Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 25:29
And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; [within] a full year may he redeem it.
29 34. Law in respect to the redemption of houses (P)
Houses in a walled town, if sold, and not redeemed within a year, were (with the exception of those belonging to the Levites) to be unaffected by the Jubile, and remain the permanent possession of the buyer, but for houses elsewhere there was no restriction as to the time within which they might be redeemed, and in any case the Jubile law was to be in force.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 29. Sell a dwelling house in a walled city] A very proper difference is put between houses in a city and houses in the country. If a man sold his house in the city, he might redeem it any time in the course of a year; but if it were not redeemed within that time, it could no more be redeemed, nor did it go out even in the jubilee. It was not so with a house in the country; such a house might be redeemed during any part of the interim; and if not redeemed, must go out at the jubilee. The reason in both cases is sufficiently evident; the house in the city might be built for purposes of trade or traffic merely, the house in the country was built on or attached to the inheritance which God had divided to the respective families, and it was therefore absolutely necessary that the same law should apply to the house as to the inheritance. But the same necessity did not hold good with respect to the house in the city: and as we may presume the house in the city was merely for the purpose of trade, when a man bought such a house, and got his business established there, it would have been very inconvenient for him to have removed; but as it was possible that the former owner might have sold the house rashly, or through the pressure of some very urgent necessity, a year was allowed him, that during that time he might have leisure to reconsider his rash act, or so to get through his pressing necessity as to be able to get back his dwelling. This time was sufficiently long in either of the above cases; and as such occurrences might have been the cause of his selling his house, it was necessary that he might have the opportunity of redeeming his pledge. Again, as the purchaser, having bought the house merely for the purpose of trade, manufacture, c., must have been at great pains and expense to fit the place for his work, and establish his business, in which himself, his children, and his children’s children, were to labour and get their bread hence it was necessary that he should have some certainty of permanent possession, without which, we may naturally conjecture, no such purchases ever would be made. This seems to be the simple reason of the law in both cases.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
29-31. if a man sell a dwellinghouse in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole yearafter it is soldAll sales of houses were subject to the samecondition. But there was a difference between the houses of villages(which, being connected with agriculture, were treated as parts ofthe land) and houses possessed by trading people or foreigners inwalled towns, which could only be redeemed within the year after thesale; if not then redeemed, these did not revert to the former ownerat the Jubilee.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if a man sell a dwelling house in a walled city,…. Which was so from the days of Joshua the son of Nun, as Jarchi:
then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold: any time within the year he pleased, either he or any near of kin to him; and if they would, on the day it was sold, or any time after within the compass of the year, even on the day in which the year ended; in this such an house differed from fields, which could not be redeemed under two years, [See comments on Le 25:15];
[within] a full year may he redeem it; from the time it was sold, paying what it was sold for: this is to be understood, Maimonides h says, of a solar year, which consists of three hundred sixty five days, and within this space of time such an house might be redeemed.
h In Misn. Eracin, c. 9. sect. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Verses 29-31:
A dwelling house in a walled city did not come under the provisions of the Jubilee Year. One who sold such a house had one year in which to redeem it. If he did not exercise that right within the year, the house passed permanently to the estate of the buyer.
A dwelling house in an unwalled village fell under the provisions of the Jubilee Year. It reverted to the original owner just as did the land.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
29. And if a man sell a dwelling-house. He here distinguishes houses from lands, providing that the power of redemption should not extend beyond a year; and also, that the purchase should hold good even in the jubilee. A second distinction, however, is also added between different kinds of houses, viz., that houses in towns might be altogether alienated, whilst the condition of those in the country should be the same as that of the lands themselves, as being annexed so as to form part of them. As regarded houses fix towns, because they were sometimes burdensome to their owners, it was an advantage that they might pass into the hands of the rich who were competent to bear the expenses of building. Besides, a house does not supply daily food like a field, and it is more tolerable to be without a house than a field, in which you may work, and from the cultivation of which you may support yourself and family. But it was necessary to except houses in the country, because they were appendages to the land; for what use would there be in harvesting the fruits, if you had no place to store them in? Nay, what would it profit to possess a farm which you could not cultivate? for how could oxen plough without any stalls in its vicinity? Since, then, lands without farm-buildings or cottages are almost useless, and they cannot be conveniently separated, justly did God appoint that, in the year of Jubilee, every rural possession should revert to its former owner.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(29) A dwelling house in a walled city.It is, however, quite different in the case of houses in walled cities. These are not the creation of God (see Lev. 25:23), allotted by His command to the different tribes of Israel; they are the work of man, who build them up and raze them to the ground at their own will, and according to their fancy. Hence the law of jubile does not apply to these temporary human buildings. Though an Israelite could sell his house without being driven by stress of circumstances to do it, still, as he may feel attached to his home, the Divine law affords him some protection for a limited period, during which he or his family may redeem the building. During the second Temple a dwelling house in a walled city was defined to be a house standing within an area of land which was first walled round for the purpose of building upon it human habitations, and in which the houses were afterwards erected. But if the houses were built first, and the city wall afterwards, they do not come within the law here laid down.
