PROPERTY
Z. Ben-Barak, "Meribaal and the System of Land Grants in Ancient
Israel", Biblica 62 (1981), 73-91. - The author examines the
story of Meribaal (2 Sam. 9; 16:1-4; 19:17-18, 25-31) as the major
piece of evidence that the system of royal land grants, which was widespread
in the ancient Near East, was also practiced in Israel (cf. 1
Sam 8:14; 22:7). He traces the development of this process through
a number of stages. The title to the paternal estate was transferred to
the king as crown lands in the absence of an heir. The king was able to
dispose of these as lands of grant in return for service to the crown. One
of the important sources of land grant was the transformation to crown land
of paternal estates which had been confiscated by the king on the grounds
of treason. (K.W.W.)
Z. Ben-Barak, "The Meribaal Story and Land-Grants in Ancient
Israel", BM 25 (1980), 42-62 (Heb.). - Hebrew version of Biblica
article, above.
J. Blumberg, "Arabic Legal Terms in Jewish Property Law"
(Heb.), Shenaton Hamishpat Ha'ivri 14-15 (1988-89), 61-87. - This
article fills a gap in the comparative study of Judaism and Islam - which
is generally confined to the areas of philosophy and history - by attempting
a systematic study of Arabic legal terms in Jewish legal literature. The
present study focuses on Maimonides' Arabic works, i.e. Commentary to the
Mishnah, Sefer Hamitsvot, Responsa and the Guide for the Perplexed
and those of his predecessors including R. Saadya Gaon, R. Samuel b. Hofni,
R. Isaac Alfasi and R. Joseph ibn Megas. The terms analysed are milk
(ownership), kabd (taking possession), ghash (usurpation),
sarika (theft), darak (responsibility for defects in ownership),
shufa (pre-emption) and rahn (pledge). Each term is analysed
in its Islamic and Jewish legal contexts, and the issue of the influence
of the former system upon the latter is discussed. The author is, in fact,
unable to point to any clear examples of such an influence. He does, however,
succeed in demonstrating that the Arabic terms are used by Jewish jurists
in accordance with their meanings in more than one school of Islamic jurisprudence.
It is also argued that there were specific traditions amongst the Jewish
authorities discussed in the article with regard to the meaning and usage
of these terms. (D.B.S.)
A. Cohen, "Shemitah", BM 24 (1979), 45-49, 120 (Heb.)
- The sabbatical year of the land, it is here argued, was not observed in
First Temple times due to the economic unfeasibility of neglecting vineyards
for even one year. Only in the Second Temple period, when a large gentile
population could supply agricultural products to the Jewish populace, and
only in such northern areas as were no longer based on grape production,
could the law be observed as prescribed. (B.J.S.)
Eryl W. Davies, Prophecy and Ethics, Isaiah and the Ethical Traditions
of Israel, Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981, ISBN 0 905774
26 4, Pp. 184, Price: £8.95 (subscribers: £6.50) (Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, 16). - In this study
of Isaiah's ethics, extracted from a doctoral dissertation, the author relates
the prophet's work to earlier Israelite traditions on covenant and law,
and pays particular attention to two passages, Is. 5:8-10 and 1:21-6,
which concern abuses of the land-holding system, and of the administration
of justice. The law in itself was incapable of preventing all such abuses;
the prophet's concern for the maintenance of justice "in the gate"
is related to that concerning land-holding, since the right to speak in
the legal assembly was contingent upon the possession of property. (B.S.J.)
J.A. Dearman, Property Rights in the Eighth-Century Prophets,
Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, l981, Pp. 301; see KS 58/1 no.
100.
Y. Grossman, Sefer She'elot uteshuvot mashkenot yisra'el, al hilkhot
batim meshutafim venizke shekeynim, Jerusalem: Z. Grossman, l984, Pp.
xiii, 159; see KS 59/2-3 no. 2821.
