¹ The singular form is Kibbutz. Some of the Kibbutzim are known as Kvutzot, and in the singular Kvutzah. The differences between the Kibbutz and the Kvutzah have disappeared over the years, and in this article both will be referred to as Kibbutz. There are other forms of cooperation in Israel's rural scene. Thus, the Moshav is a cooperative village in which each farmer owns a separate farm. The village, however, markets the produce of all its members cooperatively. Purchases for the members' farms are also cooperatively made by the Moshav. Moshav members maintain mutual aid in cases of illness, etc. There is another form of settlement known as Moshav Shitufi in which there are no individual farming units, and the members collectively cultivate the village lands, tend the livestock, etc. The Moshav Shitufi, although closer to the Kibbutz than the Moshav, is distinguished from the former in the important aspect of consumption: each member lives with his family as a separate consumer-unit. This article will deal only with the Kibbutz form settlement. It should perhaps be noted that in order to distinguish between the Kibbutz and the Moshav, the former is sometimes designated as a collective settlement while the latter is called a cooperative village.

² Israel Government Yearbook, 1965, Statistical Appendix.

³ Sec. 8.

⁴ This emerges from an examination of the Rules filed by the Kibbutzim with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Reference will hereafter be made to the Model Rules whenever Kibbutz Rules provisions are discussed.

⁵ Part VI, r. 2 of the Rules. There are some Kibbutzim, e.g. the Orthodox Kibbutzim, in which the affiliation is to Hapoel Hamizrachi or Keren Hayishuv Shel Agudat Israel Ha'olamith—Orthodox party organization. Here, too, the principle of non-distribution of Kibbutz property among its members upon dissolution is retained.

⁶ As from 1960, JNF property is administered by the Israel Lands Administration—a Government agency. Israel Lands Administration Law, 1960, sec. 2(a).

⁷ This has been verified by examination of the lease agreements in the JNF archives. The writer wishes to express his thanks to S. Ussishkin, Esq., of the Jewish National Fund, whose kindness made that examination possible.

⁸ Kibbutz Rules, Part III. The initial financing of a Kibbutz is by means of loans from public bodies on extremely favourable terms, while the land is held on lease, at what may well be regarded as token rents.

⁹ Severance Pay Law, 1963, sec. 4.

¹⁰ The rate is two-weeks' or a month's wages for each year of employment, depending upon the terms of employment. Sec. 12.

¹¹ The Legislature expressly so stated, when it intended provisions concerning employer-employee relationships to apply to members in Cooperative Societies, whose membership in the Society was made conditional on their working for it. Such a provision is absent from the Severance Pay Law, 1963. Cf. Bar-Neev, Z., National Insurance Act (2nd ed., Tel Aviv, 1958), 60–61Google Scholar (in Hebrew).

¹² This is the case with leases granted by the Israel Lands Administration, subsequent to the Israel Lands Administration Law, 1960. The writer wishes to thank Dr. Sobol of the Israel Lands Administration for enabling him to examine those leases.

¹³ Veteran Kibbutz members, with vast experience in Kibbutz affairs who were interviewed by the writer, told him that they do not remember one instance of a Kibbutz vacating lands as the result of an eviction claim by the JNF, or a case in which the JNF reduced the area leased to a Kibbutz. There were a few rare instances of Kibbutz liquidation in the past, but the question of distributing their assets did not arise, in view of the economic situation of those Kibbutzim. Gratitude is here expressed to Messrs. H. Lev-Kochav, Deputy Director General of the Ministry of Labour and a member of Kibbutz Palmachim, Aharon Schnciderman of the Economic Council of Hakibbutz Hameuhad, Moshe Tamari of Ihud Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim, and Mr. Saul Bassi of Hakibbutz Hadati, for their help in the preparatory research connected with this article.

¹⁴ Histadrut Annual (1964) 457 (in Hebrew). The numbers relate to Kibbutzim affiliated to the Hakibbutz Ha'artzi, Hashomer Hatzair. See also: Ways of Life in Kibbutz Society, Hakibbutz Hameuhad (Tel Aviv, 1960) (in Hebrew) chap. “The Mobilization of Sons”. (This book will be here referred to as Ways of Life.)

¹⁵ Darin-Drabkin, H., The Other Society (Merhavia, 1961) 90 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar. Here referred to as Darin-Drabkin. Ways of Life chap. “Solution of Special Problems”.

¹⁶ Ways of Life, chap. “Intensified Adoption”.

¹⁷ Special funds have been established for the collection of these payments, e.g. Keren Haihud, Keren Hashomer Hatzair, Keren Hakibbutz Hadati, etc. Histadrut Annual, op. cit. 450, 459, 477.

¹⁸ Histadrut Annual 479.

¹⁹ Proposed Rules, rr. 4(11), (13), 17(4), (5).

²⁰ The following is a list of the Kibbutz Movements and their party affiliations: Ihud Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim (preponderantly Mapai affiliated); Hakibbutz Hameuhad (preponderantly Ahdut Ha'avodah affiliated); Hakibbutz Ha'artzi shel Hashomer Hatzair (Mapam); Hakibbutz Hadati (National Religious Party); Kibbutzei Hanoar Hatzioni (Independent Liberal Party); Kibbutzei Agudat Israel (Agudat Israel).

²¹ This proposal was made at the 1925 Convention of Hever Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim at Beit Alpha. A similar proposal was made to the 1933 Council Meeting of Hever Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim at David, Ramat. Breslawsky, M., The Palestinian Labour Movement, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv 1956), 75, 234, 235 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar. Here referred to as Breslawsky.

²² Lev-Kochav, H., “On the Kibbutz Rules” (1963) 25 Mibifnim, 347 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar. Here referred to as Lev-Kochav.

²³ Breslawsky vol. 2, p. 227, vol. 4 (of 1963) 145–50; Histadrut Annual, 451–54, 459–61, 474. Cf. Weitz, R., Our Path in Agriculture and Settlement (Tel Aviv, 1959) 235Google Scholar: “In the last few years there has been a certain weakening of the influence of the central Movement institutions over the settlements.” (In Hebrew.)

²⁴ Ways of Life, chap. “Elements of Ideological Unity” sec. 11. (Italics supplied).

²⁵ This is the result of the fact that the preliminary organizational activity for founding a Kibbutz, as well as the preparation of new membership reserves, take place primarily within the Party structure.

²⁶ Part D-3 (e): “A member leaving the Society shall not be entitled to receive from it personal effects or money which he transferred to it upon joining the Society unless otherwise stipulated in writing between him and the Society.”

²⁷ Lev-Kochav 346.

²⁸ In addition to dismissal by the employer, the Law grants a right to severance pay to an employee who resigns his job for sufficient personal reasons, e.g. his health, or the health of a member of his family, the birth of a child (in the case of a woman), marriage, etc. Severance Pay Law, 1963, secs. 6, 7, 8, 11.

²⁹ See n. 11.

³⁰ The IL is equivalent to $ 0.33, or 2s 4d. With regard to these practices, cf. Lev-Kochav, 347, and also Directives Concerning Members Leaving the Kibbutz, by the Society Committee of Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1963. Data on this subject was obtained by the writer in personal interviews with veteran members of Ihud Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim, Hakibbutz Hameuhad and Hakibbutz Hadati. In one case, cited as an exception which illustrates the rule, the member, after having exerted considerable pressure, received, upon leaving the Kibbutz, IL10,000. The absence of rules concerning payments to members who leave Kibbutzim creates an opening for the exertion of pressure by departing members, as well as for the development of bargaining between them and the Kibbutz.

³¹ See quotation from the Kibbutz Rules, Part D-3(e), n. 26 supra. See also: Amudim, The Religious Kibbutz periodical, May 1956, p. 2, (in Hebrew). Regulations of Kibbutz Sdeh Eliahu concerning Reparations money and Gifts (in Hebrew). See also n. 30.

³² Lador, Y., Our Settlement in the Country, Its History and Forms (Tel Aviv, 1952), 243 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar; Landshutt, Z., The Kvutzah—A Sociological Study of the Kibbutz Settlement in Palestine (Jerusalem, 1944), 34 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar; Breslawsky, vol. 1, p. 105.

