But the land shall not be sold permanently, because the land is mine,
because you are aliens and visitors with me!
Leviticus 25:23
While Real Property is not directly addressed within the Ten Commandments, theologically, it is. A Ten Commandments’ real estate reference leads us to a socio-economic controversy that remains relevant in present day society.
The Torah Portion Vayigash is the driver in this essay. It tells of the rich getting richer and the poor getting dispossessed. Regional catastrophes, i.e. famines, can devastate an economy. The memories of what occurred in Vayigash may have inspired the Post-Exodus law.
Given the realities of whether conditions and the hazards of farming, does the Israelite Real Estate solution make any sense?
Before exploring this issue, however, for those non-lawyers, Real Property means land. Personal Property is the legal term for objects.
The Decalogue will be first point of inquiry.
The Land Based Commandment
Only one Decalogue commandment specifically addresses Real Property. The one to honor one’s parents.
The Commandment “Honoring One’s Parents” comes with a Promised Land property assurance: a reason [for honoring one’s parent] being so “…that your days will be extended on the land the Lord, your God, is giving you.” Exodus 20:12.
Given Israelite inheritance laws, this commandment resonates. Children’s enjoyment of the family property could be impaired should the parents transfer the property to others. The it was child’s interest to insure that their parents were successful and prosperous. Otherwise, the land could be leased out and be subject to Jubilee law. A topic which will be discussed below.
Real Property
The innovative Israelite Real Property law introduced the Jubilee concept. The law’s promulgation occurred Post-Exodus and was reported in Leviticus.
The Jubilee- a year in which real estate was returned to the original owner- was the mechanism preserving tribal/family ownership. Every fifty years, land reverted back to the original owner.
[Note: Land right’s importance is revealed in scripture. Chapter 4 in The Book of Ruth extensively deals with Israelite Real Estate Law. It addressed issues of acquisition, retention and inheritance.
In the First Book of Kings, a heavy rebuke was made when the Monarchy surreptitiously seized private property. The Prophet Elijah is told to confront King Ahab concerning his acquisition of a citizen’s vineyard. The Prophet was instructed by God: “Say to him [the King], ‘This is what the Lord says: Have you not murdered a man and seized his property?’” 1 Kings 21:19]
Give this framework, children risk being temporarily dispossessed from their inheritable land should their parents financially struggle. It is possible that a child’s parents could lease the property up to 49 years. Such action could literally deprive one generation from enjoyment of the family’s real estate.
Where did this concept come from? Did this Post-Exodus innovation arise out of the events that occurred in the Pre-Exodus Torah Portion Vayigash?
Vayigash
Vayigash tells a dystopian real estate tale which resulted in massive societal and economic change.
As the details are laid out, the Vayigash tale’s connection to the Jubilee is uncanny.
Was this connection intended? What was the purpose? These questions will be explored.
The Pharaoh as a Real Estate Baron
Vayigash is a classic tale of the haves taking advantage of the have-nots. Essentially, the regional famine’s persistence destroyed the Egyptian way of life.
Normal Egyptian residents essentially gave up everything to save themselves from starvation. With that, the Pharaoh amassed tremendous wealth and power.
The Collapse
Vayigash’s passage of interest occurs after Joseph’s family relocated to Egypt.
As the famine continued, Joseph-the Pharaoh’s administrator- continued selling grain.
After all of the silver in both Egypt and Canaan had been collected from sales, the populace’s demand for food remained. Genesis 47:13-15
Joseph then exchanged the bread for livestock. Genesis 47:16-18. After all the livestock was exchanged, the people then traded their land for bread.
After the people essentially had no possessions, they then agreed to become Pharaoh’s servants. Genesis 47:19-21. In the end, the Pharaoh owned all of the land and all the people. Genesis 47:20.
In sum, Joseph essentially turned a significant part of the Egyptian population into serfs. One-fifth of the harvest was to go to the Pharaoh. The Egyptian residents were allowed to keep the balance for themselves. Genesis 47:26.