Within a full year may he redeem it.If within a year of the sale he wishes to redeem, the Law gives him the power, or in case he dies empowers his son, to repurchase the property at the same price which he received for it. Besides limiting the period to a year, the Law does not prescribe that the next of kin is to redeem, nor give him the power to do it. During the second Temple it was also enacted that the vendor could not redeem it with borrowed money.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
THE REDEMPTION OF HOUSES, Lev 25:29-34.
29. A dwellinghouse in a walled city The redemption of this is limited to a year, after which it belongs to the purchaser forever, undisturbed by the jubilee. Such property used for mercantile purposes is of special value to the merchant who has built up a lucrative trade therein. Again, city property is liable to greater fluctuations in value in fifty years than country estates, and it is just that the present holder should have the benefit of the increased valuation. The fact that city property was permanently alienable would tend to keep the poor from flocking to the great cities, twice each century, to starve in poverty and to fester in vice. “This provision was made to encourage strangers and proselytes to come and settle among them. Though they could not purchase land in Canaan, yet they might purchase houses in walled cities, which would be most convenient for them who were supposed to live by trade.” Bush. It is the opinion of some that this law applied only to such cities as were walled in the days of Joshua, and conquered by him. This would exclude Jerusalem.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Dwelling Houses In Walled Cities Are Exempt From Yubile ( Lev 25:29-31 ).
Lev 25:29
“And if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; for a full year shall he have the right of redemption.”
But if a man sold a house in a walled city the situation was different. He was given one year in which to redeem it. This was because this was a property built or bought by choice in a city which was for defensive purposes. It was not connected with his inheritance given to him by Yahweh.
Yahweh did not see walled cities as necessary in His inheritance. When the ideal time came Israel would be known as ‘a land of unwalled villages’ and would be secure from even the most devastating of enemies (Eze 38:11) because they would be trusting in Yahweh. And houses in unwalled towns would probably have land connected with them.
We must not compare this situation with our own property ideas. The walled cities were mainly formed so that people could build their houses there where they could enter to be ‘safe’ from marauders. House and inherited land were totally separate. Apart from the largest cities most ‘cities’ were in fact not planned, but ‘grew up’, with houses huddled together at random, with a narrow ‘street’ round the inside of the wall (a wall on which houses had also been built) and an open space by the gate of the city. Once all spaces were filled no more building could take place, but one house could be built on to another and those already there could be sold on, subject to any regulations. They were clearly not seen as part of God’s overall long term plan.
Lev 25:30
“And if it is not redeemed within the space of a completed year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him who bought it, throughout his generations: it shall not go out in the yubile.”
If the house sold through necessity in the city was not redeemed within a full year (presumably twelve moon periods, unless ‘completed year’ was intended to mean 365 days, a concept probably known at that time) then it belonged to the purchaser in perpetuity.
Lev 25:31
“But the houses of the villages which have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country. They may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the yubile.”
But houses in unwalled towns were seen as part of the agricultural and pasture land around the towns and could be redeemed along with the land, and returned to the original owner in the year of Yubile.
When Jesus taught us to pray He included the thought that we could ask for basic provision, our daily bread. Then the concentration turned on to spiritual need. The fact that houses in walled cities were not included in Yubile demonstrated the same principle. God provided for His people’s basic needs, not for their luxuries. That was up to them.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Lev 25:29-31. If a man sell a dwelling-house, &c. Great difference is here made between houses in walled cities, and in the country: the former, if sold, were either to be redeemed within the compass of a year, or else to return no more to the first owner, not even at the jubilee; whereas houses in the country, which had lands of inheritance annexed to them, or were themselves estates of inheritance from the first division of the country, were to be counted as the fields of the country, that is, they were to fall under the same law with the lands whereof they were an appendage, and so might be redeemed at any time. See Lev 25:10; Lev 25:23. Several reasons are assigned for this distinction between houses in cities and those in villages: the principal one seems to be, that families were not distinguished by houses in cities as they were by those in the country, which were annexed to their lands, and therefore to be considered as a part of the inheritance. Le Clerc adds, that the houses in the country were necessary for the convenience of cultivating the lands; whereas men bred to husbandry might dispense with the want of town-houses. Men in cities too, we may observe further, being usually in trade, and their livelihood often depending upon their situation, the law of redemption, if it had taken place in cities, might have subjected them to many difficulties and inconveniencies.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
within a whole year = within days, “days” being put by Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), for a whole year of days. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
A very proper difference is here made between houses in a city and houses in the country. The former might be redeemed any time in the course of a year; but after that time could not be redeemed, or go out with the Jubilee: the latter might be redeemed at any time; and if not redeemed must go out with the jubilee. The reason in both cases is sufficiently evident; the house in the city might be built merely for the purposes of trade or traffic – the house in the country was builded on, or attached to, the inheritance which God had divided to the respective families. It was therefore necessary that the same law should apply to the house as to the inheritance; which necessity did not exist with regard to the house in the city. And, as the house in the city might be purchased for the purpose of trade, it would be very inconvenient for the purchaser, when his business was established, to be obliged to remove.