³³ Local Councils Ordinance, 1941, sec. 2.

³⁴ Information obtained from the Ministry of Interior indicates that today not even one Kibbutz has the status of a Local Council. In the past there were a number of such Kibbutzim (e.g. the Kibbutzim Glil Yam and Ramat Rachel).

³⁵ A unit of local government consisting of several settlements in a region, each being represented in it. Local Councils (Regional Councils) Order, 1958, secs. 1, 5.

³⁶ Ibid. secs. 90, 91(a), 132. In the Kibbutzim the functions of the “Local Committee” are fulfilled, for municipal government purposes, by the “Management Committee”, also known as the Secretariat, elected by the Kibbutz general meeting, ibid.

³⁷ Belov, F., The History of a Soviet Collective Farm (London, 1956), 87et seq., 176Google Scholar. The Chinese Communes, issued under the auspices of Soviet Survey (London, 1960), 4, 10, 28. Sih, R.K.T., The Chinese Communes (New York, 1960), 129, 135Google Scholar. Darin-Drabkin, 33–35, 37, 38. Cohen, R., The Kibbutz Settlement (Tel Aviv, 1953), 26–28 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar.

³⁸ Ways of Life, chap. “Ownership of Property, Income, Economic Rights”. At this stage the question of whether all the fruits of a member's endeavours do legally belong to the Kibbutz is not yet under consideration. We now limit ourselves to pointing out that the Kibbutz is considered, in practice, to be entitled to them.

³⁹ Ways of Life, chap. “Principles of Ideological Unity”. The Kibbutz Rules provide that: “All members shall have an equal right to receive from the Society's general fund food, clothing, housing and any other necessaries for themselves and the members of their household, provided that the general meeting may decide that the Society will undertake the support of dependents of members, whether living in the settlement or outside it.” “Every member undertakes… to perform any work imposed on him.” “Every member undertakes to transfer to the general fund of the Society money earned whilst a member in the Society…” Part IV (3) (a)-(c). In the Kibbutz we find, in addition to the members, their children, who cannot become members until they reach the age of eighteen, as well as other relatives, members' dependents, such as old parents, who have been permitted to live on the Kibbutz by the general meeting. The latter are required to cover the expenses of their upkeep out of their property, should they have any, or by payments made by members of their family who are not Kibbutz members, as well as by labour (so far as they are capable of working). Relatives living on a Kibbutz are also expected to adapt their style of living to that of the Kibbutz. Proposed Rules sec. 19.

⁴⁰ Cohen, op. cit., 49.

⁴¹ Darin-Drabkin, 173.

⁴² As reported to the writer by the Kibbutz Hameuhad representative.

⁴³ See supra p. 103.

⁴⁴ The writer was told this by Mr. Hanoch Lev-Kochav of Kibbutz Palmachim, one of the draftsmen of the Proposed Rules.

⁴⁵ R. 17(c).

⁴⁶ Darin-Drabkin, 211.

⁴⁷ Ways of Life, chap. “On Parents and Collective Education.”

⁴⁸ As reported to the writer by the Hakibbutz Hameuhad representative.

⁴⁹ Darin-Drabkin, 174, 211, 226.

⁵⁰ The Kibbutz Hameuhad representative related the following details about the personal annual allowance of a Kibbutz member: Clothing—IL 117, shoes—IL 33, personal effects—IL 65, pocket money—IL 100. (See beginning of n. 30.) Members working outside the Kibbutz are given an allowance determined by the circumstances. Ways of Life chap. “Arrangement of Special Issues”. The principle of equality could be disturbed with regard to each of the above items, by a member transferring money allocated in his budget for one purpose to another, e.g. by spending more on clothing and less on other items. To avoid this it has been laid down, as a rule, that no such transfers in expenditure should be allowed. Ways of Life chap. “Elements for the Satisfaction of Members' Needs”. The information supplied by the representative of the Ihud Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim is, basically, identical, except that it appears that in the Kibbutzim belonging to that Movement the prohibition against the transfer in personal expenditures from one item of the allowance to another is less strictly observed. See also Darin-Drabkin, 166, 170, 171.

⁵¹ Darin-Drabkin, 86. See also the Cooperative Association Bill, 1965, sec. 132; Proposed Rules 3, 8(12), 17(7).

⁵² Ways of Life, chap. “Ownership of Property, Income, Economic Rights”, and chap. “Arrangement of Special Issues”. This position was also taken by the Zionist Youth Kibbutzim, as reflected in their Remarks (1964) to the draft of the Cooperative Association Bill and the Proposed Rules.

⁵³ This rule does appear in the Proposed Rules 17(10).

⁵⁴ This, for instance, is the position taken by Zionist Youth Kibbutzim, see n. 52. See also the article by Yitzhak Barkai in Ha'aretz (daily newspaper) of June 18, 1964 (in Hebrew).

⁵⁵ Amudim, supra, n. 31. Darin-Drabkin, 185.

⁵⁶ Proposed Rules 18(6) (iv).

⁵⁷ Equiment which the Kibbutz is financially unable to supply to all its members at the same time, e.g. furniture and other items which are relatively expensive, is distributed to members according to a waiting list, with preference given to seniority in the Kibbutz, age, health, etc.

⁵⁸ Information on this was received from the representatives of Hakibbutz Hameuhad, Ihud Hakvutzot Vehakibbutzim, and Hakibbutz Hadati. See also Darin-Drabkin 168, 184, 185, 249. Ways of Life, chap. “Arrangement of Special Issues.”

⁵⁹ “A member … found retaining… rights of ownership over any property … expels himself from Kibbutz membership.” Ways of Life chap. “Ownership over Property, Income Economic Rights”. It has been reported to the writer that in the Kibbutzim belonging to the Hakibbutz Hameuhad Movement members' rights in Reparation money from Germany transferred to the Kibbutz are not retained. Cf. Darin-Drabkin, 185, to the effect that the rejection of private ownership is at its extreme in the Kibbutzim affiliated to the Hakibbutz Ha'artzi shel Hashomer Hatzair.

⁶⁰ The principle of rejection of private property operates in the Orthodox Kibbutzim subject to the exception that it does not apply where the property is required for the performance of religious precepts. For instance, a member's ownership over the ring with which his bride is betrothed is recognized since, according to Jewish Law, the marriage must be performed with a ring owned by the groom. Cf. Schereschewsky, Family Law (Jerusalem, 1958), 36–37 (in Hebrew).

⁶¹ Some Kibbutzim limit to within a certain time a member's right to have his property returned upon leaving the Kibbutz. Cf. Directives Concerning Members Leaving the Kibbutz, , by Hakkibutz Hameuhad, August 1964Google Scholar.

⁶² Cf. Directives Concerning Members Leaving the Kibbutz, by Hakibbutz Hameuhad, August 1964, where the rights of minor heirs of a Kibbutz member, over property which the deceased transferred to the Kibbutz, are recognized. See also the Property Regulations of Hakibbutz Hadati, and the Regulations Concerning Reparation Money and Gifts of Kibbutz Sdeh Eliahu, recognizing the special rights of a deceased member's spouse.

⁶³ The Indian Act is based on the English Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. Fellman, A, The Law and Practice of Cooperative Societies in Israel (Tel Aviv, 1951), 18 (in Hebrew)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Ibid. 30.

⁶⁵ Cooperative Societies Ordinance, sec. 8.

⁶⁶ Ibid. sec. 21.

⁶⁷ Calvert, H., The Law and Principles of Cooperation, (3rd ed., Calcutta, 1926), 18–20Google Scholar. Dr.Procaccia, G. deals with this extensively in his new book: The Corporation, its Nature and its Formation (Tel Aviv, 1965) 96et seq. (in Hebrew)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Cooperative Societies Ordinance, sec. 16.

⁶⁹ Ibid. secs. 17, 25.

⁷⁰ Ibid. sec. 31.

⁷¹ Sec. 5 of the Ordinance, limiting the participation of an individual member to a fifth of the Society's capital, also indicates a personal rather than a purely economic approach.

