The Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee

 

The social reason for Letting the land remain fallow during the sabbatical year – concern for the poor

 

     One of the most prominent aspects of the obligation to suspend agricultural work during the Sabbatical year is its social dimension, which already comes to expression in the Torah:

 

And six years you shall sow your land and gather in its fruits. But the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave, the beasts of the field shall eat; in like manner you shall deal with your vineyard and with your olive grove. (Shemot 23:10-11)

 

The produce of the Sabbatical year is regarded as ownerless; hence, the poor have an equal part in it. This translates into practical benefit for the poor, who for at least twelve months get to enjoy an unlimited amount of free food. There is also the educational benefit that for at least a year the rich become accustomed to the idea of sharing their wealth with the poor.

 

     Harav Aharon Lichtenstein, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion, has suggested[1] that the prohibition to engage in agricultural work during the Sabbatical year may also be understood in light of this rationale. A person is forbidden to work his field, so that he not feel superior to his poor and landless neighbor. During the seventh year, a person's property does not belong to him. A pauper who takes of its fruit does not receive anything from the landowner, for they are both equally entitled to the produce.

 

     The prohibition against doing business with produce that grew in the Sabbatical year may also be understood in this manner:

 

For he is not permitted to do business with the produce that grew during the seventh year, for the verse states: "And the sabbath produce of the land shall be food for you" (Vayikra 25:6) – for food, and not for business. (Rambam, Hilkhot Bekhorot 5:9)

 

The prohibition against using the produce that grew during the Sabbatical year for commercial purposes severely curtails economic activity, and so it also narrows the gaps that divide society. In the absence of commercial activity, commodities are distributed according to need, and wealth is not accumulated in the hands of the few.

 

     It is important to note that the exalted vision of the Sabbatical year is not limited to human society, but rather it relates to the totality of life on earth: "And what they leave, the beasts of the field shall eat" (Shemot 23:11).[2] The Sabbatical year presents a vision of harmonious coexistence among humans as well as animals, all of whom are maintained by their Master and Creator. We are dealing here with a restoration of sorts of life in the Garden of Eden at the time of Creation, prior to Adam's sin, when people lived in peace and harmony with their neighbors, as will as with the plant and animal kingdoms. The expression, "sabbath of the land" (Vayikra 25:2,4) intimates that this harmony is not restricted to the organic world, for it will also reign between man and the inanimate earth. During the Sabbatical year, a person stops relating to the earth merely as a means of production that may be exploited and from which benefit may be reaped, and begins to view it as an organic element of the world. The Sabbatical year presents us with a world free of the struggle for survival, a world of harmonious coexistence, similar to what existed at the time of Creation.

 

THe social reason for the remission of debts and for the jubilee – equality in the distribution of the means of production

 

     The mitzva of remitting debts during the Sabbatical year and the mitzva of the Jubilee year have an even clearer social rationale. The Communists greatly emphasized the need for equality in the distribution of the means of production. On this point, the Torah's approach is revolutionary. The Torah declares that once every fifty years there is a redistribution of what was at the time the primary, and almost sole, means of production – the land:

 

And you shall number seven sabbaths of years to yourself, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be to you forty nine years. Then shall you sound the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month; on the day of atonement shall you sound the shofar throughout all your land. And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants; it shall be a jubilee for you: and you shall return every man to his possession, and you shall return every man to his family. A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be to you; you shall not sow, neither reap that which grows of itself in it, nor gather in it the grapes of your vine. For it is the jubilee, it shall be holy to you; you shall eat its increase out of the field. In the year of the jubilee you shall return every man to his possession. (Vayikra 25:8-13)

 

We have here a revolutionary idea that comes to prevent entire generations from sinking into abject poverty. Every fifty years all land is returned to the original owners or their heirs, who are given another chance to achieve economic success.[3] This is not Communism, which proclaims that the means of production belong to the masses. The Torah does not even insist that the means of production be equally distributed in a continuous manner and at all times. Halakha recognizes that free competition is vital for ensuring general well being; but it limits this free competition. This limitation extracts an economic price: commercial transactions involving land are certainly affected by the fact that land can only be sold for fifty years at the most. It is also clear that the wealthy have less motivation to achieve financial success, since they know that the best investment that they can make – real estate – will not remain in their possession for the long term. Halakha is, however, ready to pay this price.

 

     We find the same goal in another law pertaining to the Sabbatical year – the remission of debts.

