When the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe were exiled – in the year 3188 from Creation, about 150 years before the destruction of the First Temple – shevi’it and yovel ceased to apply by Torah law. The Torah states with regard to yovel: “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants” (Vayikra 25:10). The Sages explain that yovel applies only when all its inhabitants are in the Land, not when some of them have been exiled. Once yovel no longer applies by Torah law, shevi’it no longer applies by Torah law either (Arakhin 32b; Gittin 36a; see Peninei Halakha: Shemita Ve-yovel 1:9 and 5:3 for the reason). At that point, however, terumot and ma’asrot still applied by Torah law. Although shevi’it itself was then observed only by rabbinic enactment or as a matter of custom, the years were still counted according to the Torah’s shevi’it cycle, and that count determined the order of the tithes – when ma’aser sheni was separated and when ma’aser ani was separated. See MT, Laws of Shemita Ve-yovel 10:5 and Tosafot, Arakhin 12b, s.v. hanakh shanei.
About eighteen years after that, in the year 3206 from Creation, ḥalla, terumot, and ma’asrot also ceased to apply by Torah law, because most of the Jewish people were no longer in the Land. With the destruction of the First Temple, the sanctity that had served as the basis for the national-collective land-dependent mitzvot was annulled. This affected ḥalla and teruma, which are given to kohanim; ma’aser rishon, given to levi’im; ma’aser sheni, eaten in Jerusalem; ma’aser ani, given to the poor; and shevi’it and yovel. What all these mitzvot have in common is that they depend on the national condition of the Jewish people in their Land. Some depend on most of the Jewish people being in the Land; others, such as shevi’it and yovel, depend on all the tribes dwelling in their inheritances. Therefore, when that national order collapsed, the basis for these mitzvot lapsed as well. This is what the Sages meant when they said: “The first sanctification sanctified for its time but not for the future” (Ḥullin 7a). In other words, the first sanctification of the Land was annulled with the destruction of the First Temple.
Individual land-dependent mitzvot, by contrast, such as orla and kilayim, continue to apply by Torah law even after the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the Jewish people. Since their obligation began when the nation entered the Land, before the conquest and division into inheritances, destruction and exile do not annul that obligation. [5]
[5]. Communal-national land-dependent mitzvot depend on the Land having been sanctified by the Jewish people, either through conquest, as in the days of Yehoshua bin Nun, or through settlement, as in the days of Ezra, as Rambam explains (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:2, 5; Laws of the Temple 6:16). Shemita and yovel require an additional condition: the majority of each tribe must be living in its inheritance (Arakhin 32b). Therefore, their Torah obligation ceased when the tribes of Reuven and Gad were exiled. According to the view that Yirmiyahu later returned the ten tribes to their inheritances, shemita and yovel again applied by Torah law at that time (Arakhin 33a; see Peninei Halakha: Shemita Ve-yovel 5, note 3).
Ḥalla does not require each tribe to be settled in its inheritance, but it does require the majority of the Jewish people to be in the Land; only then does the Torah obligation apply (below, section 10). Therefore, the Torah obligation to separate ḥalla ceased already with the exile of the ten tribes, before the destruction of the Temple.
Regarding terumot and ma’asrot, the authorities disagree. According to many Rishonim, the Torah obligation to separate them ceased at the time of the destruction (Rashi, Raavad, Rashba, Ran, and many others). According to Rambam, terumot and ma’asrot follow the same rule as ḥalla: one is obligated by Torah law only when the majority of the Jewish people are in the Land. Their Torah obligation therefore ceased already with the exile of the ten tribes (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:26). I wrote above in accordance with this view, since it is the position of most Aḥaronim.
Even according to Rambam, it appears that the sanctity underlying these mitzvot remained in place until the destruction of the First Temple. Therefore, before the destruction, if the majority of the Jewish people had returned to the Land, the Torah obligation to separate ḥalla, terumot, and ma’asrot would have resumed automatically, without any new act of sanctification, even under foreign rule. After the destruction, however, the original sanctity had been nullified; even if the majority of the Jewish people had returned, these mitzvot could not have resumed by Torah law without a new sanctification of the Land (Mahari Kurkus, Laws of Shemita Ve-yovel 12:15; Derekh Emuna, Laws of Terumot 1:51).
The first sanctification also served as the basis for the second. This is evident from the law of cities that had been walled since the days of Yehoshua bin Nun. Their sanctity has several practical consequences: if a house in such a city is sold, it becomes permanently acquired by the buyer after one year and does not return to the original owner at yovel; a metzora must be sent out of the city; and it is forbidden to sow the city’s open area, which extends one thousand amot in every direction.
The Gemara records a dispute among the Tanna’im about these cities (Arakhin 32b). According to one view, those who ascended from Babylonia did not need to sanctify them again, because “the first sanctification sanctified for its time and for the future.” According to the other view, “When the exiles ascended, they found these [cities that had originally been sanctified] and sanctified them,” because the original sanctity had been nullified when the sanctity of the Land was nullified. Even according to this second view, however, the second sanctification did not stand on its own. The first sanctification, achieved through conquest, remained the basis upon which the second sanctification, achieved through settlement, could take effect. As the Aḥaronim explain, Ezra could sanctify only cities that Yehoshua bin Nun had already sanctified (Turei Even, Megilla 10a; Mishneh La-melekh to MT, Laws of Shemita Ve-yovel 12:15; Derekh Emuna there, BHL, s.v. keivan; see Minḥat Ḥinukh 340:1, s.v. u-mevo’ar).
