Yovel: Ancestral Land and Practical Return
Yovel is of course not a precise paradigm for what practical return looks like; nonetheless, the logistical questions it engenders and addresses, the simultaneous emphases on the value of ancestral land and an ultimate ownerlessness and mixing, the differences drawn between land and structures, the notion of return being tied to a broader vision of freedom and dignity, all feel like deeply relevant questions when thinking about a tachlis, liberated future in this land.

מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לִסְפֹּר שֶׁבַע שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וּלְקַדֵּשׁ שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה ח) "וְסָפַרְתָּ לְךָ שֶׁבַע שַׁבְּתֹת שָׁנִים" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא כה י) "וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם אֵת שְׁנַת הַחֲמִשִּׁים". וּשְׁתֵּי מִצְוֹת אֵלּוּ מְסוּרִין לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל בִּלְבַד:

It is a positive commandment to count sets of seven years and to sanctify the fiftieth year, as [Leviticus 25:8-10] states: "And you shall count seven years for yourselves... and you shall sanctify the fiftieth year." These two mitzvot are entrusted to the High Court alone.

וְסָפַרְתָּ֣ לְךָ֗ שֶׁ֚בַע שַׁבְּתֹ֣ת שָׁנִ֔ים שֶׁ֥בַע שָׁנִ֖ים שֶׁ֣בַע פְּעָמִ֑ים וְהָי֣וּ לְךָ֗ יְמֵי֙ שֶׁ֚בַע שַׁבְּתֹ֣ת הַשָּׁנִ֔ים תֵּ֥שַׁע וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה׃ וְהַֽעֲבַרְתָּ֞ שׁוֹפַ֤ר תְּרוּעָה֙ בַּחֹ֣דֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִעִ֔י בֶּעָשׂ֖וֹר לַחֹ֑דֶשׁ בְּיוֹם֙ הַכִּפֻּרִ֔ים תַּעֲבִ֥ירוּ שׁוֹפָ֖ר בְּכׇל־אַרְצְכֶֽם׃ וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּ֗ם אֵ֣ת שְׁנַ֤ת הַחֲמִשִּׁים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּקְרָאתֶ֥ם דְּר֛וֹר בָּאָ֖רֶץ לְכׇל־יֹשְׁבֶ֑יהָ יוֹבֵ֥ל הִוא֙ תִּהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֔ם וְשַׁבְתֶּ֗ם אִ֚ישׁ אֶל־אֲחֻזָּת֔וֹ וְאִ֥ישׁ אֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתּ֖וֹ תָּשֻֽׁבוּ׃ יוֹבֵ֣ל הִ֗וא שְׁנַ֛ת הַחֲמִשִּׁ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה תִּהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔עוּ וְלֹ֤א תִקְצְרוּ֙ אֶת־סְפִיחֶ֔יהָ וְלֹ֥א תִבְצְר֖וּ אֶת־נְזִרֶֽיהָ׃ כִּ֚י יוֹבֵ֣ל הִ֔וא קֹ֖דֶשׁ תִּהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם מִ֨ן־הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה תֹּאכְל֖וּ אֶת־תְּבוּאָתָֽהּ׃ בִּשְׁנַ֥ת הַיּוֹבֵ֖ל הַזֹּ֑את תָּשֻׁ֕בוּ אִ֖ישׁ אֶל־אֲחֻזָּתֽוֹ׃

You shall count off seven weeks of years—seven times seven years—so that the period of seven weeks of years gives you a total of forty-nine years. Then you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month—the Day of Atonement—you shall have the horn sounded throughout your land and you shall hallow the fiftieth year. You shall proclaim release throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to your holding and each of you shall return to your family. That fiftieth year shall be a jubilee for you: you shall not sow, neither shall you reap the aftergrowth or harvest the untrimmed vines, for it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you: you may only eat the growth direct from the field. In this year of jubilee, each of you shall return to your holding.

(כג) וְהָאָ֗רֶץ לֹ֤א תִמָּכֵר֙ לִצְמִתֻ֔ת כִּי־לִ֖י הָאָ֑רֶץ כִּֽי־גֵרִ֧ים וְתוֹשָׁבִ֛ים אַתֶּ֖ם עִמָּדִֽי׃

(23) But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident with Me.

