Parshas Lech Lecha
1. In Parshas Lech Lecha we find several times G‑d's promise to Avraham that He will give him and his children the Land of Israel:
At the beginning of the sidra it says: "And G‑d appeared to Avram and said, 'To your seed I will give this land'"[1]; afterward, upon leaving Egypt, when Lot separated from him, G‑d told him: "For all the land that you see, to you I will give it and to your seed forever"[2]; "Arise, walk through the land, its length and its breadth, for to you I will give it"[3]. And at the Covenant Between the Parts — "On that day G‑d made a covenant with Avram, saying: 'To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates'"[4] (and in the following verses all the "ten nations" are enumerated).
The general difference between G‑d's promises is: the first two promises ("To your seed I will give this land," "to you I will give it," in the future tense) did not come in connection with any speech or action of Avraham, whereas the promise "To your seed I have given" (in the past tense)[5] came after Avraham had walked through the length and breadth of the land[6], and G‑d said it in continuation of His preceding statement, "to give you this land to inherit it," and as an answer to Avraham's question, "How shall I know that I will inherit it?"[7]
The Rogatchover[8] explains the reason for the difference in wording — that at the third promise G‑d used the expression "to inherit it" (and Avraham too asked in the language of "How shall I know that I will inherit it"), whereas the wording in the earlier verses is "To your seed I will give etc.," "to you I will give it" — that these are two modes in G‑d's giving of the Land of Israel to the Jewish people: "in the category of a gift" and "in the category of an inheritance"[9]; and that this, in general, is the difference between the First Conquest and the Second Conquest. The First Conquest is in the category of a gift ("the category of a point — all of the Land of Israel," "and a part is nothing"), and the Second Conquest[10] "is the category of inheritance (and also a part)."
Accordingly, the above difference between the first two promises and the promise at the Covenant Between the Parts is explained:
The conquest of the second entry, which came after the state of "because of our sins we were exiled from our land," is alluded to in the promise at the making of the covenant, "To your seed I have given," which (like the second entry[11]) came after Avraham's question, "How shall I know etc. that I will inherit it"[12]; and as our Sages[13] say, this was a "sin" relative to Avraham's stature [as is also seen from the fact that at the making of the covenant there came the foretelling of exile: "Know for certain that your seed will be strangers etc."[14] — the Egyptian exile, and it also alluded to the Babylonian exile and the other exiles[15]].
Whereas the First Conquest, through Yehoshua, which was the first entry into the Land of Israel, is alluded to in G‑d's first two promises — not as a continuation of Avraham's question, but what G‑d promised on His own part.
Similarly regarding the second point — that the promise "To your seed I have given" came after Avraham had walked through its length and breadth — Targum Yonasan states explicitly that this means "he made a chazakah in it"[16], and this is indeed also what the second sanctity accomplished through Ezra, as the Rambam[17] explains, that the first sanctity "was only because it was a conquest of the many; and since the land was taken from their hands, the conquest was nullified and it became exempt by Torah law from tithes and from Shemittah, for it is not [legally] the Land of Israel. But since Ezra went up and sanctified it, he sanctified it not through conquest but through the chazakah with which they took possession of it; therefore every place that those who came up from Babylon took possession of and was sanctified with the second sanctity of Ezra is sanctified today, even though the land was taken from us, and it is obligated in Shemittah and in tithes."
One must understand, however: what connection does the First Conquest (whose sanctity came about through "conquest") have with the idea of a gift; and the Second Conquest (whose sanctity came about through chazakah) with the idea of inheritance?
2. This may be explained[18] by first clarifying the Rambam's words cited above, on which the Kesef Mishneh[19] asks two questions: a) "I do not know why the power of chazakah is greater than the power of conquest, and why we do not say regarding chazakah as well that once the land was taken from our hands the chazakah was nullified. b) Furthermore, the first time, when it was sanctified through conquest — was there no chazakah there? Is chazakah without conquest better than chazakah with conquest?"
