Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T08:13:48.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Jubilee Laws*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Raymond Westbrook
Get access

Extract

The Torah contains two groupings of cyclical legislation, the Jubilee laws, based on a fifty-year cycle, and the Sabbatical laws, based on a seven-year cycle. Our enquiry is concerned with the former, the Jubilee legislation, but it is clear that an important part of the discussion will be the relationship between it and the Sabbatical legislation. The laws of these two groupings, which overlap considerably, consist of three main elements, fallow laws, release laws, and redemption laws. The latter are not cyclical laws, but are linked to the cyclical legislation in the text and are important for its understanding.

The material outlined above is found in three Pentateuchal codes; in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. In Exodus 23:10ff there is a fallow-law: an entire cessation of all field work (verb š m ṭ) is ordered to take place in every seventh year. This is said to be dictated by a regard for the poor and the beasts of the field. From the context it would appear that the fallow is intended to be universal (the following regulation concerns the Sabbath), but this is by no means a necessary conclusion. Secondly, there are release-laws, concerning slaves only. In 21:2–6 it is laid down that a Hebrew slave can be kept in bondage only for six years. After this period he was automatically emancipated.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , April 1971 , pp. 209 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Ancient Israel (London, 1926) Vol. 1, 88 ff. Objections have also been made to the other regulations cf. Lemoine, (1949) 81 La Vie Spirituelle 262, 272 ff.Google Scholar

2 “Studies in Hebrew Law” (1951) 13 Catholic Biblical Quarterly 169.

3 Proposed originally by Driver, , Deuteronomy, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh, 1896) 178–80.Google Scholar

4 Op. cit. p. 170.

5 There is the further point that it is hard to imagine a ‘law-giver’ in such a primitive society: one would expect the development of the law at this stage to be organic and not by legislative innovation.

6 The Sociology of the Biblical Jubilee (Rome, 1954).

7 Op. cit. at p. 188. It is hard to see how the fallow became associated with these laws if the seventh and fiftieth were to be working years.

8 At p. 174.

9 “The Socio-Economic Background to Yobel and Semiṭṭa” (1958) 33 Rivista degli Studi Orientali 53.

10 At p. 122.

11 “Parallèles nouziens avec lois et coutumes de l'ancient testament” (1935) 44 Revue Biblique 38.

12 Lewy, , “The Biblical Institution of Deror in the light of Akkadian Documents” (1958) 5 Eretz-Israel 21, 27.Google Scholar

13 Cf. Codex Hammurabi §117 and see Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, vol. 1, pt. II, p. 115 f.

14 “Some New Misharum Material and its Implications” Studies in Honor of Landsberger (1965) 233. Kraus, in the same publication, is more cautious: “Ein Edikt des Königs Samsu-iluna von Babylon” at p. 229 and see n. 25 below.

15 Op. cit. (Eretz-Israel) p. 29.

16 Transliteration, translation and commentary by Kraus, , “Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-Şaduqa von Babylon” (1958) 5 Studia et Documenta ad Iura Orientis Antiqui PertinentiaGoogle Scholar.

17 Cf. Alexander, , “A Babylonian Year of Jubilee?” (1938) 57 Journal of Biblical Literature 75.Google Scholar

18 Op. cit. at n. 17.

19 “Le désordre économique supposé par le rétablissement de l'équité,” (1961) 4 Journal of the Economie and Social History of the Orient 152.

20 Cf. Livy, , Ab Urbe Condita II, 23 f.Google Scholar The Secession of the Plebs was the result of the complaints of enslaved debtors.

21 Wiseman, , “The Laws of Hammurabi Again” (1962) 7 Journal of Semitic Studies 161.Google Scholar

22 Finkelstein op. cit. text 1. 3.

23 Finkelstein, , “Ammi-şaduqa's Edict and the Babylonian ‘Law Codes'” (1961) 15 Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 91.Google Scholar Wiseman (op. cit.) suggests a parallel between this concept and the verdict on some of the Hebrew kings that they had “done justice in the eyes of Yahweh” alongside mention of their various ‘reforms’ (usually attributed to the opening years of the reign) and their continuing the practice of their predecessors. Thus Asa and Josiah “did justice (ha-yašar) in the eyes of Yahweh as did David” (I K. 15: 11). Jehoshaphat as did Asa (II Ch 20:32) and Azariah as did Amaziah (II K. 15:3) and Amaziah as did Joash (II K. 14:3).

