Leviticus 25:33

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Owners. The Levites had no other possessions, but these cities and 2000 cubits of land around them. The priests might buy of one another, Jeremias xxxi. 7.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

the house that was sold in the city where it is located must be returned

This can be stated in active form. AT: "the one who bought the house in the city where it is located must return it" (See: Active or Passive)

the year of Jubilee

"the year of restoration" or "the year to return land and free slaves"

their property among the people of Israel

The land of Canaan was divided up among the people of Israel, but of that land, the Levites were only given 48 cities with the fields around them. AT: "their part of the land that the Israelites possessed" or "their property in the land of Israel"

But the fields around their cities may not be sold

This can be stated in active form. AT: "But the Levites must not sell the fields around their cities" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

people group

Israel

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

‎הלוים‎ מן‎ואשר יגאל ‏ ‎‎‎ ‎— This means, and if any one buys a house or a city from them, then that house that has been sold or the city that was sold shall go out in the Jubilee and shall return unto the Levite who has sold it, and not be irredeemable as are other houses in “cities that have a wall” viz., those of Israelites. According to this explanation, יגאל has here the meaning of a “sale”. Another explanation is (taking יגאל here in its usual meaning of “redeeming”): Because it is stated in the previous verse: “the Levites shall have the right of redemption at any time”, I might think that Scripture is speaking only of an ordinary Israelite purchaser who bought a house in a city of the Levites, but when a Levite bought a house from another Levite it shall be irredeemable! Scripture therefore states “[the Levites shall have the right redemption at any time]”, ואשר יגאל מן הלוים, “also if one who redeems does so from the Levites — i. e. that also one (a Levite) who redeems a house from the possession of another Levite shall have the right to do so at any time (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 6 6).

ויצא ממכר בית THEN THE HOUSE THAT WAS SOLD… SHALL GO OUT [IN THE JUBILEE] — According to the second explanation of ‎'ואשר יגאל וכו‎‎ given above, this contains another command and is not a continuation of the words that precede. They mean: “but if he (the vendor) did not redeem it” then it shall go out in the Jubilee and shall not become irredeemable at the end of the first year as is the case with the house of an Israelite.

כי בתי ערי הלוים הוא אחזתם FOR THE HOUSES OF THE CITIES OF THE LEVITES ARE THEIR POSSESSION —They had no separate property of fields and vineyards, only cities to dwell therein together with the open land surrounding them; these, therefore, in their case took the place of the fields possessed by the Israelites and should thus be redeemable just like fields, in order that their inheritance should not be alienated from them.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND IF ONE OF THE LEVITES REDEEM. The plain meaning of this verse appears to be as follows: He had stated [in the previous verse], the Levites have a perpetual right of redemption, to redeem immediately [even before the period of two years after the sale of the fields, which an Israelite must wait before he is allowed to redeem], and to redeem at any time [a house in a walled city, even after the expiration of a year since the sale, after which time an Israelite cannot redeem]. But He did not explain with reference to them [the Levites] whether their relatives [also] have the right of redemption, nor whether the Jubilee applies to them. Therefore He stated again, And if one of the Levites redeem, be the redeemer the seller himself or his relative a Levite, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the Jubilee from the hand of the purchaser. He should redeem it on this understanding, that he shall reckon the years of the sale thereof and restore the overplus, meaning to say that the Jubilee does apply to them [the Levites], and the manner of their redemption shall be as He said of the Israelites, and he shall reckon the years of the sale thereof etc. And our Rabbis have said that the verse speaks of a Levite who buys from a Levite. According to their word, the interpretation of the verse appears to me to be as follows: It was the custom in former times in Israel that when a man had to sell his field, the person who had precedence in his inheritance [i.e., who was the nearest relative who could inherit] would come and buy it, and it was this that was called “redemption,” as it is said, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption is thine to buy it, and so also is it explained there in the matter of Boaz. And it appears to me that they administered a law of precedence for him, just as our Rabbis enacted for us the law of [the prerogative of] the neighbor, and [if other people wanted to buy it], they would acquire [the right of possession] from the “first redeemer” by the [symbolic act of] acquisition of a scarf, as did Boaz.. See Ramban on Exodus 28:41. Thus Scripture is stating here that when a Levite redeems the inheritance of a Levite, that is to say, when he buys it from him as is the law of redemption, then that [land] acquired shall go out in the Jubilee. It thus teaches that the Jubilee applies to them [the Levites] in the case of “redemption” just as in the case of any other sale [among Israelites]. Scripture did not have to mention this law in the case of a plain sale [i.e., to say that if a Levite sold his field to a non-Levite, who is not his near relative, that it goes back to its original owner, the Levite, in the Jubilee], for they [Levites] are part of all Israel [and it is self-understood that the same laws apply to them]; except that He strengthened their legal right [by giving them, as explained above], a perpetual [privilege of] redemption. This law of “redemption” applies also to Israelites [i.e., that if they bought from Levites, the Levites have an unrestricted right of redemption forever]. Scripture, however, mentioned it with reference to the Levites, in order that one should not say that the [forty-eight] cities were only given to the whole tribe of Levi [and not to any particular person], and that therefore [fields which a Levite had sold] go back from an Israelite [in the Jubilee, i.e., if the purchaser was an Israelite he must give them back], but they do not go back from a Levite [i.e., if the purchaser was a Levite he does not have to give them back, since they remain anyway in the hands of the Levitical tribe], and certainly [we might think that] from a near kinsman [i.e., a Levite] whom we have made liable to buy [the field of his poor brother-Levite, those fields surely do not go back in the Jubilee]; therefore He said that this redemption too goes back in the Jubilee, and from the [law stated in connection with the] Levite we deduce [that the same law applies] to the Israelites. It is possible also that the Levites are not permitted to sell of their cities in any transaction [i.e., whether a field or house] to an Israelite, and therefore all their purchases are termed redemption [because only other Levites, who are their kinsmen, can buy from them].

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.