It is known that there are several explanations of the Rambam's words:
a) The Radbaz[20] says: "It appears that in his view this is because they did not sanctify it verbally, whereas in the days of Ezra they sanctified it verbally."
However[21], besides the fact that we do not find that "in the days of Ezra they sanctified it verbally," there is not even a hint of this explanation in the Rambam; on the contrary, the Rambam explains explicitly that the reason the second sanctity was not nullified is (not because of verbal sanctification, but) because "he sanctified it not through conquest but through the chazakah with which they took possession of it," as opposed to the first sanctity, which came through conquest.
b) The Tosfos Yom Tov[22] answers the Kesef Mishneh's question: "For he holds that the conquest of gentiles comes and nullifies the conquest of Israel, whereas with the chazakah — that they took possession from the hand of the king of Persia, who gave them permission to take possession of it — conquest does not come and nullify a chazakah that was with the consent of the giver."
But seemingly both of the Kesef Mishneh's questions are still not answered:
Regarding the first question — if the conquest of gentiles (in war[23]) is an acquisition[24] that nullifies the previous ownership of Israel, what difference does it make that the previous ownership came about (not through conquest, but) through "a chazakah with the consent of the giver"? Since there was the acquisition of conquest in war on the part of the gentiles, the question remains (in the Kesef Mishneh's words): "Why do we not say regarding chazakah as well that once the land was taken from our hands the chazakah was nullified"[24*]?
Similarly the second question remains difficult: in Yehoshua's conquest too there was a chazakah "with the consent of the giver" — we find that the Givonim[25] handed over their cities to the Jews[26] — and nevertheless the Rambam does not distinguish between one place and another, and says regarding the entire Land of Israel, "and since the land was taken from their hands, the conquest was nullified and it became exempt by Torah law from tithes and from Shemittah"[27].
3. The Tosfos Yom Tov continues there: "And one cannot object from G‑d's giving, that He gave it to Israel the first time, for one can answer that just as G‑d gave the land to Israel, so too His prophets prophesied that the destroyers would come up and take it from them, and likewise they prophesied about Cyrus king of Persia that he would return it. But regarding the taking of it from our hands by this nation we do not find an explicit prophecy; therefore they took it from us unlawfully, and land cannot be stolen."
But seemingly it is still difficult to understand: whichever way you look at it — if we assume that conquest in war is an acquisition that removes ownership, that it is "a complete acquisition"[28] according to law, then what difference does it make whether or not we find a prophecy about their conquest, since there was an act of acquisition[29]?
And if the intent here is[30] that a gentile does not acquire through conquest in war, and since there was no prophecy concerning the conquest of the gentiles (after the Second Conquest), "they took it unlawfully," and the whole concept of conquest in war does not apply at all; whereas Nevuchadnetzar and Cyrus, who "conquered by the word of G‑d," "it was a temporary ruling, and it was acquired by them through conquest"[31] — then this does not accord with the Rambam's explanation:
The Rambam explains the reason for the difference by the fact that the first sanctity came through conquest and the second sanctity through chazakah; whereas according to the above, it does not depend on the Jews' acquisition but on the manner of the nations' conquest — at the Babylonian exile the sanctity could be nullified (even had it come through chazakah), because Nevuchadnetzar's conquest was lawful; whereas at the second exile, since the nations conquered unlawfully, the sanctity is therefore not nullified (i.e., even had it come only through conquest).
4. Regarding the second question mentioned above, one could seemingly answer (as other commentators[32] explain the Rambam's words): although in Yehoshua's conquest too there was chazakah, the Jews did not in practice acquire through chazakah, since their intention was to acquire specifically through conquest — and therefore their chazakah was of no effect; and all the more so from the law[33] that "one who hoes in a convert's property thinking it is his own does not acquire it."
