Bemidbar 10:34 record (adaptation of Fox, 1995, translation), “Now the cloud of G-d is over them by day, as they march from the camp.”
This passage raises at least two questions. 10:34 implies that the cloud of G-d traveled above the aron to lead the people. Why were both the aron and the cloud necessary? Two, where was the cloud when the people marched? 9:15,16 record that the cloud floated above the Holy of Holies in the mishkan (Ramban on 9:15), and apparently the cloud was always on top of the Holy of Holies. Furthermore, 10:21 records that the mishkan was located in the middle of the people when they traveled, and then the cloud would be in the middle of the people. However, 9:17 records that when the cloud lifted up this was the signal to the people that they should march, and when the cloud “settled,” then this signaled to the people where they should camp. Also, 10:34 records that the cloud traveled with the aron leading the way. Thus, these verses imply that the cloud was in front of the people when the people marched.
Starting with the latter question, if we think of the cloud of G-d as literally a cloud, then it was able to expand and contract. Even though the cloud of G-d probably was in a form of a pillar still it functioned as a usual cloud whose elements can join together and split up. The cloud could have expanded to cover both the camp of the people, and the marching of the aron. This might have occurred in two ways. One, a small section of the cloud could have broken off to lead and cover the aron, while the main cloud remained on top of the camp of the people. When the people would join up with the Yehoshua and the aron (see above), then the small cloud would also re-join the main cloud. Two, the cloud over the people could have expanded to include a path to lead the way (see Rashi on 9:18) and cover Yehoshua and the aron, and then as the people traveled towards the aron, the path would contract. With either approach, the cloud was always over both the aron marching before the people and the people, as stated in 10:34. It is also possible that the cloud that split or extended out could have been in front of both the aron that was leading the way and of the people.
With regard to the first question, why was there a need for both the aron and the cloud to lead the way? The cloud showed that G-d was leading the way as indicted in 9:18 (also see Shemot 23:20 and 33:2), but even when G-d performs miracles, still mankind must attempt to contribute what he can. The aron with Yehoshua and his men marching before the people, follows a typical pattern of armies, that a scouting party goes ahead to lead the way. This was the people’s role in their journey, but ultimately it was the cloud that directed the people when and where to march and camp.
The idea that the cloud of G-d split up can explain the relationship between the verses 10:12 and 12:16. 10:12 records that the people left Mount Sinai, and the cloud camped in the desert of Paran. (It seems that the desert of Paran was in the northeastern part of the Sinai desert and/ or in the western part of the Negev desert.) Afterwards, 11:3 records that people camped in Taverah, which was re-named Kivrot ha-Taavah, 11:34. 11:35 then records that the people went to Hatzeirot, and from Hatzeirot they went to the desert of Paran, 12:16. How could it be that the people only made it to the desert of Paran in 12:16 when 10:12 already records that they reached the desert of Paran?
Ibn Ezra (on 10:33, also see Hizkuni on 10:12) explains that Taverah, Kivrot ha-Taavah and Hatzeirot were located in the desert of Paran. Yet, if this is true, why would 12:16 state that the people camped in the desert of Paran after leaving Hatzeirot, if Hatzeirot was part of the desert of Paran? Could it be that initially they camped in known locations in the desert of Paran, and afterwards they camped in a non-descript part of the desert, so it was just called the desert of Paran?
Ibn Ezra (on 12:16) quotes a different answer in the name of the many that initially only the cloud of G-d was already in the desert of Paran. This approach accords with a literal reading of 10:12. 10:12 states that the people started to travel away from Mount Sinai, but the verse does not record that the people reached the desert of Paran, only that the cloud settled by the desert of Paran. Ibn Ezra dismisses this answer without giving a reason, but I think it accords with the idea of the splitting and re-joining ability of the cloud of G-d.