Reciprocal: Gen 24:55 – a few days Lev 27:14 – sanctify
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Lev 25:29-31. A dwelling-house in a walled city Here the law makes a great difference between houses in walled cities and houses in the country. The former, if sold, were either to be redeemed within a year, or else not at all, but were to be the property of the purchaser for ever; whereas, houses in the villages which had no walls round them were to be counted as the fields of the country That is, they were to fall under the same law with the lands to which they were an appendage, and for the management of which they were necessary: they might be redeemed at any time. The following seem to be the chief reasons of this distinction: 1st, There was no danger of confusion in tribes or families by the final alienation of houses in cities, as tribes and families were not distinguished by them as they were by those in the country that were annexed to their lands, and therefore to be considered as a part of their inheritance. 2d, The seller had a greater property in houses than in lands, as being commonly built at the owners cost, and therefore a fuller power is granted him to dispose of them. 3d, God would hereby encourage persons to buy and possess houses in cities, as the frequency and populousness of them was a great strength, honour, and advantage to the whole land.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
THE JUBILEE AND DWELLING HOUSES
Lev 25:29-34
“And if a man sell a dwelling house in a wailed city, then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold; for a full year shall he have the right of redemption. And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations: it shall not go out in the jubilee. But the houses of the villages which have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country: they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the jubilee. Nevertheless the cities of the Levites the houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time. And if one of the Levites redeem [not], then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the jubilee: for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel. But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession.”
In Lev 25:29-34 is considered the application of the jubilee ordinance to the sale of dwelling houses: first (Lev 25:29-31), to such sale in case of the people generally; secondly (Lev 25:32-34), to sales of houses by the Levites. Under the former head we have first the law as regards sales of dwelling houses in “walled cities”; to which it is ordered that the law of reversion in the jubilee shall not apply, and for which the right of redemption was only to hold valid for one year. The obvious reason for exempting houses in cities from the law of reversion is that the law has to do only with land such as may be used in a pastoral or agricultural way for mans support. And this explains why, on the other hand, it is next ordered (Lev 25:31) that in the case of houses in unwalled villages the law of redemption and reversion in the jubilee shall apply as well as to the land. For the inhabitants of the villages were the herdsmen and cultivators of the soil; and the house was regarded rightly as a necessary attachment to the land, without which its use would not be possible. But inasmuch as God had assigned no landholding to the Levites in the original distribution of the land, -and apart from their houses they had no possession (Lev 25:33), -in order to secure them in the privilege of a permanent holding, such as others enjoyed in their lands, it was ordered that in their case their houses, as being their only possession in real estate, should be treated as were the landholdings of members of the other tribes.
The relation, of the jubilee law to personal rights in the land having been thus determined and expounded, in the next place (Lev 25:35-55) is considered the application of the law to slavery. Quite naturally, this section begins (Lev 25:35-37) with a general injunction to assist and deal mercifully with any brother who has become poor. “If thy brother be waxen poor, and his hand fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a sojourner shall he live with thee. Take thou no usury of him or increase; but fear thy God: that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor give him thy victuals for increase.”
The evident object of this law is to prevent, as far as possible, that extreme of poverty which might compel a man to sell himself in order to live. Debt is a burden in any case, to a poor man especially; but debt is the heavier burden when to the original debt is added the constant payment of interest. Hence, not merely “usury” in the modern sense of excessive interest, but it is forbidden to claim or take any interest whatever from any Hebrew debtor. On the same principle, it is forbidden to take increase for food which may be lent to a poor brother; as when one lets a man have twenty bushels of wheat on condition that in due time he shall return for it twenty-two. This command is enforced (Lev 25:38) by reminding them from whom they have received what they have, and on what easy terms, as a gift; from their covenant God, who is Himself their security that by so doing they shall not lose: “I am the Lord your God, which brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” They need not therefore have recourse to the exaction of interest and increase from their peer brethren in order to make a living, but are to be merciful, even as Jehovah their God is merciful.