וְאִ֨ם לֹֽא־מָצְאָ֜ה יָד֗וֹ דֵּי֮ הָשִׁ֣יב לוֹ֒ וְהָיָ֣ה מִמְכָּר֗וֹ בְּיַד֙ הַקֹּנֶ֣ה אֹת֔וֹ עַ֖ד שְׁנַ֣ת הַיּוֹבֵ֑ל וְיָצָא֙ בַּיֹּבֵ֔ל וְשָׁ֖ב לַאֲחֻזָּתֽוֹ׃ {ס} וְאִ֗ישׁ כִּֽי־יִמְכֹּ֤ר בֵּית־מוֹשַׁב֙ עִ֣יר חוֹמָ֔ה וְהָיְתָה֙ גְּאֻלָּת֔וֹ עַד־תֹּ֖ם שְׁנַ֣ת מִמְכָּר֑וֹ יָמִ֖ים תִּהְיֶ֥ה גְאֻלָּתֽוֹ׃ וְאִ֣ם לֹֽא־יִגָּאֵ֗ל עַד־מְלֹ֣את לוֹ֮ שָׁנָ֣ה תְמִימָה֒ וְ֠קָ֠ם הַבַּ֨יִת אֲשֶׁר־בָּעִ֜יר אֲשֶׁר־[ל֣וֹ] (לא) חֹמָ֗ה לַצְּמִיתֻ֛ת לַקֹּנֶ֥ה אֹת֖וֹ לְדֹרֹתָ֑יו לֹ֥א יֵצֵ֖א בַּיֹּבֵֽל׃ וּבָתֵּ֣י הַחֲצֵרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֵין־לָהֶ֤ם חֹמָה֙ סָבִ֔יב עַל־שְׂדֵ֥ה הָאָ֖רֶץ יֵחָשֵׁ֑ב גְּאֻלָּה֙ תִּהְיֶה־לּ֔וֹ וּבַיֹּבֵ֖ל יֵצֵֽא׃ וְעָרֵי֙ הַלְוִיִּ֔ם בָּתֵּ֖י עָרֵ֣י אֲחֻזָּתָ֑ם גְּאֻלַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֖ם תִּהְיֶ֥ה לַלְוִיִּֽם׃ וַאֲשֶׁ֤ר יִגְאַל֙ מִן־הַלְוִיִּ֔ם וְיָצָ֧א מִמְכַּר־בַּ֛יִת וְעִ֥יר אֲחֻזָּת֖וֹ בַּיֹּבֵ֑ל כִּ֣י בָתֵּ֞י עָרֵ֣י הַלְוִיִּ֗ם הִ֚וא אֲחֻזָּתָ֔ם בְּת֖וֹךְ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ וּֽשְׂדֵ֛ה מִגְרַ֥שׁ עָרֵיהֶ֖ם לֹ֣א יִמָּכֵ֑ר כִּֽי־אֲחֻזַּ֥ת עוֹלָ֛ם ה֖וּא לָהֶֽם׃ {ס}

If that person lacks sufficient means to recover it, what was sold shall remain with the purchaser until the jubilee; in the jubilee year it shall be released, so that the person returns to that holding. If any party sells a dwelling house in a walled city, it may be redeemed until a year has elapsed since its sale; the redemption period shall be a year. If it is not redeemed before a full year has elapsed, the house in the walled city shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages; it shall not be released in the jubilee. But houses in villages that have no encircling walls shall be classed as open country: they may be redeemed, and they shall be released through the jubilee. As for the cities of Levi, the houses in the cities it holds: Levi shall forever have the right of redemption. Such property as may be redeemed from Levi—houses sold in a city it holds—shall be released through the jubilee; for the houses in the cities of Levi are its holding among the Israelites. But the unenclosed land about its cities cannot be sold, for that is its holding for all time.

