76 HEBREW LIFE AND CUSTOM
however, scarcely survive indefinitely. Accordingly, when
we find metaphors derived from the allotment of land used
at a very late period, we may fairly conclude that at such a
period the usage on which the metaphor was founded had
not very long passed away. Thus the poet of Ps. xvi,
whose language, by the way, shows Aramaic influence,
says (ver. 5), ‘Thou boldest my lot ’—that is, Thou insurest
that the lot which represents my claim comes out of the
garment into which the various lots are cast, in such order
that I get a good share of ground ɪ—and he goes on to
say i The cords ’ (viz. those used in measuring, cf. Mic.
ii. 5) ‘ have fallen for me in pleasant places ; yea, I am
pleased with my nahala The frequent references to the
apportionment of land by lot in a document as late as the
Priestly code certainly makes it probable that such
allotment was the regular usage, at least as late as the end
of the Jewish monarchy. In this connexion the law against
removing a neighbour’s landmark 2 is most significant.
The facts mentioned above make it extremely probable
that there once existed in ancient Palestine a system of
land-tenure similar to that which once prevailed in regions
as widely separated as India and Britain.3
It is true that the evidence for this is inferential rather
than direct, and I am informed by my friend Mr. H. M. J.
Loewe, ReaderinRabbinic in the Universityof Cambridge,
that there is no trace of this system in the Talmud. This,
however, is no proof that it had not existed at an earlier
period. Nor is it any argument against the existence of
such a system that it is uneconomic. Primitive man’s
customs are not dictated by economic considerations, and in
ages when all custom was closely connected with religious
tradition it would be long before utilitarian considerations
could sweep away age-old customs. It may be well to
, Cf. Prov. xvi. 33, also Isa. xxxiv. 17.
» Deut. xxvii. 17. In Prov. xxii. 28, xxiii. ɪo, the land has perhaps
become freehold.
з See G. L. Gomme, The Village Community, passim.
COMMON LAND 77
remember that even within sight of Cambridge the incon-
venient system of open fields continued till swept away by
the Enclosure Acts of the beginning of the nineteenth
century, and these Acts were not passed without a con-
siderable amount of opposition. It is easy to understand
why an uneconomic system should ultimately be given
up, but we must not expect to find that ancient customs,
whether at home or in Palestine, will conform to the ideas
of the modem economist.
If, then, we may assume that the village Commimities of
ancient Palestine formerly held land in common like the
former village communities of Western Europe, we may
be pretty sure that such land (nahala) was periodically ɪ
divided into set portions and allotted to those freemen of
the village who possessed the right to cultivate it and
enjoy its fruits ; and the guess may be hazarded that the
re-allotment took effect after the septennial year of fallow.
It is remarkable that after the Chaldeans had raised the
siege of Jerusalem 2 Jeremiah was leaving the city in order
to receive his portion3 (sc. in the allotment of the land in
the township of Anathoth), when he was arrested on the
charge of deserting to the Chaldeans. That this was the
septennial year of fallow appears certain from another
statement. It was an ancient custom that Hebrew slaves
should be released in the seventh year,4 and we may take
it as practically certain that the septennial year of fallow
normally coincided with the year of liberty or release;
inasmuch as in a year when no ploughing or sowing
could be done the release of slaves would cause the least
j See in particular Gomme, The Village Community, pp. 144, 145.
’ Jer. xxxvii. 5, ɪ ɪ f. ; cf. Josephus, Ant. x. 7 (§ 3).
3 Jer. xxxvii. 12. It is noteworthy that the verb here used is the
same as that which is used in connexion with nahala in Prov. xvii. 2,
where it is said that a slave—who of course has no claim to a share in
the nahala—if he be prudent, will be ruler over a good-for-nothing son,
and will actually have a portion of nahala (sc. by earning his freedom)
among the kinsmen who have this right by birth,
4 Exod. xxi. 2 ; Deut. xv. 12.