• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
תתמצל רכמת אל ץראהוץראה יל יכ
 And the land shall not be sold for permanance; for the land is to Me
. (VaYikra25:23) With these words, the Torah introduces to us a concept that has been part of civil law in many cultures throughout the world for generations: the law of 
eminent domain
. Eminent domain is the right of a sovereign government toappropriate privately held land for the public good. It basically says that thegovernment is the ultimate owner of the land.G-d's eminent domain is of significance. And a sovereign state's eminentdomain is likewise of significance. How so?In a 
recent post
, I disputed the claim of a rival blogger that the chareidi world is living in a world of chumros. My contention is that the non-chareidi world is living in a world of kulos. Let us review part of what I wrote:Thus, I am not worthy to judge the Jews who in 1910 and 1917 had toimplement a Hetter Mechira on Shmitta. Yet, as the name indicates, it is akula - a hetter for what should, in normal circumstances, truly be assur. Weknow that it is not necessary today. But when somebody who wants to keepHilchos Shmitta k'dikduko and does not want to rely on this controversialHetter is called "a machmir" we have truly lost our Halachic compass.I want to elaborate a bit on the issue of 
 Hetter Mechira
to explain why I(and the birds of my feather) think this way. There are 2 stipulations for a
 Hetter Mechira
to be valid:(A) It has to be a
Hetter
 (B) It has to be a
Mechira
Stipulation A means that even if the "sale" is 100% Halachically valid andthere is no question that "Halachic" ownership has been transferred to a non-Jew, we must establish that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the landexempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta. In other words, the Mechira may begood, but does that make a Hetter?Stipulation B means that even if there is no question that the fact that a non-Jew now "owns" the land exempts it from all of the laws of Shmitta, we mustestablish that the "sale" is valid and that the land is, in fact, Halachically owned by a non-Jew. In other words, the Hetter may be good, but do we havea Mechira?Unfortunately, both must be in effect. One without the other by definitioninvalidates the mechanism. So let's examine both stipulations and see if any of them are 100% valid or even close.
Stipulation A - The Hetter
 
 
This is relatively simple to deal with. We examine the simple case: If a non-Jew 
already
owns land in E"Y with no mechiras necessary. Say his family [claims to have] owned the land for generations and all legal deeds and titlesare in his name - does this suspend the laws of Shmitta? As you would expect, this is a major machlokes in the opinions of therishonim. There are numerous players, but 3 heavyweights stand out:To the extreme right is the
 Mabit 
. He maintains that even if a non-Jew legally owns land, all the Halachos of shmitta remain in effect. This means that boththe soil remains kadosh and the produce remains kadosh. As per the soil, thismeans that a Jew cannot work the land not as an employee, leasor, orsharecropper. Any produce that grows under these circumstances are fully prohibited. In terms of produce that grew from non-Jewish labor, it retains allHalachos of Kedushat Shviis. It may be consumed but... it cannot be sold forprofit, cannot be exported, cannot be used for irregular consumption, issubject for biur, etc. According to the Mabit, selling the land accomplishesnothing since the Halachos don't change.To the center is the Bais Yosef. He maintains that the land remains Kadosh but the produce grown through the labor of the non-Jew (or by themselves)does not. This is called Yevul Nochri. As such, a Jew may not lease and work the land and doing so makes the resulting produce forbidden. Thus, selling theland and "leasing" it back still accomplishes nothing with the minor exceptionof fruit trees and vines that produce by themselves. If the vines are tended by Jews, we are back to square one.Most other poskim (I do not have names) support either the positon of theMabit or the Bais Yosef.The third and most lenient opinion is the Sefer HaTrumos and this is thefoundation for the Hetter Mechira. The Sefer HaTrumos wants to say that, because we are in golus, all of Eretz Yisroel today has the status that theannexed land of Suria had in the times of the Bais HaMikdash. There, theHalcha was that only land that is owned by a Jew is subject to the Halachos of Shmitta. Land in Suria that is still owned by a non-Jew has no Kedusha of Shviis whatsoever and even a Jew may be employed to work on that land, or tolease with no restrictions.The Sefer HaTrumos is certainly a "bar-samcha" yet this ruling came undermuch attack from his colleagues particularly because there is a Mishna inChalla that seems to negate this perspective. Regardless, the opinion of theSefer HaTrumos is recognized as a "daas yachid l'hakel" and the general ruleconcerning a "daas yachid l'hakel" is that it can only be relied on in times of great necessity - "B'shaas ha'dchak".Thus we see that even if the land is unequivocally under the ownership of anon-Jew, "rov deos" (most opinions) hold that it
does not 
constitute aHetter. The opinion that it is a Hetter (Sefer HaTrumos) is a
daas yachid l'hakel 
. This is very far from being 100% valid.
 
Stipulation B - The Mechira
 The Hetter is not enough. Even if there were no opposition to the opinion of the Sefer HaTrumos, we must verify the second stipulation, that the land becomes the rightful property of the non-Jew. Or, in other words, that it becomes "non-Jewish" land. There are numerous issues that play a role, many of them are technical issues were applicable in 1910 as much as today. But Ionly want to discuss one issue that not many people are aware of:
 Ki Li  Haaretz 
-
eminent domain
. As we wrote
,
 
eminent domain
is the right of a sovereign government toappropriate privately held land for the public good. The implication is that aprivate owner is merely a junior partner in the land with a non-controlling(49%) share. Another perspective is that the state is the ultimate owner of theland under all circumstances and the legal "occupant" is merely leasing theland from the state on a long-term basis for a nominal fee. This implies thatnobody who sells land from one person to the other is really 
selling
it becausethe land does not actually belong to either of them. The seller is merely transferring to the buyer the rights to exclusive occupancy that he hadprocured from the state until now. Thus, no matter how thorough and "legal"a "Mechira" one does, the land belonged to the state beforehand and it still belongs to the state afterward.
 What it Means
  With this knowledge in hand, we note that there have been some very significant changes in circumstances from the time HaRav Kook, ZT"L,advocated the Hetter Mechira in 1910 to the present. The main change took place on 5 Iyar 5708 (May 14, 1948), 13 years after the death of Harav Kook,ZT"L. Both stipulations are affected.
Stipulation A 
- The main problem does not focus on 1948 but on morerecent times (let us say from 1967 and beyond). In 1910 and 1917 (WW I), thedrastic situation of a miniscule food supply was a clear matter of pikuachnefesh. No question about it. Thus, despite all the deficiencies in the HetterMechira, there was a clear
 Shaas hadchak
which certainly justified relying ona "daas yachid". The direness of the situation was not merely related to thesevere food shortage but to another aspect. I was told (I did not read thisanywhere) that the Turkish authorities would not allow a farmer to leavefarmland unworked. If one would neglect to work the land, the Turks wouldconfiscate it. Thus, through the shmitta year of 1917, there was a doublepikuach nefesh.1917 relieved the second aspect of the dchak when the British overran theTurks and took over the country. They did not sustain this cruel policy (they implemented enough of their own), but, of course, we still needed to grow food for subsistance. Even this was not to the same degree, as the Britishopened up commerce to the West. Over the ensuing 80 years, our agriculturalprowess (hydroponics and such)and commercial ties with the outside havesteadily grown and, together with financial assistance from the diaspora(Keren Shviis, etc.), we see that even though shmittas may still be difficult - as
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...