מִשֶּׁגָּלָה שֵׁבֶט רְאוּבֵן וְשֵׁבֶט גָּד וַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה בָּטְלוּ הַיּוֹבְלוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה י) "וּקְרָאתֶם דְּרוֹר בָּאָרֶץ לְכָל ישְׁבֶיהָ" בִּזְמַן שֶׁכָּל יוֹשְׁבֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. וְהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ מְעֻרְבָּבִין שֵׁבֶט בְּשֵׁבֶט אֶלָּא כֻּלָּן יוֹשְׁבִין כְּתִקְנָן. בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל [נוֹהֵג בָּאָרֶץ] נוֹהֵג בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה י יב) "יוֹבֵל הִיא" בְּכָל מָקוֹם בֵּין בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת:

From the time the tribes of Reuven and Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh were exiled, [the observance] of the Jubilee year ceased, as [implied by Leviticus 25:10]: "You shall proclaim freedom throughout the land to all of its inhabitants." [One can infer that this commandment applies only] when all of its inhabitants are dwelling within it. [Moreover,] they may not be intermingled, one tribe with another, but rather each tribe is dwelling in its appropriate place.When the Jubilee is observed in Eretz [Yisrael], it should also be observed in the Diaspora, as [implied by the phrase used in the above verse:] "It is the Jubilee," [i.e.,] in every place. [This applies] whether the Temple is standing or whether the Temple is not standing.

There's something that feels a bit paradoxical about yovel, this grand vision of return and upheaval, only actually being in play when the entirety of the Jewish people is living in the land. What does it mean for this vision of precise return only to apply within particular borders? What would it mean for it to never be fully restored?

אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמִּתְחַלֶּקֶת לִשְׁבָטִים אֵינָהּ נמְכֶּרֶת לִצְמִיתוּת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה כג) "וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת". וְאִם מָכַר לִצְמִיתוּת שְׁנֵיהֶם עוֹבְרִין בְּלֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה. וְאֵין מַעֲשֵׂיהֶן מוֹעִילִין אֶלָּא תַּחֲזֹר הַשָּׂדֶה לִבְעָלֶיהָ בַּיּוֹבֵל:

[The portions of] Eretz Yisrael that were divided among the tribes can never be sold permanently, as [Leviticus 25:23] states: "The land will not be sold in perpetuity." If one sells the land in perpetuity, both [the buyer and the seller] violate a negative commandment. Their deeds are of no consequence, and the land reverts to its [original] owner in the Jubilee year.

לֹא יִמְכֹּר אָדָם בֵּיתוֹ אוֹ שְׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם חוֹזְרִין אַחַר זְמַן אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֶעֱנִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה כה) "וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ וּמָכַר מֵאֲחֻזָּתוֹ". אֲבָל לִמְכֹּר וּלְהַנִּיחַ הַדָּמִים בְּכִיסוֹ אוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת בָּהֶן סְחוֹרָה אוֹ לִקַּח בָּהֶן כֵּלִים אוֹ עֲבָדִים וּבְהֵמָה אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי אֶלָּא לִמְזוֹנוֹת בִּלְבַד. וְאִם עָבַר וּמָכַר מִכָּל מָקוֹם הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְכוּרִין:

A person should not sell his home or his ancestral field even though it returns to him eventually, unless he becomes impoverished, as [Leviticus 25:25] states: "If your brother becomes indigent and sells his ancestral heritage." One is not permitted to sell [such property] and hold the money in his pocket, engage in commerce with them, or purchase utensils, servants, or livestock. [He is only allowed to] sell to provide himself with sustenance. [Nevertheless,] if one transgressed and sold [such property], the sale is valid.

The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 "brought about the appropriation by the influential and rich families of Beirut, Damascus, and to a lesser extent Jerusalem and Jaffa and other sub-district capitals, of vast tracts of land in Syria and Palestine and their registration in the name of these families in the land registers". In 1858 the Ottoman Authority introduced the law of tabu to fix rights of ownership of the land. Land owners were instructed to have their property inscribed in the land register. The tabu was resisted by the fellahin. They saw a threat to their community in registering their land for two main reasons: 1) the cultivated fields were classified as ardh ameriyeh (the land of the Emarit) and were taxed. Owners of registered fertile land were forced to pay tax on it; 2) data from the land register were used by the Turkish Army for the purpose of the draft. Owners of registered lands were often drafted to fight with the Turkish Army in Russia.

