Why is a house in Jerusalem not chalut? It appears that the reason is that the City was not included in the division among the tribes. However, why should it then be subject to redemption at all? If it is not ancestral land from the original chalukah, to whom would it return in Yovel?
I asked this question of the maggid shiur which I attend and he said that a house in Jerusalem is not chalut because it was not considered part of the land under the house. However, if that is the case, it would be personal property and would also not be subject to redemption.
Michael S. Winokur, Forest Hills, New York 11375
The Yad Binyamim in Erchin (32b) explains that the house and land are two separate things. The house is his, as it was made out of his materials. This is why the Gemara does not say it cannot be sold in general. However, being that anyone can live there as he cannot limit their use of the land, it cannot be called "Asher Lo" -- "that is to him" (the Derash in the Pasuk, as the simple explanation is that it has a wall). This is why it is not Chalut, but it is sold as Batei ha'Chatzeirim.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose