Jovial (20 Jan 2012)
"Re: Was 132/133 a Jubilee?  Not's why...."

Paul mentioned at that someone concluded that there was a letter indicating 132/133 was a Jubilee.  It may not have been.    There's an English translation of that letter at   It only rents land until a certain Sabbatical year and does not actually state that the following year after that is a Jubilee.  someone may have assumed that it was renting land until the Jubilee year, which is the longest land could be rented.  But it could be rented for shorter periods as well.  So no, the letter does not establish 132/33 as a Jubilee Year.