-"Land Ownership in Palestine/Israel," Nasser Aburhafa

In the 1930s, most of the land was bought from landowners. Of the land that the Jews bought, 52.6% were bought from non-Palestinian landowners, 24.6% from Palestinian landowners, 13.4% from government, churches, and foreign companies, and only 9.4% from fellaheen (farmers).

- "The Alienation of a Homeland: How Palestine Became Israel," Stephen Halbrook

A land that is related to as one's own, not just an economic asset but a part of oneself and one's family, is something people only part from with immense reluctance and in the direst of circumstances. How does relationship to a broader land (like the entirety of Eretz Yisrael) differ from a particular, intimate relationship to a plot of land?

הַלּוֹקֵחַ שְׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּה וּנְטָעָהּ אִילָנוֹת וְהִשְׁבִּיחָה כְּשֶׁהִיא חוֹזֶרֶת בַּיּוֹבֵל שָׁמִין שֶׁבַח הָאִילָנוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹכָהּ. וְנוֹתֵן בַּעַל הַשָּׂדֶה דְּמֵי הַשֶּׁבַח לַלּוֹקֵחַ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה לג) "וְיָצָא מִמְכַּר בַּיִת" מִמְכָּר חוֹזֵר וְלֹא הַשֶּׁבַח:

If a person purchases a field that is an ancestral heritage and plants trees which increase the value [of the field], when it returns [to its original owner] in the Jubilee, we should evaluate the increase in value brought about by the trees in it and the owner of the field must pay this sum to the purchaser. [This is derived from ibid. 25:33]: "A home that was sold shall go out... [in the Jubilee]." [Implied is that the home] is returned, but not the increase in its value.

מָכַר שָׂדֵהוּ לְרִאשׁוֹן וְרִאשׁוֹן מָכַר לְשֵׁנִי וְשֵׁנִי לִשְׁלִישִׁי אֲפִלּוּ מֵאָה זֶה אַחַר זֶה בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל תַּחֲזֹר לָאָדוֹן הָרִאשׁוֹן. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כז כד) "בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל יָשׁוּב הַשָּׂדֶה לַאֲשֶׁר קָנָהוּ מֵאִתּוֹ לַאֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֲחֻזַּת הָאָרֶץ":

If a person sold his field to one person, that person sold it to a second, the second to a third - even if there were 100 consecutive sales - in the Jubilee, it returns to its original owner, as [implied by Leviticus 27:24]: "In the Jubilee year, the field will return to the one from whom he purchased it, whose ancestral heritage it was."

הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ כְּלָקוֹחוֹת הֵן וּמַחְזִירִין זֶה לָזֶה חֶלְקוֹ בַּיּוֹבֵל. לֹא תִּבָּטֵל חֲלוּקָתָן מִכְּמוֹת שֶׁהָיְתָה. וְכֵן הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמְיַבֵּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מַחֲזִיר בַּיּוֹבֵל חֵלֶק שֶׁנָּטַל וְנוֹטֵל הַחֵלֶק שֶׁכְּנֶגְדּוֹ:

Brothers who divide [an inheritance] are considered as purchasers and each one should return his portion to the other in the Jubilee, but their division is not nullified. Similarly, a firstborn and one who performs yibbum with his brother's wife, return the portion that they received in the Jubilee and take another portion instead of it.

Purely rights-based approaches that emphasize the restitution of properties and/or the responsibility of the state in acquiring the land from subsequent occupants in order to return them to their returnee owners are replete with problems.
These include:
a. Such approaches often reward perpetrators of Apartheid by allocating state funds to purchasing properties from them at market prices;
b. Issues of economic sustainability and development objectives are not built-in to restitution. As such, restituted farm-land may be turned into housing with negative effects both on the economic and environmental level);
c. Economic disparities among returnees, as well as between returnees and occupants can be further entrenched. For instance, those with access to resources are more likely to be able to submit well-argued claims because of access to information and lawyers; those who owned a great deal of property before displacement end up with much more than those who did not own property; etc.
d. The passage of time has meant that communities and claimants are exponentially larger in number and diversity than they were at the time of displacement (for example, a village that had one thousand inhabitants in 1948 is a place of origin to many more thousands of people today; a refugee couple from 1948 is likely to have a family numbering dozens of heirs today; a third- or fourth-generation Palestinian refugee is likely to have claim to several properties in several locations depending on what was owned by the refugee’s grandparents and greatgrandparents).
e. Even with a flexible mechanism that incorporates a broad range of acceptable evidence for deciding claims, not all refugees may be able to prove rightful ownership of properties.