 

At the end of every seven years you shall make a release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor that lends anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbor, or of his brother, because he has called a release to the Lord. (Devarim 15:1-2)

 

Here too we find the same principle: a second chance. Every seven years debts are released, and every individual is given another chance to improve his situation. This law also exacts a considerable economic price – the restriction of credit. Various historical sources attest that the Jewish people found it difficult to comply with the requirement of remitting debts. In the end, Hillel emptied it of meaning through his institution of the prozbul – a rabbinic enactment that allows for loans to be collected after the Sabbatical year. Hillel took this step after he saw that the restriction of credit created an impossible situation – primarily for the poor. But we can certainly see from here the Torah's fundamental moral position: while it generally accepts free competition as the driving economic force, it periodically repairs the damages caused by this competition to the weaker segments of society.

 

     An important distinction must be made here: the mitzva of returning the land to its original owners during the Jubilee year and the mitzva of remitting debts during the Sabbatical year are not at all similar to the mitzva of giving charity. We are not dealing here with a private charitable donation given by an individual to his less fortunate neighbor, but with a general and uniform public system. Such a system is more efficient, and also spares the poor the shame and indignity of begging from door to door.

 

Rabbi [Yehuda ha-Nasi] says: "And this is the manner of the release … shall release" – Scripture speaks of two releases, one the release of land and the other the release of money. When you release land you release money; when you do not release land, you do not release money. (Gittin 36a)

 

Incidentally to the Gemara's discussion in Gittin 36a about Hillel's prozbul, we are informed of Rabbi Yehuda ha-Nasi's teaching: "When you release land you release money." Most Rishonim understand that both the remission of debts and the release of land are being made contingent here upon the law of Jubilee: only when the Jubilee is operative are the mitzvot regarding the Sabbatical year also in effect. This contingency is explicit in the Talmud Yerushalmi:

 

"And this is the manner of the release … shall release." Rabbi [Yehuda ha-Nasi] says: – There are two sabbaths – the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee. When the Jubilee is operative, the sabbatical year is operative by Torah law; after the Jubilee years have stopped, the Sabbatical year is operative by rabbinic decree. (Talmud Yerushalmi, Gittin 10:2)

 

The assumption that we are dealing here with a unified and comprehensive system intended to improve the economic and social order allows us to understand why the Sabbatical year is contingent upon the Jubilee year. This is not merely a collection of unconnected localized laws, but rather a unified system aimed at shaping an orderly society in accordance with the Torah's outlook. Each of the core elements of the system is vital; when one of the elements is missing, there is no reason to continue with the others.[4]

 

     Among the social commandments, there are localized mitzvot, such as the duty to give charity, which relate to concrete, problematic situations demanding rectification. There are also systemic commandments, which try to refashion the entire structure of our social system. Both types of commandments are vital. One the one hand, as we have already explained, only a comprehensive systemic approach can provide an overall solution to the problems of poverty and distress, and at the same time avoid shaming those on the receiving end. On the other hand, large, impersonal systems are usually unable to solve all of society's problems, so that there is always a need for a more personalized approach to the needy individual standing before us begging for food.

 

Prozbul

 

 One of the most famous rabbinic enactments is Hillel's institution of prozbul.

[When there is a] prozbul, there is no remission of debts. This is one of the enactments of Hillel the Elder, who saw that people were refraining from lending money to each other, thus violating what is written in the Torah: "Beware that there not be an unworthy thought in your heart [saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and it shall be reckoned to you as sin" (Devarim 15:9). [Thus] he arose, and instituted the prozbul. (Gittin 36a)

 

Consideration is given here to the special needs of the time. The social goal of the mitzva of debt remission can only be achieved if people continue to lend money to the poor. If, because of the duty to release borrowers from their obligations, people refrain from lending money to the poor, not only will the social goal of the mitzva not be fully realized, but the Sabbatical year will also turn into a nightmare for the poor, instead of their salvation.

 

     Clearly, the institution of prozbul was not a success story, but rather a tale of failure. Had people fulfilled the mission that the Torah imposed upon them, there would have been no need for the enactment, which, practically speaking, makes the mitzva of debt remission irrelevant. Harav Aharon Lichtenstein once wrote that the Torah adds a special admonition in two places - regarding the remission of debts ("Beware that there not be an unworthy thought in your heart saying, The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lord against you, and it shall be reckoned to you as sin" [Devarim 15:9]) and regarding the cessation of agricultural work in the Sabbatical year ("And if you shall say, What shall we eat in the seventh year?" [Vayikra 25:20]) In both cases, the fears expressed by the Torah materialized, so that despite the warnings, we needed halakhic devices to circumvent Torah laws: the prozbul and the heter mekhira (the allowance to sell the land of Israel to a non-Jew).

