Otzar Beit Din
אוצר בית דין
It is explained in the Tosefta (Shevi’it 8:1) that when the Sages saw that there were people picking too much produce in the seventh year, they stationed agents on their behalf at the entrances to the towns, and whoever brought a large amount of produce from the fields would be left with food for three meals, while the rest of the produce was taken and brought into the storehouse (otzar) in the town, in order to distribute it to the other people. When the picking season arrived for common fruits, and likewise for grapes and olives, the beit din would hire workers to pick them; the grapes were pressed in winepresses to make wine, and the olives were crushed in the olive press to make oil. From the produce, the wine, and the oil, they would distribute on Friday afternoons to all the residents of the town, to each according to the needs of his household.
This enactment was meant to prevent transgressors from taking large quantities of shevi’it produce and trading in them. Apparently, the enactment had an additional aim: to supply shevi’it produce to everyone equally. Since it was difficult for the townspeople to go out to the fields each time to pick produce for the needs of their households, the agents of the beit din would pick the produce for everyone. Presumably the beit din paid the workers from the communal fund collected from the taxes of all the town’s residents. The Ramban added (Vayikra 25:7): “This produce that is gathered into the ‘otzar beit din’ does not require bi’ur,” since the entire purpose of bi’ur is that the person in whose possession the produce is should remove it into the public domain, and the produce in the ‘otzar’ is already designated for the public as a whole (see above 4:10).
Some say that the enactment of ‘otzar beit din’ is the way to observe the seventh year without needing the ‘heter mekhira’. Others further say that this is the correct way to observe the seventh year nowadays, since today, when produce is usually grown in large orchards far from population centers, it does not pay for a person to travel to the orchard to pick five kilos for his household consumption. Therefore, the picking and distribution of produce through an ‘otzar beit din’ is the only way through which the public can benefit from shevi’it produce.
On the other hand, some argue that the words of the Tosefta regarding the enactment of ‘otzar beit din’ were not accepted as halakha, and therefore this enactment is not mentioned at all in the Jerusalem or Babylonian Talmud. The Rishonim also hardly mentioned it, since carrying it out involves various prohibitions.
As we shall learn below, although there are good answers to most of the difficulties raised against the ‘otzar beit din’, in practice it does not provide a comprehensive solution to the question of the seventh year, and in many cases this solution requires transgressing prohibitions of the seventh year.¹
Notes (1)
- The Ramban in his commentary on the Torah (Vayikra 25:7), and following him the Rashbash (Responsa §258), are the only ones among the Rishonim who mentioned the Tosefta (Shevi’it 8:1) as an enactment of ‘otzar beit din’. Admittedly, other Rishonim mentioned the Tosefta, namely the Rash and Rosh (Shevi’it 9:8), Tosafot Rid (Pesaḥim 51b, s.v. “ve-natal”), Tosafot of R. Shimshon of Sens (Pesaḥim 53a), and Tosafot of Rabbeinu Yehuda Sirleon (Avoda Zara 62b). However, they cited it in order to prove that bi’ur means making the produce ownerless (hefker), unlike the view of the Rambam, who holds that bi’ur means destroying the produce (above 4, n. 10). But it is possible to understand that they agree with what is explained in the Tosefta, that the beit din may appoint agents to pick the produce for all the residents of the town.
The Rambam did not mention the enactment of ‘otzar beit din’, and some inferred from this that in his view it has no place, since it contradicts the mitzva of releasing the land (hashmata), as explained in the next halakha. In their view, the other Rishonim as well, apart from the Ramban and the Rashbash, do not agree with the enactment of ‘otzar beit din’. So wrote R. Shlomo Sirilio (Yerushalmi 9:6), and he explained that the Tosefta deals with sixth-year produce that the beit din expropriated for the benefit of the poor. However, it seems more likely that even the Rishonim who did not mention this enactment agree with its principle, as explained in the next halakha. They did not need to mention it because it was enacted for its generation, and if there is a need for it in the future, it will be reactivated according to the conditions of the time and place. So wrote the Ḥazon Ish 11:7; 12:6. In the view of Rabbi Yisraeli in Ḥavot Binyamin 3:98, this is one of the ways to observe the seventh year nowadays. In the view of Rabbi Ya’akov Ariel, this is the good way to observe the seventh year in our day (Teḥumin 28).
In practice, the Ashkenazi and Ḥasidic Beit Din Tzedek in Jerusalem first operated an ‘otzar beit din’ in 5670 (1910), on condition that no melakhot forbidden in the seventh year be done, and that the price of the produce be lower than usual. Maran Ha-Rav Kook agreed to make use of it as an addition to the ‘heter mekhira’, but held that on its own it was not sufficient to rely on (Iggerot Ha-Re’iya 313-314; Mishpat Kohen 76). Rabbi Herzog and Rabbi Frank preferred not to combine it with the ‘heter mekhira’. The ‘Ḥazon Ish’ held that this is the appropriate way to supply produce in the seventh year and sustain the farmers, and he operated an otzar beit din in 5705 (1945) and 5712 (1952). Rabbi Yisraeli continued in his way, and from 5719 (1959) even led the ‘otzar beit din’ track within the framework of the Chief Rabbinate. After him, Rabbi Ya’akov Ariel and the ‘Torah Va-aretz Institute’ continued. See the article by Rabbi Yehuda Amiḥai in Ha-Torah Ve-ha’aretz vol. 8, p. 169 ff. Rabbi Ze’ev Whitman, in his book Likrat Shemita Mamlakhtit Bi-Medinat Yisrael, proposed expanding the enactment such that, as agents of the beit din, all agriculture and the distribution of fruit and vegetables in supermarkets would be managed as in all years, with a certain reduction in price, based on the assumption that the ‘heter mekhira’ is meant for a time of pressing need and it is preferable to rely on all possible leniencies rather than on the ‘heter mekhira’. He did, however, write that this proposal must be put before the rabbis of Israel. In practice, he himself merited improving the administration of the ‘heter mekhira’ within the framework of the Chief Rabbinate.
On the other hand, Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Meir, in his book Ma Nokhal Ba-shana Ha-shevi’it – Heter Mekhira O Otzar Beit Din, detailed all the serious problems of the ‘otzar beit din’, including work to sustain the fruit (le-okmei peira), and the fact that the farmers who own the field manage everything as owners do. He explains the position of our great rabbis, Maran Ha-Rav Kook zt”l and those who continued his path, and concludes on p. 97 that it is not proper to operate an ‘otzar beit din’ at all, and only be-di’avad may one eat its produce. As will be explained below, although some of the difficulties can be answered, two serious problems still remain: 1) melakhot for the purpose of sustaining the fruit; 2) commerce. The first problem can be solved by the work of gentiles, but there is no solution to the second problem, except in special cases where the payment for the ‘otzar’ produce can be reduced significantly. All this will be explained below.