The jubilee years in ancient Israel, only Symbolic?

Factual Questions
1

Looking for some information on the Jewish Jubilee, I found this curious article:
http://www.thehope.org/altyovel.htm

It does make sense, I did ponder recently that as the Jubilee year approached, doing business in ancient Israel would have been a hard proposition. (Whatayamean the twin slaves I got have to be returned after a year?)

But, this means then that the Israelites did not follow the law! So, what was the deal with the ancient Jubilee? Symbolic only? On the other hand, how did they make it work without stopping the economy?

2

Certain laws of the Mosaic Law Covenant were meant to protect families from losing their inheritance. Jubilee year, Levirite marraige, and right of repurchase were all part of this same concept.

Did these Laws actually get followed? At least one, the right of repurchase, was central to the story of Ruth, Boaz, and Naomi. What about the others? Levirite marraige was mentioned in a question of the Sadducees testing Jesus. And Jubilee is metioned in several prophecies, but I can’t find an example of them actually occuring recorded in the Scriptures.

If they did actually use this Law, you could imagine a sliding scale of sorts for purchase, or actually lease rights, thus adjusting prices to time used/owned.

Maybe one of our Jewish Dopers has some non Biblical examples from other sources.

3

I am also interested to know, what/when were those years in the Jewish calendar. Of course, this depends on if there were Jubilees.

4

“The jubilee years in ancient Israel, only Symbolic?”

It’s far more likely that the ancient Israelites were just as selfish as we are today. All the people in power (with their accumulated wealth) would be reluctant to give it up, and the passage was likely glossed over for less demanding laws.

“doing business in ancient Israel would have been a hard proposition”

The perspective that Israel was “God’s People” would shed some light on that. Their purpose wasn’t to thrive or become the world’s finest merchants, their purpose was to worship God. The difficulty of doing business was supposed to be surpassed by the unity they had in being God’s people.

5

I’m afraid that there aren’t any post-Biblical sources for the laws of the Yovel (Jubilee) year being kept.

The reason for that is that one of the conditions that must exist for the Yovel to be in effect is that all twelve tribes have to be residing in Israel. As it is, the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom were exiled during Biblical times. As such, those laws have not been in effect since then.

In answer to the OP’s question: Jewish tradition teaches that these laws were kept. NoClueBoy gave an example of redemption of family property (which is not really a Yovel law – Jeremiah redeemed property of a relatives right before the destruction of the first Temple [which was well after the exile of the Ten Tribes]). Unfortunately, I don’t have any examples off the top of my head to give you to illustrate that the laws were kept in ancient Israel.

OTOH, the laws of Shmitta (the Sabbatical Year) are still in effect and observed to this very day.

Zev Steinhardt

6

Where is it written that the law applies only if all twelve tribes are residing in Israel?

Are there any other covenantal laws that are abrogated by missing tribes?

Shalom.

7

I was wondering the same thing moriah.

Another question I have then is if that loophole, of not having the twelve tribes, will ever be revisited some time in the future; especially after Israel’s restoration.

Regarding the laws of Shmitta: The Sabbatical year is a year during which land remains fallow (not seeded) every 7th year, how did that work then and now? Were there exceptions when drought or famine occurred in the previous year?

8

Tractate Arachin, 32b, as a gloss on Leviticus 25:10.

9

Please explain to us goyim what a Tractate Arachin is.

Shalom.

10

Searching:
http://www.uahc.org/goandstudy/volume3/no6.shtml

I have to say this is interesting, a Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud? Why is that they are different? Is there a controversy on the use of this tractate?

11

One was written in Babylon, and the other was written in Jerusalem (Tiberius, actually, which was where the Sanhedrin was, but it’s called the Jerusalem Talmud because they “should” have been in Jerusalem)

For a really short and oversimplified history, R. Judah the Prince saw that, with the destruction of the Temple and the Roman occupation, the Sanhedrin was losing it’s authority, and he was afraid that the Oral Tradition, which, supposedly, had been passed down from teacher to student from the time of Moses, was going to be lost. To keep that from happening, he and a few other people went to every Rabbi they could find, and wrote down all the oral tradition he could. He then edited the work and that got called the Mishna. (He then died, and you can go to his tomb in Beit She’arim, if you should find yourself visiting Israel any time soon)

But the Mishna is confusing. It’s really concise, and assumes that you already know Jewish law. To make an analogy, it’s like if you were reading about US law, and you read, (from another thread I’m in), “The strict scrutiny test should be used in equal protection cases where race is a factor.” That’s true, and it’s useful, but only if you know what the strict scrutiny test is, and what the equal protection clause is.

So, realizing that the Mishna itself needs explaining, rabbis from all over decided to get together and discuss it, and what it means, and this discussion is called the Gemara. The Mishna and Gemara, together, are called the Talmud. Now, there were two major concentrations of Jews at the time, and two major rabbinic centers at that time, one in the land of Israel, and one in Babylon. So, two talmuds were written, the Jerusalem Talmud, by the rabbis in Israel, and the Babylonian Talmud, by the rabbis in Babylon.

Because there was less persecution against the Jews in Babylon (which was outside the Roman Empire) than in Israel (which was inside it), the Babylonian rabbis had more time to work on their Talmud, which is more complete than the Jerusalem Talmud. Because of that, the Babylonian Talmud became the standard, and nowadays, if somebody says “the Talmud”, and doesn’t specify which one, he’s probably talking about the Babylonian Talmud.

So to answer your question, that’s why they’re different, and there isn’t any controversy over that tractate.