Not everybody lost their land, however. The Egyptian priests escaped the catastrophe. Vayigash reports that the Pharaoh did not buy the priests’ land as they were protected by law. Beyond that, the priests had no starvation concerns as they received a statutory share of grain from the Pharaoh. “On account of this, they did not sell their land.” Genesis 47:22
In sum, Vayigash illustrates the vulnerability of humanity within a purely capitalistic society. Only the priests, possessing protective laws and benefits, were able to survive during an extended period of economic crisis.
Did the Israelites appreciate this when the Torah enacted Real Property Laws which included the Jubilee?
The Israelite Jubilee
Pursuant to the Torah, God essentially owned the Israelite Promised Land. See Leviticus 25:23
To address Promised Land Real Estate, the Jubilee year was established. See Leviticus 25.
A proclamation was recorded: “And you shall consecrate the year that makes fifty years and proclaim liberty in the land, to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you. And you shall go back, each to his possession; and you shall go back, each to his family.” Leviticus 25:10
[Note: the italicized portion is famously inscribed on the United States’ Liberty Bell.]
It was ordered that “[i]n this jubilee year you shall go back, each to his possession.” Leviticus 25:13
In sum, all property remained in families’ possession. Essentially, it could be leased out. Every designated fifty years however, it would revert back to the original owners.
What Was The Jubilee’s Goal and Intent?
When taking the Vayigash tale into account, the Jubilee’s intent may have been to provide a social safety net.
Historically, there were many reasons that could have inspired this solution. Extended famines, and other matters, impacted landowners’ ability to both produce food and earn a livelihood on a consistent basis. Prolonged periods of unfavorable or unforeseeable circumstances inevitably would lead to the dispossession of the land. Thus, the Jubilee operates to prevent the family/tribe’s permanent land loss.
The Torah Portion Behar with the Jubilee laws also emphasized the nature of the society. Behar also expresses the Divine intent as to Israelite society. It states “…you shall not persecute-each of you-his brother…” Leviticus 25:17.
Within Leviticus‘ ambitious social safety net legislation, Israelite society’s haves were instructed to assist the have nots.
It is excellently expressed in the following passage: “And when your brother will be low so that his hand is slipping with you, then you shall take hold of him- an alien and a visitor- and he shall live with you.” Leviticus 25:35.
Commentator Richard Elliott Friedman noted on the Israelite Law. “This appears to be an economic program designed to prevent the feudal system, common in the rest of the ancient Near East, from developing in Israel. That is, it functions to prevent the establishment of a class of wealthy landowners at the top of the economic scale and a mass of landless peasants at the bottom.” See Commentary on the Torah, Pages 402-403
Thus, when compared to the happenings Vayigash, it was the wealthy were charged to provide the safety net. As such, the Decalogue’s reference of the Lord’s bringing the Children of Israel out of Egypt also signified an end to feudalism. Capitalism, which included a social safety net, prevailed. A nation would not be owned by a Monarchy.
The Levitical Class Exception
The Israelite Priestly class, the Levites- all the tribe of Levi, were not allowed a portion and legacy with Israel. Deuteronomy 18:1. In essence, they, unlike other tribes, did not have land ownership rights.
They did, however, have a special benefit. They shared in the Lord’s offerings. Deuteronomy 18:2. Thus, the Levites ate from the populace’s sacrifices. Some sacrifices produced food for consumption. See Leviticus Chapters 6-7.
As such, the Levite Tribe’s source of food came from the populace. This arrangement was in accordance with their service. “Because the Lord, your God, has chosen him from all your tribes to stand to serve in the Lord’s name, he and his sons, for all time.” Deuteronomy 18:5. Also See Numbers 18: 20-24.
Vayigash and the Jubilee’s Connections
The contrasts between Yayigash and Leviticus‘ Jubilee laws are remarkable.