 

     Enacting the prozbul was certainly a bold initiative, for effectively it eradicates a fundamental Torah law. Hillel the Elder saw – with great pain – that owing to human frailty, the mitzva of remitting debts had turned into a stumbling-block for the poor, and so he dared to institute an enactment that for all practical purposes erased the mitzva. The Sages were ambivalent in their attitude toward prozbul:

 

For Shmuel said: The institution of prozbul is a humiliation to the Sages. Were it in my power, I would abolish it. … But Rav Nahman said: I would keep it. (Gittin 36b)

 

Shmuel argues that the institution of prozbul is a negative development, so that were it in his power, he would abolish it. Rav Nahman seems to agree that the prozbul is a solution of last choice, but he maintains that the need for prozbul continues to exist. According to Shmuel, the harm caused by the institution of prozbul exceeds the benefit that may be reaped from it. How is the institution of prozbul harmful? The simple and immediate answer is that the mitzva of debt remission is not observed, thus preventing the poor from benefiting as they should. But there seems also to be a certain recoiling from the very tampering with Torah laws, irrespective of the concrete social damage caused by the institution of prozbul.

 

The Gemara raises the question how could Hillel have instituted the prozbul against the explicit Torah precept of debt remission:

 

Can it be that by Torah law the Sabbatical year releases [debts] and Hillel enacted that it does not release [debts]? Abaye said: [We are referring to] the Sabbatical year in our time [following the destruction of the Temple], and according to Rabbi [Yehuda ha-Nasi]. (Gittin 36a)

 

Tosafot (ad loc, s.v., mi ikka) prove that the Gemara's question relates not to halakhic authority, but to halakhic motivation. The Gemara does not question Hillel's authority to change Torah law. The Gemara's question is altogether different: Even if we assume that Hillel had such authority, how did he presume to invoke it, and thus abolish the law of debt remission mandated by the Torah? The Gemara answers that, according to Hillel, the law of debt remission today is only by rabbinic decree.

 

The Gemara's discussion may be understood as revolving around the values justifying Hillel's enactment. Presumably, the Torah had good reason to enjoin the remission of debts in the Sabbatical year, and so it would indeed have been presumptuous for Hillel to go ahead and abolish the law. But if this is the question, what then is the answer that we are dealing here with a rabbinic injunction. On the contrary, the natural thing would have been to extend the values commanded by the Torah to apply even when according to "dry Halakha" they are inoperative! If the remission of debts is desirable, what difference should it make whether or not the formal Torah obligation is still in effect?

 

It seems, therefore, that the Gemara's question, according to Tosafot, should be understood in an entirely different manner. The Gemara is asking how did Hillel dare to breach the boundaries of the halakhic world? Why did he think it appropriate and desirable to enter into the problematic realm of halakhic change. If this is the Gemara's question, then the answer is clear: our instinctive recoiling from effecting changes in Halakha which stems from the fear of God within us is more tempered when we are dealing with a rabbinic prohibition.

 

The law of prozbul teaches us that when an enactment is instituted that effectively cancels out a Torah law, the situation is very problematic. This is because of the change itself, and also because the positive effects of the mitzva – those that result when the mitzva is observed in the proper manner – are neutralized.

 

recognition of god's sovereignty

 

     The Jubilee year has not only a social purpose, but also a clear religious rationale:

 

The land shall not be sold forever, for the land is mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with me. (Vayikra 25:23)

 

The Jubilee year limits our ownership of land – restricting both the buyer, who must return the land to its original owner, as well as the seller, who cannot sell his land forever. The Jubilee year teaches us to recognize God's sovereignty, especially in the land of Israel.

 

     This rationale applies to the Sabbatical year as well. The Torah refers to the Sabbatical year as "a sabbath to the Lord" (Vayikra 25:2,4):

 

When you come to the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath to the Lord. Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard, and gather in its fruit. But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath for the Lord; you shall neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard. (Vayikra 25:2-4)

 

The same values that are reflected in the prohibition against working on Shabbat express themselves in the prohibition against working the land during the Sabbatical year. God instructs us to work the land for six years, an activity that is pleasing to Him, but during the seventh year we are ordered to rest. Resting during the seventh year demonstrates that the work done during the six preceding years was performed out of submission to God and acceptance of His yoke. We offer God a portion of the years of our labor as a symbol of our absolute servitude to Him.

