[By Rabbi Yair Hoffman]
Of late there has been much conjecture as to whether Rabbi Aryeh Deri will back a Netanyahu-led Likud government or a Herzog-led Labor government.
Many concerned Jews are alarmed that in their search for what they perceive a legacy of peace a Herzog led government may attempt to give up many different areas of Eretz Yisrael, including chalilah parts of Yerushalayim. Joining up with a government bent on giving up land is fraught with danger, as one can be aiding and abetting a serious violation of Halacha.
It would therefore be an opportune time to review the halachos of what constitutes Eretz Yisrael. It must be stressed that this discussion does not chalilah condone the giving up of parts of land – it is rather a discussion of the status of various parts of Eretz Yisrael. Should Rabbi Deri decide to back up such a government, he must ensure that no parts of halachic Eretz Yisroel be given up. Of course some would say that this is a veritable impossibility, as politicians can rarely be trusted.
THE TWO CONQUERINGS
Although the verse in Bereishis (17:8) tells us that Hashem told Avraham, “And I shall give you and your descendants after you…the entire Land of Canaan as an inheritance forever,” one can divide up Eretz Yisrael into two different types of land:
A. Lands that were captured by our ancestors who arose out of Egypt but were not recaptured by our ancestors who rose out of Babylonia during the time of Ezra; and
B. Lands that were also recaptured by our ancestors who rose out of Babylonia.
For our purposes, we will heretofore designate these two areas as “area A” and “area B.”
There are many different practical ramifications of the different statuses of these two types of areas. There may be differences in the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael, the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael, the issue of terumah and maaser, the issue of Shmittah (regarding Sfichim) and also other issues. = The issue of keeping one day or two days of Yom Tov is also pertinent. It is also possible that for one of these mitzvos an area is considered Eretz Yisrael but for another it is not.
YISHUV ERETZ YISROEL
There is a halachic debate as to whether one fulfills the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael—settling the land of Israel—if one resides in area A. The Chazon Ish (Shvi’is 3:9) rules that one does fulfill the mitzvah, while the Maharit (Vol. I, No. 47) and the Avnei Naizer (Y.D. 454:62) hold that, although it is a great merit, one does not fulfill the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisrael.
If Area A sections are given up, then there would be less land in which to fulfill the Mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel. It would be interesting to find out what Shas’s council of Torah sages would hold in this dispute between the Chazon Ish and the Avnei Naizer.
LEAVING ERETZ YISROEL
Regarding the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael, there may be a prohibition of leaving area A even if one is moving into area B. Tosefos (as well as the Ran and Ritvah, Gittin 2a) quote the Gemara in Gittin 76b that the Sages (who lived in Eretz Yisrael area A) were careful not to enter the city of Acco. They therefore prove that one may not leave area A to enter into area B. The Ramban, however, understands this incident differently. He writes that these Sages merely loved area A so much that they preferred not to enter an area B, but that, halachically, there is no problem.
Another question is whether one may leave area B and go to chutz laAretz. Tosefos in Gittin 2a seems to indicate that it is forbidden.
WAS EILAT RECAPTURED?
There is also a whole plethora of opinions as to what constitutes halachic Eretz Yisrael. Regarding the city of Eilat, for example, there is a debate among the Acharonim as to whether it was recaptured by those who arose from Babylonia. There is a location mentioned in Chumash in the southeast section of the Dead Sea called Maale Akravim. Some have identified this location as Eilat (Rav Yechiel Michel Tikochinsky, zt’l). Others identify it as Jabal Chanzira, which is to the southeast of the Dead Sea and 30 kilometers away from it. Yet others think that what is known today as Maale Akravim is the actual Biblical one, as well. The official position of the chief rabbinate in Israel is that there is doubt.
MAY NOT BE USED AS A SNIF – A MITIGATING FACTOR
Regarding how these issues are ultimately ruled upon, one might have thought that these doubts can be combined to factor into a leniency. In halachic literature, this is termed as a “s’nif lehakel.” A s’nif lehakel is usually an opinion or a factor that cannot generally be relied upon by itself to form a lenient ruling but, in combination with one or two or even three other factors, does form a leniency. Regarding the issue of the borders of Eretz Yisrael, however, there are opinions that these doubts cannot be combined and used even as a s’nif lehakel. Rav Efrati quotes the Chazon Ish as forbidding the use of minority opinions as a s’nif lehakel even for a rabbinic issue.
The Labor Party has a history of treating lightly the borders of Israel. They have demonstrated time and again a low regard for the borders of Israel and have openly spoken of negotiations with the Palestinians in this regard. We must be very careful when negotiating for funding for Yeshivos not to empower someone or a party who is bent on giving away sections of Eretz Yisroel.
