gamla in Galil, Gedud in Ever ha'Yarden... (each had three Chatzeros of two houses each) is considered a walled city.)

Answer #2 (Rava): Gamla in Galil excludes a different Gamla (in a different region), and likewise concerning the other cities listed;

The Tana lists only walled cities that have an unwalled namesake.

Question: Bayis Ir Chomah does not apply in Yerushalayim!

(Beraisa): Ten things are special about Yerushalayim:

If one sells a house in Yerushalayim, it is never Chalut. (If he does not redeem it, it returns to him in Yovel.)

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): They are like Yerushalayim, which was surrounded by a wall from the days of Yehoshua;

They are unlike Yerushalayim regarding Bayis Ir Chomah, for a house is not Chalut in Yerushalayim, but it is in the other cities.

(Rav Ashi): Rav Yosef said (elsewhere) that there were two cities called Kadesh;

Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Likewise, we can say that there were two cities called Yerushalayim!

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi) Question: Why does our Mishnah list only some walled cities?

Answer: It lists only the cities that the exiles who returned (from Bavel with Ezra) found and were Mekadesh.

The first Kedushah (of walled cities, from the days of Yehoshua) had ceased when the Kedushah of Eretz Yisrael ceased (at the time of the Churban).

R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi holds that the first Kedushah was not permanent.

Contradiction (Beraisa - R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi) Question: Were these (cities in our Mishnah) the only walled cities?! Moshe conquered "Shishim Ir... Mamleches Og... Betzuros Chomah"!

Answer: It lists only the cities that the returning exiles found and were Mekadesh.

Interjection: (The end of this Beraisa says that) they did not need to be Mekadesh them!

Correction: Rather, it lists cities known to have had a wall.

All laws of walled cities apply also to any other city for which there is a tradition that it had a wall from the days of Yehoshua, because the first Kedushah was permanent.

Answer #1: The Tana'im of these two Beraisos argue about R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi's opinion.

Answer #2: The latter Beraisa is really R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi.

(Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Yosi): "Asher Lo Chomah" teaches that even if now it does not have a wall, but once it did, it is considered a walled city (because the first Kedushah remains).

Question: What is the reason for the opinion that the first Kedushah was not permanent?

Answer - Question: "Va'Ya'asu Chol ha'Kahal ha'Shavim Min ha'Shevi Sukos va'Yeshvu ba'Sukos Ki Lo Asu mi'Mei Yeshu'a bin Nun Ken... va'Tehi Simchah Gedolah Me'od" - is it possible that David (nor anyone else until Ezra) did not make Sukos?!

Answer: Rather, the verse equates the second entrance (of Ezra and the exiles to Eretz Yisrael) to the first entrance (in the days of Yehoshua);

Just like Yisrael started to count Shemitah and Yovel cycles and were Mekadesh Batei Ir Chomah at the time of the first entrance, also at the time of the second. (This had not been done since the days of Yehoshua.)

It also says "v'Hevi'acha... El Eretz Asher Yorshu Avosecha vi'Rishta," equating your inheritance (in the days of Ezra) to the first (in the days of Yehoshua):

Just like (the cycles of) Shemitah and Yovel and (Kidush) Batei Ir Chomah began during the first inheritance, also during the second.

The opinion that the first Kedushah was permanent explains "va'Ya'asu... Sukos... Ki Lo Asu" to teach that they asked Hash-m to remove the Yetzer ha'Ra for idolatry. (He agreed.) Ezra's merit protected over Yisrael like a Sukah;

The verse alludes to a criticism of Yehoshua that he did not request this. This is the only place where his name is written Yeshu'a, without a "Hei."

Moshe is not criticized for not requesting this. He did not have the merit of Eretz Yisrael to help.

Question: How does this opinion expound "... Asher Yorshu Avosecha vi'Rishta"?

Answer: (It addresses the exiles that returned.) Since your ancestors inherited (and were Mekadesh) Eretz Yisrael, you inherit it. (It is already Kodesh. you need not be Mekadesh it.)

Question: We said that Yisrael started to count Shemitah and Yovel cycles at the time of the second entrance;

Yovel ceased when Shevet Reuven, Gad and half of Menasheh were exiled. All the more so it should not have applied in the days of Ezra, for (all the Shevatim had been exiled, and) only a minority returned - "Kol ha'Kahal k'Echad Arba Ribo... " (42,360)!

(Beraisa): Yovel ceased when Reuven (and Gad... ) was (were) exiled. "U'Kerasem Deror ba'Aretz l'Chol Yoshveha" applies only when all its inhabitants (Bnei Yisrael) are in Eretz Yisrael, but not when (even) a minority (of Shevatim) have been exiled!

Suggestion: Perhaps Yovel applies if all are in Eretz Yisrael, even if they are not in the right places, e.g. Binyamin dwells in the portion of Yehudah and vice-versa!

Rejection: "L'Chol Yoshveha" teaches that they must be properly settled, and not mixed up.

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Yisrael counted Yovel cycles in order to be Mekadesh Shemitah in the right time. (Every Yovel year delays the next Shemitah by one year.)