 

     During the Sabbatical year, this submission to God expresses itself in a unique way that emphasizes our limited ownership of the property that we regard as belonging to us. The limitation on our ownership expresses itself not only in the prohibitions against agricultural work, but primarily in the status of the produce growing on our property. All the produce growing during the Sabbatical year is regarded as ownerless, so that every person is permitted to take of it in accordance with his needs:

 

There is a positive precept to release all that the land yields during the seventh year, as the verse states: "But during the seventh year you shall release [the produce] and leave it" (Shemot 23:11). Whoever locks his vineyard or fences in his field during the seventh year violates a positive precept. The same applies if he gathers all his produce into his house. Rather, he must renounce it all, and everyone in all places has an equal right to it, as the verse says: "That the poor of your people may eat" (ibid.). A person may bring into his house a small amount [of the produce] in the manner that we bring in renounced property. (Rambam, Hilkhot Shemita ve-Yovel 4:24)

 

In order to counteract the feeling that "my power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth" (Devarim 8:17), a person must act in such a way that shows the he recognizes that everything belongs to God. A person may not demonstrate in any way his ownership of the produce growing on his land - his ultimate property and the fruit of his toil – and he must show that he recognizes that it belongs first and foremost to God.

 

A similar message regarding the limits of our ownership is found in the prohibition against trading in Sabbatical produce. This message is also found in the prohibitions against reaping and harvesting. Agricultural labors are not prohibited in and of themselves, but only when they are performed in a manner that demonstrates possession:

 

This is what is meant by the verse, "That which grows of its own accord of your harvest you shall not reap" (Vayikra 25:5) – that one should not reap in the manner that he reaps every year. If he reaped in the manner of reapers, he is liable for flogging. For example, if he reaped the entire field, and made a heap, and threshed it with animals, or if he reaped it for the sake of working the land, as we have explained. Rather, he must reap a small amount, beat it, and eat. (Rambam, Hilkhot Shemita ve-Yovel 4:1)

 

The prohibitions against reaping and gathering during the Sabbatical year do not forbid particular types of agricultural labor, as do the prohibitions against sowing and pruning. Rather they forbid the harvesting of produce when performed in such a manner that demonstrates ownership. It is crucial, both from a strictly halakhic as well as from a conceptual perspective, to recognize this difference.

 

Since it is not the activity of harvesting itself which is forbidden, the Tosefta suggests the solution of "otzar bet din," according to which agents of the court are permitted to harvest large quantities of produce ("otzar bet din" also solves the problem of trading in Sabbatical produce):

 

At first agents of the court would sit at the town's gates. Whoever would bring produce with him – they would take it from him, and give him from it food for three meals. The rest they would put into storage in town. When the fig picking season would arrive, the court agents would hire workers, who would pick them, make them into a block of dried figs, put them into barrels, and then put them into storage in town.  … [The produce] would be distributed on Fridays, everyone [receiving an amount] according to [the size of] his household. (Tosefta, Shevi'it 8:1)

 

The court agents are permitted to harvest in large amounts, because they do not represent individuals, but rather the community as a whole. When these public servants harvest the produce, there is no problem of demonstrating private ownership. The solution of "otzar bet din" serves us to this day.

 

This aspect of recognizing God's dominion and restricting human ownership expresses itself in a special way in the law relating to the sanctity of Sabbatical produce:

 

"For it is the Jubilee; it shall be holy to you" (Vayikra 25:12) – just as it is holy, so is its produce holy. (Yerushalmi, Shevi'it 4:7)

 

The law relating to the sanctity of Sabbatical produce points to the fact that the produce belongs to God, and not to man. The law of the sanctity of Sabbatical produce is the most striking indication that the Sabbatical year is not merely a human social mitzvah, but also a mitzva with profound spiritual meaning.

 

     We have compared the Sabbatical year to Shabbat. There is, however, an additional aspect to the Sabbatical year, which is less prominent in the case of Shabbat. The almost total cessation of work for the course of an entire year not only expresses our submission to God, but also demonstrates to man the true proportions of the various components of his life, what is more important and what is less so:

 

"Through [the Sabbatical year] the Jew will understand that our days on the earth are like a shadow, and that we are as strangers like all of our forefathers, as tenants, and the earth and the fullness thereof are the Lord's. And he will understand that human perfection does not consist of amassing possessions … And this is the Sabbatical year, a year of God's favor, during which man will cast his idols of silver, and say no more to the work of our hands – the world and all that belongs to us - You are our gods, for money will then be considered as naught, and riches will be of no benefit on the day of wrath. (Tumim, Hoshen Mishpat, 67, no. 1)

 

FOOTNOTES

 

[1] Cited by Rav Yosef Zvi Rimon in his Shi'urei Shevi'it, p. 10.

 

[2] And similarly in Vayikra 25:7: "And for your cattle, and for the beast in your land, shall all its increase be food."

 

[3] See Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, Commentary to Vayikra 25:34.

 

[4] The Rabbis enacted that the Sabbatical year applies even when the Jubilee year is inoperative, so that we may enjoy the partial benefits to be reaped from this mitzva alone.

 

(Translated by Rav David Strauss)