The idea would be that when the people started to move as recorded in 10:12, the cloud of G-d went ahead of them to lead the way but only the cloud immediately reached the desert of Paran. Again, this does not mean the entire cloud reached the desert of Paran. Only a part of the cloud of G-d reached the desert, as the main part of the cloud was on top of the Holy of Holies in the middle of the people. The aron followed the path of the cloud of G-d marching in the direction of the desert of Paran, and the people followed the aron. On the way, the aron and the people stopped in Taverah, Kivrot ha-Taavah and Hatzeirot. Thus, the people only reached the desert of Paran after being in Hatzeirot, which was not part of the desert of Paran, as recorded in 12:16. When the people finally reached the desert of Paran, the two parts of the cloud of G-d were re-united.
Hello. The goal of this blog is to enhance our understanding of the Torah and the practice of Judaism. The discussions in the blog are a portion of a more extensive commentary on the Torah, which I will be happy to send to you. You can contact me at ajayschein@gmail.com. Please feel free to send comments. Also, if you want to receive an email with a link to the new posts, send me a request, and I will add you to the email group. Best wishes, Andrew Schein
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Vayikra 25:4-22: Some economic implications to the laws of shemitta and yovel
Vayikra 25:4-18 records the laws of the special years, shemitta and yovel, where people were forbidden from working the lands to grow grains and wine and the land returned to is original owners in the yovel year. Regardless of the rationale for the laws, what are the economic implications of the laws?
With regard to the law of not working the land during the shemitta and yovel years, what would the people do during the year? Also, a more basic question is whether the lack of grains would lead to the people starving?
Vayikra 25:6 records that the people could eat the natural produce of the land that grew without being cultivated, but the question is how much food would that give? Apparently not too much, since 25:20-22 record that G-d was going to bless the people with bountiful crops in the sixth year which would hold the people over until the people could harvest the crops from the eighth year. This blessing would help landowners, but poor people who did not own lands, could have seen severe food depravation during the shemitta and yovel years. It is true that they would have greater access to the fields, but if there was limited produce, then this access would not have been helpful. In addition, if the blessing was not fulfilled, possibly since a person was not worthy of receiving this blessing, then even landowners could have faced a problem of food deprivation.
The implication of this possible food depravation is that people would go hunting and fishing during the shemitta and yovel years. In addition, instead of people raising grains in the six non-shemitta years, they might have dedicated more of their land to growing vegetables, which could be grown in the shemitta and yovel years and raising sheep and cattle. While a person had to allow some animals to enter one’s field, 25:7, there is no prohibition of killing one’s animals that were not in the fields. For example, the shemitta year did not annul the korban pesach or other animal sacrifices, which means that people killed their sheep, goats and cows during the shemitta year to celebrate various holidays. Thus, if there was a problem of not having enough food during the shemitta and yovel years, then the people would have reverted back to being hunter/ gatherers.
Even if there was enough food to survive and there was no food depravation, then still the people could have gone hunting and fishing during the year. They might also have “wasted” the year by playing games and sports. Another possibility is that the people could have spent the year on building and upgrading their homes. Another possibility is that Soss (1975, p. 338) suggests that since a person could not work in the fields during the year, this would free time which “would act to stimulate technical inventiveness and innovation.”
Are there any possible economic gains from the land resting? One, as mentioned by the Rambam (Moreh 3:39), is that the resting of the land could be considered a form of crop rotation. Would this lead an overall gain in productivity in the other six years?
Buchholz (1988) suggests that maybe the shemitta year increased the capital stock by forcing people to save in the intervening six years. However, as noted by Soss (1975) most of the savings would be for food, which would literally be eaten in the 7th year. One other consideration is that the loss of production in the seventh year would naturally have been partially offset by people working harder in the six intervening years to compensate for being unable to work in the seventh year. In fact, one could understand the verses that introduce the shemitta year as obligating a person to work in the intervening years. Thus, Shemot 23:10 and Vayikra 25:2 record, “For six years you are to sow your land,” Fox 1995 translation. (Note this idea could also apply to the Shabbat that a person is supposed to work for six days, see Shemot 20:9 and Devarim 5:19, and Avot de-Rav Natan, 11:1.) Furthermore, as mentioned above, the prohibition of the shemitta year would likely induce people to enter fields least effected by shemitta, such as tending sheep or cattle, crafts, or services instead of farming. Would these activities lead overall to increases in production in the economy?