-The Badil/Zochrot Capetown Document

To the greatest extent possible, all Palestinian claims are to be treated equally. The purpose of return and reparations is not to return the descendants of landlords and peasants to the socioeconomic positions of wealth or poverty that they were in before the Nakba. 8) The title of absentee landlords who did not live in Palestine pre-1948 is not to be recognized. 9) Claims are to be dealt with on the basis of the specificities of their context rather than developing a set method and mechanism of restitution to be applied to all claims. The aim of the reparations process should be far-reaching redistribution rather than return to the pre-1948 situation.

--The Badil/Zochrot Capetown Document

Second Occupant Cases
While only a minority of cases, second occupant cases (cases where an original owner was forced to abandon the property which was later occupied by the occupant who acquired it in good will) are associated with a host of problematic issues deserving of further investigation. The guiding principles for such cases should give priority to consensual resolution (through mediation) while guaranteeing the right to housing for both the original owner and the occupant...Some of the guidelines that emerged from our discussion on how to deal with such cases included:
- In all cases, legal title should revert to the original owner and their heirs. *We faced a point of disagreement on the issue of possession, namely, whether eviction and relocation of the occupant is permissible under any circumstances. In such cases, some of the proposals included the possibility of allowing occupant’s possession to continue until the occupant passes away (lifetime lease).
- In all cases, the state/transitional authority is responsible for finding housing for whichever party ends up without housing as a result of the arbitration. If the occupant gives up the house, considering the possibility that s/he gets full compensation which enables him\her to acquire another house or compensation amount at the market value of the relinquished property that can be inherited by the occupants’ heirs.
- Israeli regime members given property by party and/or state should be considered as having very weak claims to maintain occupancy of the properties.

-The Badil/Zochrot Capetown Document

- Much of the reparations results may lead to segregated communities where Jewish and non-Jewish citizens live in isolation from one another. How can such a situation be avoided for the purposes of medium and long-term integration and reconciliation? Incentives should be created for mixing communities (e.g. housing subsidies, larger compensation packages for people opting to live in communities of the “other”). Current (Jewish) occupants who relinquish, and thereby facilitate reparations process can be given priority access to other returnee housing.

-The Badil/Zochrot Capetown Document

- What is to be the fate of the OPT and the settlements? Also to be treated as context sensitive. Title for land where settlements have been built on privately owned land should be returned to the rightful owners with mediation and adjudication as to options for settlers, including relocation, tenancy agreements, etc. There should also be special arrangement for settlers who took land violently on their own volition. All rural and agricultural lands (not built-upon) should be immediately restituted to owners.

-The Badil/Zochrot Capetown Document

Outstanding Issues/Questions
These are issues requiring further discussion and exploration that were raised but not discussed...
- Given that there will be no discrimination on the basis of gender, and that the majority of claimants will undoubtedly be family members (i.e. married, parents of adult offspring): how many claims can a family submit? How can this be administered?
- Given the limitations on resources, job opportunities and available housing, and given that successful claimants will have an immediate right to citizenship, how is the timing and prioritization of return to be decided.
- Should there be a limitation on alienation (particularly sale) of restituted property as in the South African case?
- What about lands sold to Israelis in bad faith or under coerced agreements?

What are some of the tachlis questions such an upheaval engenders? How do we split property amongst growing families? How do we both value return to ancestral land while not reproducing inequities? How does compensation differ when dealing with rightful sales vs. forced sales vs. violent expropriation? Are we trying to recreate the past or use the past as one model for producing a different future?

הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּתוֹךְ עִיר הַמֵּקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֲלָהּ כָּל י"ב חֹדֶשׁ מִיּוֹם שֶׁמָּכַר בְּכָל עֵת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה. וַאֲפִלּוּ בַּיּוֹם שֶׁמָּכַר. וּכְשֶׁרוֹצֶה לִפְדּוֹת נוֹתֵן כָּל הַדָּמִים שֶׁלָּקַח וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹרֵעַ לַלּוֹקֵחַ כְּלוּם:

A person who sells a house in a city surrounded by a wall may redeem it throughout a twelve month period from the day he sold it whenever he desires, even on the day he sold it. When he redeems it, he returns all the money he received and does not deduct anything from the purchaser.

הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי חֲצֵרִים אוֹ בְּעִיר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מֻקֶּפֶת חוֹמָה כָּרָאוּי הֲרֵי זֶה נִגְאָל בְּכֹחַ יָפֶה שֶׁבְּדִין הַשָּׂדֶה וְשֶׁבְּדִין הַבָּתִּים הַמֻּקָּפִין חוֹמָה. כֵּיצַד. אִם רָצָה לִגְאל מִיָּד גּוֹאֵל כְּדִין הַבָּתִּים. הִגִּיעַ י"ב חֹדֶשׁ וְלֹא גָּאַל הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹאֵל עַד שְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל כְּדִין הַשָּׂדוֹת. וּבְעֵת שֶׁגּוֹאֵל מְחַשֵּׁב עִם הַמּוֹכֵר וְגוֹרֵעַ לוֹ מַה שֶּׁאָכַל. הִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל וְלֹא גָּאַל חוֹזֵר הַבַּיִת בְּלֹא דָּמִים כְּדִין הַשָּׂדוֹת:

When a person sells a home in a settlement or in a city that is not surrounded by a wall in the appropriate manner, he may redeem it according to the advantages that apply with regard to both the redemption of an [ancestral] field and the redemption of a home in a walled city.What is implied? If he desires to redeem [the home] immediately, he may, as is the law with regard to a home [in a walled city]. If the twelve months pass and he does not redeem it, he may redeem it until the Jubilee, as is the law regarding a field. When he redeems it, he makes a reckoning with the purchaser and subtracts the value of the benefit he received. If the Jubilee arrives without having redeemed it, the house returns [to the owner] without payment, as is the law with regard to fields.

שֵׁבֶט לֵוִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק בָּאָרֶץ כְּבָר נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִתֵּן לָהֶם עָרִים לָשֶׁבֶת וּמִגְרְשֵׁיהֶם. וְהֶעָרִים הֵם שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט וַעֲלֵיהֶן שְׁתַּיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים עִיר. וּכְשֶׁמּוֹסִיפִין עָרֵי מִקְלָט אֲחֵרוֹת בִּימֵי הַמָּשִׁיחַ הַכּל לַלְוִיִּם:

Although the tribe of Levi does not have an ancestral portion within Eretz [Yisrael], the Jewish people were commanded to give them cities to dwell in and [additional] residential property. The cities include the six cities of refuge and 42 additional cities. When cities of refuge will be added in the era of Mashiach, all will be given to the Levites.

How do we relate to land vs. homes differently? Why might statuses differ for homes in more densely populated areas? How might the Levites serve as a paradigm for how we relate to housing for non-landed populations?
What is Yovel? What are the ethics of it?

וקראתם דרור: לכולי עלמא הדרוד מורה על החירות כמו צפור דרור שאינו תחת רשות אדם כמ"ש הראב"ע. רק ר' יהודה הוסיף והוציאו מענין "דר" ו"דירה" שיכול לדור בכל מקום, ומענין "דר" המורה על הסיבוב שיכול לסחור ולסבב בכל מקום.

"And you shall proclaim dror": According to everyone dror refers to freedom, like a tzipor dror, a wild bird that is not under the control of any human. But R. Yehuda adds from the connection between dar and dirah that it means one can live wherever they wish, and dar also teaches about the ability to hawk one's goods in every place.

