Worried about how you're going to manage to eat enough in the sabbatical year, when you can't sow or harvest? Don't you fear: YHWH will make the sixth year miraculously abundant! Three years' worth in one! Well, that's reassuring.
It's utopian, obviously. But that's actually a pretty big deal, and sort of wild, when you think about it. Here's what is presented to us as law - don't sow or harvest in the seventh year - but which can't ever have actually been practiced, or even imagined to be practiced.
We might think of this through a somewhat skeptical lens as H writing from a time when none of these good things happened, and Israel was in some trouble, and that could be blamed, in fact, on Israel not having followed these laws, which were given so long ago.
But we should also recognize that when we try to reconstruct ancient Israel's cultic practices and religious beliefs, we should be pretty careful about taking any of the biblical texts as directly representative of real practice. It's all literature.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Bible, like every text, can’t communicate without a reader. And every reader reads from their own context. So you can’t say “the Bible means X” - you can only say “I read the Bible as meaning X.” And preferably understand why - the context of your reading.
As all texts need to be interpreted to be read, so too every reading is therefore interpretation. Modern readers interpret for their own world and context. So too Luther. So too Jesus. So too the very first readers of the text in antiquity. None of these is the “right” reading.
“How the original Israelite audience would have understood it” isn’t the “correct” interpretation of the text. It’s just the oldest. Privileging it over the 2000 years of interpretation that followed is a very particular modern intellectual stance that should be interrogated.
Every fifty years, we get the jubilee: not just a year of rest like the sabbatical (though that too), but a year of restoration: everyone returns to their lands and to their people. What a nice biblical idea! Except it isn’t (biblical).
The big announcement of the fiftieth year is the restoration, or dror (דרור). This word comes to Hebrew, and the Bible, from the Akkadian andurarum, which is the same basic concept, just at the whim of the king rather than set on the calendar.
Always good to have the reminder that so much of what is known as biblical law is in fact just borrowed ancient Near Eastern practice. (You may think that these are God’s laws, but if they are, God nicked them from Mesopotamia.)
Six years you can plant and harvest as usual; in the seventh year, though, none of that - you can eat only what the land produces on its own, without your intervention.
That ought to work out just fine.
There’s an obvious utopian quality to this law - as it will essentially go on to explain a few verses later. It might have once been workable on a field-by-field level, but not nationally, which is what is clearly proposed here. This is the sabbath writ large.
Having moved through all the realms of the sacred, we’re now come to the biggest and last: the land itself. The sabbath is about sacred time; the sabbatical is about sacred land (in time). It’s also fundamentally about property, as will become increasingly clear.
Sorcery (and why Jews wear beards and don’t get tattoos)
The thing about sorcery in the Bible is that it isn’t forbidden because it’s inherently evil. It isn’t forbidden because it’s “magic” (however defined). It’s forbidden because it works.
Sorcery (or divination, or augury, or whatever in this concept cluster) is problematic because it usurps YHWH’s power - and, particularly, the authority of the priests as the sole access to YHWH, and especially to oracular knowledge. Knowledge is power, don’t you know.
Sorcery is thus very much like child sacrifice - prohibited because of its efficaciousness, because it overrides or usurps divine authority, because it reveals alternative modes of manipulating power and knowledge. Such things are, as always, a threat to the powers that be.
Sorry - not as sexy as it sounds. Like, literal forbidden fruit: no fruit from trees less than four years old can be eaten. Fine agricultural practice I’m sure - more interesting is the word for “forbidden” here: elsewhere, “uncircumcised.”
Same word used in both cases of literal circumcision (like Abraham in Gen 17) and some famous figurative language: Moses talking about his mouth, Jeremiah about people’s hearts and ears, etc.
I’m here to suggest that “uncircumcised” isn’t the base meaning of the word, but is a specialized (if common) application of a broader term meaning “covered, blocked.” Moses’s mouth, Jeremiah’s hearts and ears…and of course these premature fruit trees.
As you can imagine, it ain’t great. Usually, the punishment for adultery is death. But if the woman is a slave, well, then she’s not really a person, you see, and so the (free) man just has to pay - like he damaged property.
But, but, slavery in the Bible was better than -
Shut it. This is some straight dehumanizing shit here, and defending it means you love this old-ass book more than you love your fellow humans, and you can call that whatever you like, but I call it deeply immoral.
Rant over.
(This kind of shit - which I received just this morning, amazingly):