24 Published by Lewy op. cit. (Eretz Israel) p. 30.

25 Kraus, in his study of Ammi-şaduqa's Edict (see n. 17) concluded (p. 239): “Zunächst ist evident, dass die königliche Erlässe in der altbabylonischen Zeit zwar keine geregelte, aber eine häufige Erscheinung waren” and in his study of Samsuiluna's Edict (see n. 15) said: “Im Staate Babylon des Hammurabi und seiner fünf Nachfolger war ein durchlaufender siebenjähriger Zyklus von Erlassen unbekannt…” in regretful reply to Landsberger's request: “Please write me at once a sensational note about the šemitta (every 7th year) in O.B.!”

26 Kraus, Studia et Documenta…, loc. cit.

27 See Finklestein, , “Ammi-saduqa's Edict and the Babylonian ‘Law Codes'” (1961) 15 Journal of Cuneiform Studies, 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Ibid., at p. 100.

29 Loc. cit.

30 “Some New Misharum Material and its Implications” op. cit., at p. 245.

31 It is this monarchic institution to which Isaiah is most probably referring in his ‘proclamation of liberty’ (61:1). The Levitical legislation may well have been the institutionalization of the prophetic concept, rather than taken directly from the misharum-edicts, etc.

32 This was foreseen by the Deuteronomist, the effect of whose law was more direct. The sanction that he provides is not in the realm of the justiciable. (Dt. 15:9–10).

33 David, argues that a seven-year cycle had developed by Deuteronomic times: “Manumission of Slaves under Zedekiah” (1948) 5 O.T. Studien 63Google Scholar.

34 Also significant is the idea of a seven years’ sterility or fertility cycle to be found both in the Bible and throughout the Ancient Near East. See Gordon, (1953) 22 Orientalia 79.

35 Snaith, , Leviticus and Numbers, Century Bible (London, 1967) 163Google Scholar.

36 “If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, he may redeem it within a whole year after its sale; for a full year he shall have the right of redemption (v. 30). If it is not redeemed within a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it throughout his generations (wě-qam ha-bayit… laşemitut la-qone ‘otow lědorotaw); it shall not be released in the Jubilee.” (R.S.V.)

37 “A Biblical Parallel to a Legal Formula from Ugarit” (1958) 8 Vetus Testamentum 95. Cf. Yaron, , “A Document of Redemption from Ugarit” (1960) 10 Vetus Testamentum 83Google Scholar.

38 Pedersen op. cit. p. 88.

39 It is significant that the one attempt to restrict the redemption laws, in v. 31, takes the form of a restrictive interpretation only: “But the houses of the villages which have not wall around them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country; they may be redeemed, and they shall be released in the Jubilee”. (R.S.V.)

40 The alternative explanation, that the Levitical code is earlier than the Deuteronomic, is militated against by the faithful preservation of the old slave-law in Deuteronomy, the more advanced process of ‘institutionalization’ in Leviticus, and the movement in Leviticus to a fifty-year cycle, away from the seven-year cycle still preserved in Deuteronomy. Morgenstern, indeed, considers that the authors of Lev. 25 were fully acquainted with the legislation for the Sabbatical year in Deut. 15 and deliberately abolished or amended its regulations. “The Book of the Covenant”, Part IV, (1962) 33 Hebrew Union College Annual, pp. 77–8.

41 The demands of the slave-release law have moved out of the realm of the practical in Deuteronomy with its demand of a generous send-off for the released slave—see Daube, , The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London, 1963) p. 51Google Scholar. The Deuteronomic material may have been regarded as one with prophetic utterances by the Levitical legislator who therefore used both as raw material for his new system. Jeremiah calls for a release děror) of slaves and quotes legislation which appears to be a development from Deuteronomy in the direction of the Levitical system on the lines which we have described for the process of ‘institutionalization’ (Jer. 34:8 ff). Note also the reference to ha-yaśar ( = mīšarum?) in connection with děror in v. 15.

42 See Levy, (1942) 17 Hebrew Union College Annual 96, and the literature cited in North, ch. V.

43 See further Daube, , “Concerning Methods of Bible-Criticism” (1949) 17 Archiv Orientalni 88Google Scholar, on the problems of dating laws.

44 See, e.g., Noth, M., Leviticus, S.C.M. Old Testament Library (London, 1965)Google Scholar.

45 See M. Noth, op. cit. ch. VII.