⁷² See n. 32 Cf. Lev-Kochav, 338.

⁷³ Part I, sec. 2.

⁷⁴ Cf. Beit Hananya, Moshav Ovdim Lehityashvut Shitufit, Ltd. v. Friedmann (1964) 18 P.D. vol. 3, p. 20, where the Supreme Court decided that “The rules of a Society are merely an agreement between it and its members, or between its members and themselves, upon which they act by mutual consent. Under certain circumstances the same consent might render valid a deviation from the Rules. Where the deviation is recurrent and continuous over a sufficient period of time, and is known to all persons involved and determines their mutual relations, it acquires the force of a binding custom and is recognized by the law, just like any other custom or commercial practice which cannot be denied by the persons involved.” (Per Berinson J. at p. 26.)

⁷⁵ Part VI, 2 of the Rules.

⁷⁶ Part I, 3(e) of the Rules.

⁷⁷ Part III, 7.

⁷⁸ Part IV, 3(c).

⁷⁹ It is true that in the “Objects” chapter in the Rules, broader language is used. It is there stated that “The purpose of the Society (is) … to maintain a common fund into which all member's income shall be paid…” (italics supplied). It is submitted, however, that where there is a contradiction between the statement appearing in the “Objects” chapter and the operative provision relating to “earnings” appearing in the chapter dealing with members' duties, the latter should prevail, the “Objects” chapter being of a more declaratory nature.

⁸⁰ Thus, in Nissim v. Abu Kishek (1960) 22 P.M. 22, it was decided that a Kibbutz member's duty to transfer to the Kibbutz the damages awarded to him is a moral duty. The decision is understandable on the assumption that the Kibbutz Rules are not interpreted so as to impose a legal obligation to transfer the money to the Kibbutz. Cf. Katyan v. Chim Avir, Ltd. (1956) 12 P.M. 350.

⁸¹ Part II, 4.

⁸² Part III, 3; Part IV, 3(e).

⁸³ Snell's Principles of Equity (25th ed., London, 1960), 128–32.

⁸⁴ Scott, A. W., The Law of Trust (Boston, 1956), vol. 2, Par. 152Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Where the debt of a member is the result of a judgment for alimony or maintenance the situation will be different. An ordinary debtor is not subject to imprisonment unless it is proved that he has the means to satisfy the debt and does not do so. A Kibbutz member cannot be regarded as being possessed of sufficient means to pay his debts and he will therefore not be imprisoned. On the other hand, a person owing maintenance or alimony cannot plead that he has no means, and will therefore be imprisoned. Thus, a Kibbutz member owing alimony or maintenance will not be allowed to continue to live at his accustomed Kibbutz standard. He will be obliged to leave the Kibbutz, so as to find a source of income which will enable him to satisfy the debt or go to prison: Debt (Imprisonment) Ordinance, 1931, sec. 2.

⁸⁶ Cf. Ben Ami v. Zuckerman (1957) 15 P.M.S. 5. The situation will naturally be different where the Kibbutz, too, is responsible for the debt, e.g. where it is vicariously liable.

⁸⁷ Cooperative Societies Ordinance, 1933, sec. 25.

⁸⁸ Invalids (Pension and Rehabilitation) Law, 1959 (Consolidated version), sec. 6.

⁸⁹ Lev-Kochav, 431.

⁹⁰ This problem of the right of an injured person whose injury was made good by a third party to sue the tortfeasor is, of course, not specific to Kibbutz members. But the problem may quite frenquently arise within the Kibbutz framework. See, generally, Street, H., Principles of the Law of Damages (London, 1962) 75et seq.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Nissim v. Abu Kishek, cit., at p. 28 (per Harpazi J.).