In Vayigash, it was reported that the Egyptian Priests not only held land, they also received food from the Pharaoh. In contrast, with Israelite Law, the Levite Priests did not hold land and were essentially provided food via the populace.
In Vayigash, it was the Pharaoh who ultimately owned the land. In Israel, it was God who held the land. It was through this divine ownership, however, that mortal ownership via the tribes was fashioned. This included permanent inheritance rights via the Jubilee.
Modern Thought
A recent example similar to Joseph’s famine was the COVID-19, pandemic. The prolonged limitations on activities affected many people. People’s jobs, homes, business and livelihoods were impacted.
It begs the questions as to how societies acted? How has the world changed? What happened to people vulnerable during a period of economic shutdown?
Conclusion
The Torah Portion Vayigash recounts how a prolonged famine caused an Egyptian economic realignment. As a result, many people were dispossessed of their real estate which gave rise to a feudal society.
The end result was that the Pharaoh essentially owned the country and maintained a serfdom class. The Egyptian priests, however, escaped both the starvation and loss of land due to protective laws.
The Israelite Jubilee laws, and Torah-related Real Property laws, appear take the opposite approach. The Torah enacted laws to address the Real Estate in times of prolonged regional catastrophes.
The Torah created safety net measures. Essentially, while God served as the ultimate property owner, the tribal families ultimately held a land inheritance. This land was protected from loss via the restorative Jubilee year.
It is quite possible that the Torah Portion Vayigash inspired this economic innovation. Alternatively, the tale could have served as a polemic to advance the change.
And with the Jubilee concept in play, honoring one’s parents turns out to be quite solid advice.
Be well!!
Please like, follow, comment or share
The Ten Commandments Project 
Continuing our study of the Gemara of Kiddushin. משנה תורה אב משנה, סוגיה ב’ — מניינא דף ג
Understanding the basics of Oral Torah a fundamentally required absolute. Wrote of rabbi Akiva’s רבוי מיעט compared to rabbi Yishmael’s כלל – פרט, פרט – כלל middot by which both men interpreted through different sh’ittot the kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic reasoning. Clearly neither Boris Badenov, nor his boot licking sidekick Natasha Fatale (Rambam & Yosef Karo) understood the distinctions which separate Torah common law from Roman statute law.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק”ו. למעוטי מאי? למעוטי חליפין. ס”ד אמינא הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון, מה שדה מקניא בחליפין, אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין. קמ”ל. This “משל” term “קמ”ל”, what defines its נמשל interpretation? The Gemara asks: למעוטי מאי? Hence, our Gemara contrasts rabbi Yishmael’s midda of ק”ו against rabbi Akiva’s midda of רבוי מיעט. When ever encountering a קמ”ל, this משל teaches the נמשל of either a רבוי מיעט. A fundamental chiddush, how to correctly read the Talmud with an understanding discerning eye – comparable to the tongue of a wine bibber. The Talmud defines understanding as: discernment like from like.
The פרט of בראשית כד:ב requires research. Let’s open by making a מדרש רבה analysis. Midrash functions as a reference resource for Talmudic study. The flat assimilated Yeshiva education system totally ignores learning Talmud together with Midrash, a clumsy yet cunning schemer basic Snidely Whiplash error. Which utterly backfires in a pathetic shallow addiction to the Rambam error of literal word translation Orthodox Judaism religious stupidity.
בראשית רבה נט:ח – Midrash Rabbah connects this verse through the midda of גזירה שוה to כי יקח איש אשה. Avraham & servant Eliezer cut an oath alliance Torah common law legal precedent prototype. The hand-under-thigh Torah language refers to an oath sworn obligation through which the גזירה שוה equally applies to the קידושין oath brit obligation which obligates a Man to give a get to his ex-wife if he divorces her. What does the mitzva of קידושין acquire? The Nefesh O’lam Ha’Ba of the woman’s soul! Specifically learned from the Torah precedent בכל נפשך repeated twice in the opening first two paragraphs of the ק”ש. Bereishit Rabbah learns this critical גזרה שוה, as a critical proto–common law precedent; a foundational legal principles or decisions that define the development of Oral Torah common law as we know it today.