The return of the ancestral land in the yovel year has more potential gains than the law of not working the fields in the shemitta and yovel years, though again these gains are not obvious. When the people would return to their ancestral fields this would decrease the inequality in society since each person would have the opportunity to start over again and there would be an increase of the assets of the poor people. However, if there was some particularly valuable land, then one family would own this land for perpetuity which can make them permanently wealthy. Also, over time normal demographic changes would nullify the initial attempt at equality when the land was divided in the time of Yehoshua. People from larger families would have less land than people from smaller families since their fixed share would be divided between more people. Furthermore, over time some families die out, and the land would be inherited by close relatives who would end up with “double” plots. (I heard this last point from Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow, in a discussion with him in 2000.) Thus, the equality of the division of the land was just a starting point that people started from the same point, but there was no guarantee of future equality, and the return of the land would not necessarily increase equality.
There are definite losses in the efficiency of the economy from the return of the land in the yovel year since there is less incentive for a buyer to develop the land in the intervening 49 years. Buchholz (1988, p. 422) also argues that the subdivision of plots “limits the ability to exploit economies of scale” by the farming. Yet, unless there are large transaction costs, this problem could be surmounted since adjacent farmers could work together to attain economies of scale.
On the other hand, there are some potential gains in efficiency from the return of the land. While one generation might have worked hard to become wealthy and accumulate large tracts of land, the continued possession of the land by future generations if there were no laws of yovel, could have reduced the level of competition and efficiency in the economy. The inheritors of the land might tend to “satisfice” as opposed to maximizing the value of the fields. Instead, the redistribution of the land means that the descendants of the previous large landowners would have to re-earn their wealth, and the people who returned to their ancestral land would have resources that would enable them to compete. Accordingly, by the return of the land in the yovel year, it is possible that there would be economic benefits to the economy, but the potential gains or losses in equality and in efficiency from the law cannot be known unless one actually can measure a real-life case of the land periodically returning to its original owners. (I think these possibilities are similar in some ways to arguments about inheritance taxes if they lead to more or less efficiency and equality in an economy.)
Vayikra 25:6 records that the people could eat the natural produce of the land that grew without being cultivated, but the question is how much food would that give? Apparently not too much, since 25:20-22 record that G-d was going to bless the people with bountiful crops in the sixth year which would hold the people over until the people could harvest the crops from the eighth year. This blessing would help landowners, but poor people who did not own lands, could have seen severe food depravation during the shemitta and yovel years. It is true that they would have greater access to the fields, but if there was limited produce, then this access would not have been helpful. In addition, if the blessing was not fulfilled, possibly since a person was not worthy of receiving this blessing, then even landowners could have faced a problem of food deprivation.
The implication of this possible food depravation is that people would go hunting and fishing during the shemitta and yovel years. In addition, instead of people raising grains in the six non-shemitta years, they might have dedicated more of their land to growing vegetables, which could be grown in the shemitta and yovel years and raising sheep and cattle. While a person had to allow some animals to enter one’s field, 25:7, there is no prohibition of killing one’s animals that were not in the fields. For example, the shemitta year did not annul the korban pesach or other animal sacrifices, which means that people killed their sheep, goats and cows during the shemitta year to celebrate various holidays. Thus, if there was a problem of not having enough food during the shemitta and yovel years, then the people would have reverted back to being hunter/ gatherers.
Even if there was enough food to survive and there was no food depravation, then still the people could have gone hunting and fishing during the year. They might also have “wasted” the year by playing games and sports. Another possibility is that the people could have spent the year on building and upgrading their homes. Another possibility is that Soss (1975, p. 338) suggests that since a person could not work in the fields during the year, this would free time which “would act to stimulate technical inventiveness and innovation.”
