Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:41:09.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Redemption of Land*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Raymond Westbrook
Get access

Extract

The term of redemption, ge'ula, is widely used in the Bible. It basically denotes the rightful getting back of a person or object that had once belonged to one or to one's family but had been lost. In the laws this takes the form of avenging a relative's murder (“redemption of blood”), of buying back a relative from slavery, or a relative's land from an outsider. The term is also used of the commuting to money payments of offerings for sacrifice. In narrative, and in particular, prophetic texts the term is given a wider meaning. It denotes the saving òf a person from the clutches of his enemies by a powerful relative, usually God. The enemies may be foreign nations, creditors or even such abstract forces as sin or death. The idea of payment, which exists in some of the laws, retreats into the background. We must be careful, therefore, in examining the sources, to remember that the term ge'ula had not only several legal meanings but also had fairly general currency in the literature of Ancient Israel.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , July 1971 , pp. 367 - 375
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 Num. 35: 19 ff.

2 Lev. 25: 47 ff.

3 Lev. 25: 25 ff.

4 Lev. 27 passim.

5 See Daube, , Biblical Law (Cambridge, 1947) 39 ff.Google Scholar

6 1 K. 21.

7 Not relevant to our discussion is Jer. 37:12, although many scholars have mistakenly considered it so. The Revised Standard Version translates: “Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin to receive his portion there among the people”, following Jonathan and the Septuagint, and the verse has often been referred to as describing Jeremiah's (putative) formal act of possession of the land that he acquired from his cousin Haname'el. See e.g., Pedersen, , Israel (London, 1926) 85Google Scholar n. However, the context shows that the operative verb h l q here means not ‘to share, receive a portion’ but ‘to flee, slip away’. This point was already noted by some of the mediaeval Jewish commentators: see e.g., Kimche ad loc. Confirmation of this meaning comes from Akkadian, where the verb halãqu means ‘to escape, flee’. See Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Vol. 6, p. 38 (2).

8 Clay, “Tenure of Land in Babylonia and Assyria” I Univ. of London Inst. of Archaeology Occasional Papers 25.

9 Op. cit., p. 44.

10 Op. cit., p. 84.

11 The issue would not be affected even if the Jubilee Laws were a late interpolation into the redemption regulations. See our comments in “Jubilee Laws” (1971) 6 Is.L.R. 209.

12 See Yaron, , “Redemption of Persons in the Ancient Near East” (1959) 6 Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité 155.Google Scholar

13 The Exodus Pattern in the Bible (London, 1963), Ch. V.

14 Ibid., p. 42 f.

15 Jer. 32:8.

16 Cf. Yaron, , The Laws of Eshnunna (Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 1969) 152.Google Scholar

17 Attempts to establish a fixed price were a feature of Ancient Near Eastern laws. See e.g., Codex Eshnunna 1–4, 7–11, Codex Hammurabi 257 ff.

18 Lev. 25: 25 ff. The important point is that even if the Jubilee provision itself is an interpolation, the original price is assumed as the basis for calculation. See n. 11.

19 Cf. Yaron, , Eshnunna p. 153.Google Scholar

20 Loewenstamm, , Encyclopaedia Miqra'it III p. 144Google Scholar (in Hebrew).

21 Burrows argues that redemption originally involved support of the widow and the obligation to raise up a son for the dead as well. Thus the Pentateuchal legislation restricted the latter obligation to brothers only, the duty being too onerous for wider application. See “The Marriage of Boaz and Ruth” (1940) 59 Journal of Biblical Literature 445.

22 Pedersen, op. cit., p. 93.

23 Ruth 4:10.

24 Neufeld, , Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (London, 1944) 47.Google Scholar

25 Cf. Thompson, , “Legal Problems in the Book of Ruth” (1968) 18 Vetus Testamentum, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 The law of levirate marriage is no more a rule of charity than the law of redemption. The childless widow went back to her father's home if he was alive (Gen 38:11, Lev. 22:13). If she had no relations who were able or willing to take care of her, then she had nothing to rely upon except the charity which the Bible constantly admonishes Israelites to show to everyone lacking the support of kindred: ‘gerim,’ fatherless and widows.

27 Perrin, , “Trois textes bibliques sur les techniques d'acquisition immobilière” (1963) 41 Reu. hist, de droit française et étranger 193.Google Scholar It should be noted that Naomi's remarks at Ru. 1:11–13 do not refer to the law of levirate. If Naomi were to remarry, her son would belong to a different line entirely, and could hardly raise up his step-brother's name. Nor in this example are the daughters-in-law obliged to marry Naomi's future sons. Naomi is expressing the thought that she has nothing to offer them, neither land, nor husbands. Her remarks may refer to a common practice of convenience, but not to a legal obligation.

28 The rules given in Num. 27:8 ff. appear to exclude widows, at any rate. On the question of daughters see Pedersen, op. cit., p. 95.

29 Jud. 17:2–4; II Sam. 14:5 ff. the story of the woman of Tekoa, which in fact hints that her husband's male collaterals, who are the redeemers of blood, would inherit if she were left no sons; II K. 8:3,6 — Shunamite woman.

30 Thompson, op. cit., who also raises the possibility that although a woman could not be heir, she might be a legatee (cf. Job 42:15).

31 The perfect can be used for an intended action, but this use is only evidenced in direct speech in the first person and is an emphatic form: Gen. 1:29; 15:18 (verse); 23:11, 13. On the correctness of the Masoretic pointing, see Perin, op. cit., p. 387 n.

32 Gen. 23; 33:19; II Sam. 24:24 and 1 Ch. 21:25; 1 K. 16:24; Jer. 32:7–15.

33 Cf. 1:6 f, 19; 4:14.

34 It would be too speculative to assume that the statement that Naomi sold the land is some sort of legal fiction, but as a technique of narrative it is familiar practice. A recent biography of Golda Meir stated that when her husband decided to return to the United States, she divorced him rather than leave Israel. Of course, in strict law it was he who divorced her. Cf. also I Sam. 13:3–4.

35 Note the conciseness of the narrative. The only “dead” referred to in this scene was her father-in-law Elimelech. Here, then, is a further example of the narrative technique mentioned above. The narrator does not include tedious detail.

36 Compare the crime of Onan (Gen. 38:9). By performing the duty of levir in form but not in fact he hoped to gain for himself the inheritance of his brother. Thompson, op. cit., p. 93.

37 The verb q n h does not necessarily mean to “buy.” See our discussion on this point in “Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah” (1971) 6 Is.L.R. 29.

38 We agree with Thompson (see n. 25 above) that the levirate law of Deuteronomy cannot be taken to be exclusive or comprehensive. It may even be the application of an existing law to a special situation. Contra, Burrows, op. cit. Further consideration of the intriguing problems of the Biblical law of levirate must be left to a separate study.