⁹² The Court, in sustaining the claim, also relied on the possibility that the plaintiff might one day leave the Kibbutz, and accordingly awarded him anticipatory damages. Damages were awarded by the same judge in another case for causing the death of a Kibbutz member. Action was brought by the deceased member's relatives as dependents, although they resided in the Kibbutz which provided for all their needs. Here too, as in the previous case, the claim was sustained, the Court relying on the provision of the Civil Wrongs Ordinance, 1944 (sec. 55(1) (b)(I)), according to which, “any sum paid or payable on the death of the deceased under any contract of assurance or insurance …” is not to be taken into account in the assessment of the damages, Katyan v. Chim Avir, supra. A partial correction of the situation, introduced by the Compensation for Personal Injuries Law, 1964, will be discussed later.

⁹³ Beit Hananya, Moshav Ovdim Lehityashvut Shitufit, Ltd. v. Friedman, n. 74 supra. The case deals with a Cooperative Society organized as a Moshav (see n. 1), and not with a Kibbutz. This, however, does not affect its validity as an illustration of the development discussed in the text.

⁹⁴ Divrei Haknesset (Israel's Parliamentary Records, 1953, in Hebrew) 624.

⁹⁵ Ibid. 623. Author's translation throughout.

⁹⁶ Breslawsky, vol. 4, p. 150. Ways of Life, Introduction.

⁹⁷ Breslawsky, vol. 4, p. 145.

⁹⁸ See p. 103, supra.

⁹⁹ The Cooperative Association Bill, 1965, sec. 132. (Author's translation).

¹⁰⁰ R. 3(a).

¹⁰¹ RR. 3(a), 4(11), (13). The Bill does not reflect the extension of the objects included in the Proposed Rules, nor does it provide the necessary machinery to enable such an extension. Cf. secs. 2, 6, 132, 133 of the Bill. This inconsistency will have to be corrected in the final drafting of the documents.

¹⁰² Cf. n. 54.

¹⁰³ R. 24(3).

¹⁰⁴ R. 25(1).

¹⁰⁵ R. 25(2).

¹⁰⁶ R. 17(5).

¹⁰⁷ R. 17(4).

¹⁰⁸ R. 26.

¹⁰⁹ R. 27.

¹¹⁰ R. 27(3).

¹¹¹ Sec. 42(3) of the Bill. The Bill enables the Kibbutz Movement to be an “associate member” in a Kibbutz and, as such, to enjoy its special rights. (The provisions dealing with this matter in the Bill call for additional drafting, as there seems to be a conflict between its various provisions. Cf. secs. 40, 41(1), 134, 227.)

¹¹² Sec. 55 of the Bill.

¹¹³ Sec. 141 of the Bill.

¹¹⁴ Sec. 42(b) of the Bill.

¹¹⁵ Sec. 58(c) of the Bill.

¹¹⁶ Cf. sec. 139 of the Bill, dealing with the method by which a member may empower the Kibbutz to realize his property. See also Proposed Rules 17(7), (8).

¹¹⁷ R. 17(7).

¹¹⁸ R. 18(f)(4).

¹¹⁹ See the position of Zionist Youth Kibbutzim, supra, n. 52. See also sec. 162 in their Remarks to the Draft Bill, and secs. 4, 40, 56 in their Remarks to the Proposed Rules.

¹²⁰ Sec. 141 of the Bill.

¹²¹ R. 18(6).

¹²² R. 18(f)(4).

¹²³ Sec. 143 of the Bill.

¹²⁴ It is interesting to note a similar development in the United States according to which the funds of a Spendthrift Trust are not immune in maintenance claims. See: Restatement Law of Trusts, vol. 1, par. 157.

¹²⁵ R. 18(a)(3).

¹²⁶ Sec. 43(a)(3) of the Bill; Proposed Rules 10(5).

¹²⁷ The declaration of bankruptcy will not be ineffective in all cases. The trustee in bankruptcy will be able to claim any property to which the bankrupt has a right, e.g. property which the member may claim from the Kibbutz upon termination of his membership.

¹²⁸ Sec. 2.

¹²⁹ Sec. 1.

¹³⁰ It is clear that the Law was also meant to apply to cases where a Kibbutz has incurred expenses in connection with injuries sustained by its members. Cf. sec. 4.

¹³¹ Tedeschi, G., “Recovery of Compensation for Personal Injuries” (1965) 21 Hapraklit 255Google Scholar.

¹³² Sec. 144.