Are there any possible economic gains from the land resting? One, as mentioned by the Rambam (Moreh 3:39), is that the resting of the land could be considered a form of crop rotation. Would this lead an overall gain in productivity in the other six years?
Buchholz (1988) suggests that maybe the shemitta year increased the capital stock by forcing people to save in the intervening six years. However, as noted by Soss (1975) most of the savings would be for food, which would literally be eaten in the 7th year. One other consideration is that the loss of production in the seventh year would naturally have been partially offset by people working harder in the six intervening years to compensate for being unable to work in the seventh year. In fact, one could understand the verses that introduce the shemitta year as obligating a person to work in the intervening years. Thus, Shemot 23:10 and Vayikra 25:2 record, “For six years you are to sow your land,” Fox 1995 translation. (Note this idea could also apply to the Shabbat that a person is supposed to work for six days, see Shemot 20:9 and Devarim 5:19, and Avot de-Rav Natan, 11:1.) Furthermore, as mentioned above, the prohibition of the shemitta year would likely induce people to enter fields least effected by shemitta, such as tending sheep or cattle, crafts, or services instead of farming. Would these activities lead overall to increases in production in the economy?
The return of the ancestral land in the yovel year has more potential gains than the law of not working the fields in the shemitta and yovel years, though again these gains are not obvious. When the people would return to their ancestral fields this would decrease the inequality in society since each person would have the opportunity to start over again and there would be an increase of the assets of the poor people. However, if there was some particularly valuable land, then one family would own this land for perpetuity which can make them permanently wealthy. Also, over time normal demographic changes would nullify the initial attempt at equality when the land was divided in the time of Yehoshua. People from larger families would have less land than people from smaller families since their fixed share would be divided between more people. Furthermore, over time some families die out, and the land would be inherited by close relatives who would end up with “double” plots. (I heard this last point from Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow, in a discussion with him in 2000.) Thus, the equality of the division of the land was just a starting point that people started from the same point, but there was no guarantee of future equality, and the return of the land would not necessarily increase equality.
There are definite losses in the efficiency of the economy from the return of the land in the yovel year since there is less incentive for a buyer to develop the land in the intervening 49 years. Buchholz (1988, p. 422) also argues that the subdivision of plots “limits the ability to exploit economies of scale” by the farming. Yet, unless there are large transaction costs, this problem could be surmounted since adjacent farmers could work together to attain economies of scale.
On the other hand, there are some potential gains in efficiency from the return of the land. While one generation might have worked hard to become wealthy and accumulate large tracts of land, the continued possession of the land by future generations if there were no laws of yovel, could have reduced the level of competition and efficiency in the economy. The inheritors of the land might tend to “satisfice” as opposed to maximizing the value of the fields. Instead, the redistribution of the land means that the descendants of the previous large landowners would have to re-earn their wealth, and the people who returned to their ancestral land would have resources that would enable them to compete. Accordingly, by the return of the land in the yovel year, it is possible that there would be economic benefits to the economy, but the potential gains or losses in equality and in efficiency from the law cannot be known unless one actually can measure a real-life case of the land periodically returning to its original owners. (I think these possibilities are similar in some ways to arguments about inheritance taxes if they lead to more or less efficiency and equality in an economy.)
Bibliography:
Buchholz, Todd, 1988, “Biblical Laws and the Economic Growth of Ancient Israel,” Journal of Law and Religion, 6:2, pp. 389-427.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Soss, N., 1975, Old Testament Laws and Economic Society, Journal of the History of Ideas, 34, pp. 323-344.
Buchholz, Todd, 1988, “Biblical Laws and the Economic Growth of Ancient Israel,” Journal of Law and Religion, 6:2, pp. 389-427.
Fox, Everett, 1995, The Five Books of Moses: A new translation, New York: Schocken Books.
Soss, N., 1975, Old Testament Laws and Economic Society, Journal of the History of Ideas, 34, pp. 323-344.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)