The author may be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
16 Responses
The only way to be sure is to vote for Eli Yishai’s party. The best of Shas and a guarantee not to support land give-aways.
please forgive me but you “forgot” to mention that rav ovadia himself holds you can give away the land for peace.
furthermore rav elyashiv qouted the midrash that we lose erertz yisroel because of the lack of torah in it and therefore allowed gimmel to join the coalition right before gush katif and so i ask where are you comming from when you wrote “when negotiating for funding for Yeshivos not to empower someone or a party who is bent on giving away sections of Eretz Yisroel”
what about the issur of לא תחנם? the rambam does not allow to sell homes to non-jews even when it is not under jewish control.
you also fail to mention the well knows opinion of some rabbonim that it is prohibited to give away land at all even outside what is being called here A and B.
is it possible that the auther mixed up A and B in the paragraph about leaving AY?
Haikar chaser…
If giving away land brings peace and will save lives then pikuach nefesh docha kol hatorah including the mitzvos of yishuv haaretz…and even area A should be given away. And if it brings korbonos (chalila) then even area B shouldn’t be given away.
With regard to joining and/or giving support to a Labor government, there is another issue that makes this position unacceptable. The political left is strongly supportive of toeiva marriage and seeks to pass laws regarding other social issues as well. These issues are not pleasant to discuss, but they have far reaching implications on the fabric of society in Eretz Yisrael, and are extremely destructive to Kedushas Ha’Aretz. The ministers in favor of this legislation know that the “Chareidim” can be bought for money alone, and therefore have no interest in compromise.
When the charedim enter any government the demand a signed paper that they won’t give away parts of Jerusalem that’s one of the reason why the charedim didn’t join kadima/livni in 2008.
It seems to have been the opinion of both Rav Shach ztz”l and Rav Ovadiah ztz”l that one may give up land if it will save lives. In addition it is not clear from the article what the prohibition would be to give up land in the first place. Additionally it does seem that A and B are mixed up in the article. Perhaps the author or mods can clarify
Rav Ovadia clearly changed his position and after seeing the churban of Oslo he wrote that giving up land is
Osur because of pikuach nefesh.
#2
Decision of “land for peace” was a popular Torah/Daas Gedolim around ten years ago. After the popular Arab spring, increase of Arab extremism, growth of Hamas, etc, the DAAS TORAH changed. Never mentioned by Rav Ovadia Yosef in the last ten years…..
What we in Israel need is security, with out considerations of ancient borders.
To give the Arabs land, only encourages their belligerence and terror tactics. Do you need more proof that Gaza?
Rav Ovadia of his own free will said Deri is not to be trusted, that he does what he wants and is evil. What more do the Sfardim want?
We don’t need Deri or anyone like him. He is dangerous to us. We don’t want a repeat of Arik Sharon’s folly.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe z”ya had been screeming for over 40 years that giving up land will bring bloodshed, based on halachah. He spent hours of talking and cryig his heart out about this. Some in the frum world only started realizing now how right he was, as it is with many other things that he was way ahead of the game…
No 10 you say Daat Torah changed? Bizarre. the Torah is eternal and unchangeable
The dati leumi/Chardal and many chareidi communities community never ever supported land for peace so their Daat Torah seems like it was genuine.
Not sure if Daat Torah allowed Oslo – it seems that Deri did that one on his own.
Chabad also were adamantly against land for peace.
#9 is 100% correct. Deri also proves his mindset by ignoring this fact and also ignoring the practical ramifications. Jewish lives are at stake, yet it doesn’t seem to matter.
You know, it’s pretty ironic that an American Rav who identifies (primarily) with the Chareidi community, is the writing about whether or not the Israeli government (which Chareidim see as Treif) should give up land. While I agree that giving up land in E”Y is wrong, Rabbi Hoffman – or anyone who bashes the Israeli government as an “anti-Torah government” or refuses to serve in the army – have no standing to dictate what the government should or shouldn’t do.
Face it – you either accept that the current State of Israel has Halachic significance, in which case Halachic analyses like that above are germane and those living in E”Y have a Halachic obligation to physically participate in the protection of the land, or you treat it as a secular entity that happens to be run by Jews, in which case you have no grounds to make a Halachic argument regarding this entity’s obligation to hold on to land. Make your choice – as Eliahu HaNavi said, עד מתי אתם פוסחים על שתי הסעיפים?
an Israeli Yid
#15
this time i think your wrong because the issur to give away the land is said even to an individual and so even if they don’t own it as a goverment (like the ran) they cannot give it away
#5 the Rabbies which prohibited giving away the land for peace claim that just like to conquer it you must do it even if it will cost lives like all wars do so to you must not give it up even in pkuach nefesh (look in techumin)
to all those you said rav Ovadia was chozer where can i find that I didn’t see evn in his later responses