The רבוי מיעט – The acquired “wife” does not lose her independent da’at. Kiddushin-betrothal does not confer ownership over the woman, her various aspect: such as her body, labor or personhood. She exits marital status through get, not resale. Never does she qualify as ממון: money, valuable possessions, and property. Herein interprets the k’vanna of the language of our Av Mishna, which does not say: האשה נקנית לאיש, but האשה נקנית בשלש דרכים — the mitzva of קידושין separates this woman from all other women. Herein understand how the gospel Av tuma avoda zara touching the vile story of virgin birth follows Greek mythology of Hercules rather than Oral Torah common law.
The precedent of Avraham and his servant sworn oath, this Torah brit alliance obligates. Hence this Torah precedent critical in understanding the mitzva of קידושין as an oath alliance brit obligation which obligates both Man and Woman equally. קידושין acquires exclusive – מיעט – over the woman’s nefesh-standing vis-à-vis other men. Herein explains why adultery qualifies as a Capital Crime case which only a Sanhedrin court can adjudicate. Hence no Goyim court qualifies as having authority to issue a divorce. This fundamental recognition that only Torah courts shall determine “the Jewish Problem”, as expressed through the post Shoah oath: NEVER AGAIN.
Oral Torah does not function as a תולדות commentary on the Written Torah —Oral Torah common law derived from precedent תולדות positive and negative Torah commandments. קידושין acquires a brit-level oath obligation as a Av Torah time-oriented commandment. This oath alliance obligation establishes enforceable duties such as כתובה, גט, & fidelity. This mitzva does not treat the acquisition of a wife comparable to how a man acquires ownership of a עבד כנעני; the concept of “soul” understood as title acquired to all future born children fathered consequent to this קידושין. This Torah mitzva serves to amplify the k’vanna of swearing an oath alliance לשמה – the first Sinai commandment; the greatest commandment in the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
ולרב הונא דאמר חופה קונה מק״ו
למעוטי מאי
למעוטי חליפין
This question cannot be asked within Rabbi Yishmael’s כלל–פרט system alone, because: A pure ק״ו would expand; a pure גזירה שוה from שדה עפרון would import all kinyanim. Hence the danger: ס״ד אמינא:
הואיל וגמר קיחה קיחה משדה עפרון
מה שדה מקניא בחליפין
אף אשה נמי מקניא בחליפין
This while logically correct under Rabbi Yishmael’s sh’itta. But rabbi Akiva’s קמ״ל = רבוי מיעט, not כלל–פרט. So קמ״ל here teaches the negative boundary of the רבוי, just as it likewise understands the relationship between Shabbat to Chol! A very important precedent since the mitzva of shabbat critically defines: HOLY; just as korbanot dedications define the kingship mitzva of Moshiach. Moshe anointed the House of Aaron to dedicate the nation to pursue righteous judicial justice. The prophet Natan cursed the House of David with eternal Civil War after he failed to rule with justice in the matter of the baal of Bat Sheva. Just as Aaron did not offer up barbeques to Heaven through korbanot, so to the Moshiach does not rule as king if he fails to establish righteous common law Federal Sanhedrin courts!
Acquisition to the “title” Nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of the woman’s soul does not compare to buying or selling chattel. Reading the Talmud as if it compares to the novel of a Harry Potter NT false messiah – Protocols of the Elders of Zion fraud-literalism, destroys and uproots precedent-based Oral Torah common law/משנה תורה. Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס inductive logic, ancient Greek syllogism deductive logic simply does not work any more than does the Yad, Tur, or Shulkan Aruch assists students to correctly understand how to study and learn the Talmud. Hence the sages codified in the Talmud referred to as “Oral Torah”, whereas the Rambam Yad in no way, shape, manner, or form qualifies as Oral Torah. The two systems compare to the Planets of Mars and Venus.
