Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Leviticus 25:33
And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in [the year of] jubilee: for the houses of the cities of the Levites [are] their possession among the children of Israel.
33. if one of the Levites redeem ] The Heb. presents great difficulty as it stands. If we take the rendering in the text, it is unsuitable, because in the case there supposed, viz. that one Levite redeems the house of another, obviously the statement that the house shall ‘go out’ (i.e. return to its original owner) in the Jubile adds nothing to the law as to Levites, set forth in Lev 25:32. But if we take R.V. mg. (so LXX.), if a man redeem from the Levites, this purchase on the part of a non-Levite had no connexion with the Jubile law, as not being the purchasing back of a possession on the part of one of the family of the original owner. It seems best therefore to suppose that the ‘not’ which the Vulg. supplies (see R.V. mg.) has dropped out of the original text. The sense will then be, If one of the Levites does not redeem, then the house which he has sold will at any rate return into his possession at the Jubile.
and the city of his possession ] The expression is a somewhat awkward one. The intention seems to be to provide that this rule shall operate only as regards houses within the cities set apart for the Levites (Num 35:2; Jos 21:2-40), and not elsewhere.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Or thus, But he that shall redeem it shall be or must be of the Levites, i.e. no person of another tribe, though by marriage near akin to the selling Levite, shall redeem it, but Levites only, and any of them shall have the same power to redeem it, which in other tribes only the nearest kindred have; and, in case none of them redeem it, yet the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, i.e. his share or interest in the city of his possession, shall go out and return to the Levites without any redemption.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And if a man purchase of the Levites,…. An house or city, as Jarchi, and which the following clause confirms, that is, if a common Israelite made such a purchase, then it was redeemable, but if a Levite purchased of a Levite, then, as the same writer observes, it was absolutely irredeemable:
then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in [the year of] jubilee; to the original owner of it, as fields and houses in villages sold by the Israelites
for the houses of the cities of the Levites [are] their possession among the children of Israel; and their only possession, and therefore if those, when sold, were irredeemable, they would entirely be without any; and hence care is taken they should not; so Jarchi observes, that the Levites had no possession of fields and vineyards, only cities to dwell in, and their suburbs; wherefore cities were to them instead of fields, and their redemption was as that of fields, that so their inheritance might not be broken off from them.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(33) And if a man purchase of the Levites.Better, And if one of the Levites redeem it, that is, even if a Levite redeemed the house which his brother Levite was obliged to sell through poverty, the general law of house property is not to obtain even among the Levites themselves. They are to treat each other according to the law of landed property.
Then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out.Better, then the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall go out, that is, in the year of jubile the house is to revert to the vendor just as if it were landed property. Thus, for instance, the house of the Levite A, which he, out of poverty, was obliged to sell to the non-Levite B, and which was redeemed from him by a Levite C, reverts in the jubile year from the Levite C to the original Levitical proprietor A. It is, however, more than probable that the negative particle has dropped out of the text, and that the passage as it originally stood was, And if one of the Levites doth not redeem it. That is, if he does not act the part of the nearest of kin, then the house reverts in the year of jubile to the original Levitical owner, just as landed property. The Vulg. has still the negative particle.
For the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession.As these houses were all which the Levites possessed, they were as important to them as the land was to the other tribes, hence they were to be treated legally in the same way as the soil.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
33. And if a man purchase of the Levites The Hebrew is “redeem” instead of “purchase.” Ewald, with others, inserts a negative from the Vulgate, which makes better sense “si redemptae non fuerint, in jubilaeo revertentur ad dominos.” If the houses shall not have been redeemed, they shall revert to their owners in the jubilee.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Lev 25:33 And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in [the year of] jubile: for the houses of the cities of the Levites [are] their possession among the children of Israel.
Ver. 33. See previous verse.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
if a man purchase of the Levites. Should be “if one of the Levites should not redeem”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
a man purchase of the Levites: or, one of the Levites redeem them
shall go: Lev 25:28
for the houses: Num 18:20-24, Deu 18:1, Deu 18:2
Reciprocal: Lev 25:10 – every man Num 35:2 – General