Q&A: The Logic Behind Prime, Average, and Inferior Land
The Logic Behind Prime, Average, and Inferior Land
Question
What is the logic behind the laws of collecting from prime land / average land / inferior land? After all, in any case the collection will be for the same value.
Why does a person care whether he collects from prime land or from inferior land of the same value? (And if people really do prefer prime land, then by definition it is not the same value as inferior land.)
Answer
Apparently people do in fact prefer to receive prime land. You are right that economically this ought to be reflected in the price. But perhaps the value is determined according to the average person in the market, while a specific individual may have a preference that is not reflected in the price.
Discussion on Answer
You mean marketability, not rentability. But marketability too is reflected in price. If it is traded worldwide, it is presumably worth less or will be bought for more.
The Rabbi wrote, “But perhaps the value is determined according to the average person in the market, while a specific individual may have a preference that is not reflected in the price,” but according to that, prime, average, and inferior land would be a subjective matter.
Not necessarily. There are people who would prefer that land, and therefore it is prime land. The fact that this is not reflected in its value is because on average there are indeed quite a few who do not prefer it.
Obviously people would prefer prime land. Even if the total value is identical, the quality itself (from which the value per unit area is derived) also matters. A reasonable person who is owed 10 million dollars would prefer to receive it in a not-very-large parcel of land in Tel Aviv that he could sell to one buyer, rather than in dunams of agricultural land, for which he would have to find several buyers and spend a long time dealing with them before the sale.
It is roughly like receiving a debt in ten-agorot coins instead of by bank transfer.
Hi,
From what I know, the difference between the lands is reflected in how marketable they are. Meaning—the prime land is much more marketable, and therefore it is “worth it” even though it has the same price as the others.
For example, what would you prefer?
A security worth 100 that can be traded only in Israel, or one traded worldwide at the same price?
Similarly, inferior land may be land that is worth the same as prime land, but its market is much more limited.