Q&A: Slaves and Land
Slaves and Land
Question
It is explained in the Talmud that from the hermeneutic rule of generalization, specification, and generalization, we learn to exclude slaves, which are compared to land, and land is excluded from overcharging, oaths, theft, abandonment of ownership, and even acquisition, according to Tosafot on Bava Kamma 96b.
I can’t manage to come up with any logic (an acceptable one, of course…) for excluding land and slaves from the above. (Other than Rashbam on overcharging in land sales, Bava Batra 61b in Tosafot, but their question is compelling, and it seems there is some general characteristic of these kinds of property.)
Answer
It may be that slaves and land are special kinds of property, since they are not standardized. That is usually how people explain why there is no overcharging with land, because there is no fixed price for a specific plot of land. When you buy a book or some utensil, there are many like it, and it makes no practical difference whether you bought this one or that one. They are all the same. With slaves and land, each one has a different quality, and the purchase is one of a kind.
By the way, documents are also part of the picture, and that seems the most problematic to me.
Discussion on Answer
Maybe. I hadn’t thought about it that way. Nice.
Tosafot on Bava Batra 61b bring Rashbam’s explanation that there is no overcharging for land because its price is unique,
but they reject his explanation with the difficulty that slaves too!!!!!!! also have no law of overcharging,
and therefore it must be a scriptural decree, in their wording. (I’m familiar with your articles on the subject.)
What is the explanation of their view?
Besides, what is the explanation regarding oaths and theft? Those don’t seem connected to overcharging.
I don’t know.
You could also distinguish things this way regarding oaths and theft. One does not take an oath over something that is unique. Maybe because with something unique there is a stronger temptation to steal, and imposing an oath would lead to a false oath.
Why are documents problematic? They too are one of a kind, in the sense that each person signed on a document has a different credit risk. Reuven’s bond is not like Shimon’s bond or Levi’s.