E. Lipinski, "Sale, Transfer, and Delivery in Ancient Semitic
Terminology", in Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien,
ed. H. Klengel (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1982), 173-185 (Schriften zur Geschichte
und Kultur des Alten Orients, 15). - The author considers the semantic developments
of the root MKR in Hebrew Ugaritic and Babylonian sources, and discerns
a gradual shift in the direction of transfer of property, as opposed to
mere transfer of possession. But the ancient semitic legal systems did not
conceptualise the distinction between possession and ownership, as did the
Romans; payment of the price and delivery of the goods were normally concurrent.
(B.S.J.)
H. Mller, "Lsungsvorschlag für eine Crux interpretum (Lev.
25 33)", ZAW 90 (1978), 411-12. - Re Va'asher yigal in
Lev. 25:33, Mller argues (1) that the verb g'l here also means
"to redeem" and not "to acquire", (2) the introduction
of a "not" is to be rejected, and (3) the asher relates
not to the following yig'al but to the preceding ge'ulat olam
tihyeh laleviyyim.` (J.D.)
J. Neusner, "Scriptural, Essenic, and Mishnaic Approaches to
Civil Government: Some Comparative Remarks", HTR 73 (1980),
419-434. - Comparison of Neziqin with comparable collections of law
in the Bible and at Qumran highlights the peculiar concerns of the Mishnaic
editors. B.K., B.M., Makk., Shebu., Hor. are essentially extensions
of Scripture restating biblical facts. Sanh. and A.Zar. tend
to develop new topics that could not be predicted on the basis of the Pentateuch.
And B.B., dealing with property law, and Ab. are completely
independent of Scripture. The Damascus Rule portrays a tightly-organised
hierarchical community, whereas the Mishnah envisages a society governed
by a consensus of the sages. It wishes to create a stable ongoing society
on earth: it is not concerned with heroic efforts to bring in a new age.
Heaven is created on earth when man obeys heaven's laws. This preoccupation
with the present and property suggests that the framers of the Mishnah were
property-owning householders. (G.J.W.)
Shmuel Shilo, "Split Ownership Rights in Property according to
Jewish Law", Diné Israel 12 (1985), 173-193.
U. Shtruzman, "The Significance of the Market Overt Enactment
in Jewish Law" (Heb.), Diné Israel 9 (1978-1980),
7-50. - Under the provisions of Israeli law, the buyer of stolen goods,
or a pawnbroker who receives a stolen object, will retain their respective
rights in the stolen property, provided that they dealt in good faith, and
various conditions specified in the relevant laws were fulfilled. In Jewish
law, however, the buyer of stolen goods is under a religious obligation
to restore them to the original owner, and the sole effect of the market
overt enactment is to ensure that where the buyer acted in good faith, he
is not required to endure any financial loss in order to restore the stolen
goods. He may, therefore, demand compensation from the owner for any losses
incurred in restoring his property to him. The writer believes that, this
fundamental difference between Jewish and Israeli law notwithstanding, a
fusion of the principles of both systems would provide a law which would
be both efficient and just. In another article, "The Market Overt Enactment"
(Heb.), Hapraklit 34 (1982), 353-374, the same author deals with
different aspects of this topic in Jewish law, and compares it with Israeli
law. (J.S.K.)
A. Sivan, "The Negotiations over the Cave of Machpelah",
Sivan, 207-217 (Heb.). - This study is a Hebrew synopsis of recent
articles by Melamed, Lehmann, Tucker, Westbrook, Speiser and Evans on Abraham's
purchase of the Machpelah Cave. The various attempts by these scholars to
elaborate on the ancient Near Eastern legal traditions underlying the narrative
are presented and clarified. (B.S.J.)
R. Westbrook, "The Price Factor in the Redemption of Land",
Revue Internationale des Droits de l'AntiquitÈ 32 (l985),
97-127.
About
| Officers | Constitution
| Membership | Conferences
Publications | Abstracts
| Resources | Courses
| Links
View the framed
or non-framed version of this site
|