Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [GTh] GTH just #109 Inheritance and dedication

Expand Messages
  • dchindley
    ... matter of Inheritance. Even if the Son sold the Field It would remain first to the Nearest Kinsman. Then outside of the Kinsmen. It would stay within the
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 7, 2002
      --- In gthomas@y..., BitsyCat1@a... [John Moon] wrote:

      >>There is the matter of Jewish Law (Mosaic Law). This would be a
      matter of Inheritance. Even if the Son sold the Field It would remain
      first to the Nearest Kinsman. Then outside of the Kinsmen. It would
      stay within the same tribe.

      There is Mosaic Law to prevent the Passage of Land to other Lev 25:
      23 The Land shall not be sold forever for the Land is Mine and you
      are strangers and sojourners with me Lev 25:24 and in all the land of
      your possession ye shall grant a redemption for the Land. (The
      Sojourner and strangers may Be Israel itself) See Leviticus 25:25. It
      forbids (As I read it) the permanent sale and would return to the
      seller come the Jubilee year.

      Lev 25:34. But the field of the pasture lands of their cities may not
      be sold for it is their perpetual possession.
      Lev 25:28 But if he is not able to restore it to him then that which
      is sold shall remain in the hand of him that hath bought it until the
      year of the Jubilee: and then he shall return it to his possession.

      Therefore technically the Buyer only has this field until the
      Jubilee. The profit of Interest (of a found treasure?) [...] would be
      entirely his (The new owners) [and thus] One unknown to the Father
      and the Son.

      Also consider the Leviticus 25:35 and 36 .... Take thou no interest
      from him or profit but fear thy God that thou brother should live
      with thee.
      Lev 25:37 Thou shalt not give him thy money on interest (this of
      course to a poor brother).

      However it would appear that the Land actually never leaves the
      Owners (Tribes) possession.

      Leviticus 25:26-28 Even if the man does not redeem the land it is
      returned to the owner upon the Jubilee.<<

      This is an interesting question, but I am not so sure that such
      biblical laws were actually enforcable under the governments that
      ruled Palestine since at least the Greek period. I was recently
      reading a couple books on the subject of land tenure (by Jack Pastor
      and David(?) Feinsey) bjut I am away from my notes for another week.
      The books were recommended to me by Nikos Kokkinos over in the
      Ioudaios-list some months ago, and I found them very enlightening. If
      you can wait, I can get back to you about titles, or perhaps others
      here can supply these details for you.

      In short, laws and practices regarding land tenure are controlled by
      the ruling government. It is possible that the Persian administration
      officially sanctioned an aspect of the Law, but the certainty depends
      on how much credit one assigns to the Persian "edicts" found in Ezra-
      Nehemiah. There is also one or two later, hearsay, references to this
      supposed law in non-biblical sources, but these may be dependent upon
      Ezra-Nehemiah.

      The Greeks who conquered the Persians had a policy of considering
      all lands conquered by war ("spear-won" they called it) as belonging
      to the ruler personally. He could either approve of the current
      owners (in exchange for their loyalty) or distribute it to others,
      such as government ministers. Large tracts of the best land were set
      aside for the ruler's private estates, and this was often the source
      of these rulers great personal wealth. Greek cities would have tracts
      of land associated with them as well. Sometimes land was granted to
      groups of retired soldiers, etc.

      The rulers could, if they chose to, sell plots, but why should they?
      While significant private land ownership still existed, even at the
      small free-holder level, the prevailing system seemed to be to lease
      or rent land to individuals in return for either a portion of the
      crop (share-cropping, mainly the system employed by large private
      landholders) or for a fixed price (very common for the ruler to do,
      since it made estimating revenues simpler - hey, rulers have expenses
      too!).

      It may be better to call these people "landHOLDERS" rather
      than "landOWNERS." Possession was 9/10 of the law, to use a modern
      saying. Could some of these large landholders have leased or rented
      out land with some provision for Mosaic laws? Sure. Was it real
      common? Maybe not. The surviving deeds, etc, are hard to interpret.
      Some of the deeds with stipulations that most closely resemble the
      ones in the Mosaic Law were actually found in Nabatean territory, and
      those found in Palestine often specifically negate provisions of
      Mosaic Law (and not in the manner of the Prosbul of the Mishna,
      either).

      Dave Hindley
      Cleveland, Ohio, US of A
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.