יובל היא ...ולפי דעתי לא קראו הכתוב יובל על התקיעה רק על הדרור כי לא הזכיר השם הזה בכתוב הראשון שאמר והעברת שופר תרועה אבל אמר וקראתם דרור בארץ לכל יושביה שיהיו כולם בני חורין לדור בכל מקום שירצו ואמר יובל היא שבה יובל כל איש אל אחוזתו ואל משפחתו...ויהיה פירוש "יובל היא תהיה לכם" הבאה היא ותהיה כן לכולכם כי תבאו ותשובו איש אל אחוזתו ואיש אל משפחתו

YOVEIL HI’ (IT IS A JUBILEE)...In my opinion, Scripture does not call the year yoveil with reference to the blowing [of the Shofar], but with reference to “the liberty” [that it brings to the inhabitants of the Land]; for this term is not mentioned in the first verse which states, Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn. But when He stated [in the verse before us] and ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof, meaning that they shall all be free to reside wherever they please, He continued by saying ‘yoveil hi,’ that it is a year in which every man is “carried away” to his possession, and his feet “transport him” to his family afar off to sojourn...Thus the meaning of it shall be ‘yoveil’ unto you is “it is a year which ‘brings’ [liberty] and it shall be so to all of you, that you shall come and return every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.”

יובל היא. לשון יובל לרש"פ יורה על שררה וחירות, והוא משרש בלל כמו בלולות בשמן ענין תערובות, כי בשנת היובל יש בלבול וערוב רשויות (אללגעמיינהייט) שיתבלל סדר הרשויות בשדות ועבדים, והיה הקונה כמוכר, כעבד כאדונו, כשפחה כגברתה, כנושה כאשר נושה בו, חירות אחת ורשות אחד לכולם, אין קדימה ואיחור יתרון ופחיתות זה על זה, והכלי שמכריזין בו תערובת הרשויות נקרא גם כן יובל, על זה אמר במשוך בקרן היובל:

YOVEL HI. The language of "yovel" references control and freedom, and it's from the language of "mixing" like offerings "mixed with oil," for in the year of the Yovel there is confusion and switching up and mixing of domains, that control of fields and slaves is switched around, and the buyer is like the seller, the slave like the master, the borrower like the lender, one freedom and one domain for everyone, there is no first and last, no one greater or lesser than the other...

ושבתם וגו׳ ואיש אל משפחתו. אפילו אין לו אחוזה הולך לעיקר משפחתו ונקבצים כל בעלי המשפחה זל״ז:

And each man shall return to his ancestral land — even if he has no ancestral land he goes back to his main family and all the family heads are gathered together.

Atopia is the refusal of the place without hope of a place. The place of atopia is, radically, the nonplace (non-lieu). On the other hand, utopia is a temporary nonplace, linked to the place by hope, or by demand.
[...]
In our opinion, it is not only a matter of an ever-readiness for traveling, but, in fact, of continuous, perpetual, incessant movement. The Ark must travel because the Law, the Torah, is in becoming. Meaning is never there where it is given. [...] Being, for the Torah, is to be journeying. And the journey is not limited to a place. Journeying is a nonplace.
- Marc Alain Ouaknin, The Burnt Book

וע"ד הקבלה יובל היא מלשון (ירמיהו י״ז:ח׳) ועל יובל ישלח שרשיו, וירמוז כי כל הדורות יובלו אל הסבה הראשונה, ולכך נקרא היובל בשם דרור כי הוא היובל אשר שם שרשי הדורות והנבראים כולן, כי משם נאצלו בברית עולם שנאמר (בראשית א׳:א׳) בראשית ברא אלהים

A kabbalistic approach to the words יובל היא: The word יובל is derived from the expression ועל יבל ישלח שרשיו, “sending forth its roots by a stream” (Jeremiah 17,8), a hint that all the succeeding generations are traced back to their original roots, to the prime cause which determined their development. This is the reason why the Yovel is called דרור, “freedom,” a reminder of when man was free from sin. All of humankind originated with the pool of souls at G’d’s disposal and eventually this is where the souls will return to.Each one of the seven times periods of a cycle of 7000 years will perform the tasks assigned to the respective day of creation making a total of 49,000 years. When they have completed these 49,000 years the universe will revert to the Tohu Vavohu which preceded the words בראשית ברא (Genesis 1,1).