The קמ”ל always signals רבוי–מיעט. In this particular case: it excludes chalipin, despite the valid ק״ו logic. Because the acquired object – a brit obligation over the “nefesh” soul. Which likewise the Oral Torah differs from the Yad, Tur, Shulkan Aruch counterfeits, the acquisition of “nefesh” simply not ממון, but rather the future born children – the definition of the first Torah commandment: be fruitful and multiply. The רבוי מיעט of the קידושין acquisition of “soul”, separates Goyim from the chosen מיעט Cohen people created through the Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandment of קידושין. Which aligns perfectly with Bereishit Rabbah’s oath-alliance precedent.
The concluding statement of מדרש רבה נט:ח — א”ר יצחק חטיא דקרתך זונין זרע מנהון. Rabbi Yitzhak stated: ‘The wrongdoing of your actions prevents their sustenance from coming;’ restated: “produces continuity only when obligation is preserved.” This closing statement of Midrash Rabbah נט:ח functions as a juridical boundary marker – informing how legal drosh “borders”; the Tosafists reasoning perhaps qualifies it as הלכה למעשה. My sh’itta of inductive reasoning argues the comparison between the case of our Gemara — to the case introduced by Midrash Rabba (the definition of inductive vs deductive reasoning) – do not interpret the קידושין oath brit alliance as the acquisition of an object but rather as the very definition of creating the chosen cohen people through tohor time-oriented commandments.
Torah common law draws category boundaries, such as Sanhedrin courts only have legal jurisdiction within the borders of Judea. Or prophets serve as the police enforcers of judicial common law legal rulings; if no Sanhedrin courts then likewise no prophets. Despite the koran narishkeit which declares that prophets sent to all peoples across the Planet and the Arabs the last people on Earth to receive their “chosen” prophet; hence their absurd declaration that Muhammad was the last of the prophets!
חליפין has the legal meaning which presumes חפץ – a thing. ‘Fungible goods items’ qualify as horse-trading, interchangeable goods. Fungibility facilitates easy transactions and exchanges. Representative by contrast refers to something or someone who stands in for or symbolizes someone or something else. Like Representatives voted into the Federal Congress, they serve as proxies for the voting electorate within any given US State. In basic horse-trading, money functions as a representative of legal trade instead of barter. A common custom practiced by Goyim societies: wife swapping.
Torah law never universalizes categories without jurisdiction. This fundamental מאי נפקא מינא – רב חסד middah forever separates Torah common law from Islamic (and Christian) universal-prophetic claims, which erase jurisdictional boundaries entirely.
Kiddushin cannot tolerate representation … wife swapping. A nefesh cannot be substituted; brit cannot be “grafted” to Goyim who do not and never have accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Fidelity cannot be symbolically reassigned; the Torah oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people defined to Talmudic established culture and customs, personal, exclusive, & non-fungible. The Torah phrase “והיו לבשר אחד” — not metaphysics — rather anti-fungibility common law. Therefore חליפין utterly treif in the matter of קידושין because it baptizes brit into a substitute theology exchange which replaces the pursuit of justice as faith for belief in some theologically created new God as faith.
The mitzva of קידושין rejects the Goyim custom which perceives marital bonds as transferable; persons as interchangeable units; relationships as revocable exchanges which defines the legal concept of fungibility in human marital relations. Therefore our Gemara blocks that endpoint at the root by excluding חליפין. Herein our Gemara separate kiddushin from market place logic of acquisition of goods and property.
Therefore, קמ״ל in Kiddushin functions as a רבוי–מיעט marker: it affirms that Kiddushin functions as a true kinyan, while excluding any kinyan whose logic presumes fungible object-ownership; therefore חליפין – excluded because brit over nefesh cannot be represented, substituted, or exchanged.
LikeLike