(ב) משרשי המצוה. על צד הפשט, שרצה השם יתברך להודיע לעמו כי הכל שלו, ולבסוף ישוב כל דבר לאשר חפץ הוא לתנה בתחלה, כי לו הארץ, כמו שכתוב כי לי כל הארץ (שמות יט ה). ועם מצוה זו של הספירה של ארבעים ותשע שנה, ירחיקו עצמם שלא יגזלו קרקע של חבירם ולא יחמדוה בלבם, בדעתם כי הכל שב לאשר חפץ האל שתהיה לו.

(2) It is from the roots of the commandment from the angle of the simple understanding that God, may They be blessed, wanted to inform Their nation that everything is Theirs; and in the end everything will return to those to whom They wanted to give it at first - for the earth is Theirs, as it is written (Exodus 19:5), "for all the earth is Mine." And with this commandment of the counting of forty-nine years, they will distance themselves from stealing land of their fellows and they will not covet it in their hearts; in that they know that everything returns to the one that God wishes it to be theirs.

(ב)ואל אחזת אבתיו. אֶל כְּבוֹד אֲבוֹתָיו, וְאֵין לְזַלְזְלוֹ בְּכָךְ (ספרא; מכילתא י"ג):

(2) ואל אחזת אבתיו AND UNTO THE POSSESSION OF HIS FATHERS [SHALL HE RETURN] — This means, he shall return to the dignity held by his ancestors and people shall not hold him in low esteem because of this (because he had previously been a slave)

Returning to some of our previous questions--in what ways is yovel about returning to/preserving paradigms vs. upsetting them? Are there ways of using both yovel and shmita to honor relationship to land while acknowledging it as non-absolute? How can we honor both the value of mixing, of upheaval, along with the value of people returning to that which is theirs?
Politics—like narrative—has a way of charting these distances according to a single measurement. Return: the reversal of diaspora, the restoration of what was lost, a doubling back so as to bring all distances to zero. But the harm of dispossession is transformed in the movement between generations. We can visit, kick rocks across the surface of the dusty road, squint up at the desert sun, drive past the cemeteries, through the hills separating Ramallah from Bethlehem, gold and tan speckled with white buildings—but the smells and sounds spark memories that are not our own. For the diaspora, Palestine exists in the mind.

...“To return to our land” is a rallying cry for both Zionists and Palestinians. And yet, there is no moral equivalence between these claims. Zionists seek to annihilate the present and its attendant histories in order to “restore” a mythic past. In this regard, their vision of return is necessarily violent and dispossessive... The Palestinian call for return, by contrast, can be liberatory. But this will require a different relationship with time: a commitment not only to undoing the world as it is, but to remaking it as it should be.

...
The precolonial world was a territory; the postcolonial world will be, too. Worldmaking is a territorializing process. Thus, if Palestinian return is to imbue a fractured people with a worthy national purpose, it cannot be merely a backward-facing act of restoration, but must instead face forward, toward a just world—its shape suggested by the imperative to obliterate Zionism’s legal and social mechanisms of colonial oppression, its logics of containment, and its engineered demographic imbalances. It will mean rooting our inevitable process of territorializing not in essence (I am from here, this is holy land, this land is mine), but in relation (this is where we eat, this is where we pray, on these roads we traverse the desert).

What might it mean to dream of return not as the crossing of space or, impossibly, the turning back of time, but as a metric of relation—the distance between things as they are and as they could be, between a present of borders and checkpoints and a future where we might be together? The colonial system of walls, roads, passports, and decrees does not constitute the ownership of land itself—a brutal fiction—but is instead a system of control overlaid atop it. Land cannot be passed from one colonially defined population to another by revolutionary fiat. Land cannot be returned by transfer. But the exile can return to the land, as the body returns to it in death, ready to deterritorialize themselves and the colony, to destroy the borders inscribing mind and body. Only then might a new territory form, built from relations of care and not hierarchies of control. May we return, then, to the origin of no origins not to solve the problem of exile but to destroy it for good.

"Point of No Return," Dylan Saba