But besides the fact that it requires investigation whether this reasoning itself applies in our case [since in our case there is an intention to acquire (only he wishes to acquire it with a different mode of acquisition)[34], he acquires even without intention[35] (especially since it is an acquisition by Torah law[36])]: it is difficult to learn this way, as mentioned above, for with the cities of the Givonim there was no acquisition by conquest in war at all, since the Givonim gave them away of their own will. Why, then, did the Jews' acquisition by chazakah not take effect with those cities either?
5. The explanation of this may be said to be:
With the giving of the land to Israel, two things came about: a) the monetary acquisition, i.e., the ownership of the Land of Israel, the fact that it belongs to the Jews; b) the sanctity of the land.
The first matter, the Jews' ownership of the Land of Israel, came about through G‑d's giving the Land of Israel to Avraham our father, as the Yerushalmi[36*] derives from "To your seed I have given" ((in the past tense) that this is not a promise, but) "I have already given." That is, from then on (even before the Jews actually conquered the Land of Israel) the Land of Israel belongs to the Jews[37] (forever)[38]. This is so much so that it bears on halachah, as the Gemara[39] says that the daughters of Tzelofchad took their father's share (he being a firstborn) as a double portion, even though "the firstborn does not take (a double portion) in what is due to come as in what is already possessed," because "the Land of Israel is possessed"[40].
But the second matter, the sanctity of the Land of Israel (and especially for the obligation of the mitzvos), came about only through the Jews, when they entered the Land of Israel[40*].
6. In the manner of coming into the land there is a difference between the entries into the land: at the first entry there was the will[41] and command: "Armed you shall cross over"[42], "and you shall cross over armed before your brothers, all the mighty men of valor"[43], "and the land shall be conquered before you"[44], i.e., that the entry should be by way of conquest through war; therefore (also) the sanctity of the land then came about in this manner — through conquest.
Accordingly it is understood why the acquisition of chazakah at that time was of no avail (not even with the cities of the Givonim, although that was a chazakah with the consent of the giver): since the sanctity came about according to G‑d's command, chazakah could not bring the sanctity into effect, because G‑d's command required that the entry be specifically through conquest in war[45].
Moreover: since at the entry (and sanctification) it was said, "and the land shall be conquered before you" — "the land" without qualification — it may be said that immediately at the conquest of Yericho, which was "the lock of the Land of Israel" (and therefore "the seven nations gathered into it," because "if Yericho is conquered, the whole land is immediately conquered")[45*], the sanctity of the land was already fully brought into effect — through Israel's coming into the Land of Israel in a manner of conquest.
[Only regarding several mitzvos[46] was there an additional condition of conquest and division etc. — as a condition for the obligation of those mitzvos (similar to the mitzvah of Yovel, which takes effect when "all its inhabitants are upon it"[47]): this, however, is not something that adds[48] to the sanctity of the land[49], which was completed immediately at the conquest of Yericho[50].]
Accordingly one may give another explanation of why chazakah (even in the cities of the Givonim and the like) did not bring about the sanctity of the land: since the sanctity of the entire Land of Israel had already come about immediately with the conquest of Yericho, as mentioned above[51].
Whereas at Ezra's entry, concerning which G‑d said, "I will remember you etc., to bring you back to this place"[52], the will and command in G‑d's remembrance was (not that they should conquer the Land of Israel, but) that they should go up and settle there[53] — therefore the sanctity then came about through "the chazakah with which they took possession of it."
7. Accordingly, the first question (of the Kesef Mishneh) is also answered: since the sanctity through Yehoshua came about through an entry in the manner that was commanded — through conquest, and the definition of conquest (in its plain sense) is taking something from another against his will[54] — it follows that, by virtue of the command, there is (beforehand) the ownership of the nations, and the sanctity is bound up with prevailing over the nations (through conquest). Therefore, "since the land was taken from their hands, the conquest was nullified": when the prevailing over the nations is nullified[55], the sanctity that comes through it is nullified.
Whereas at the second coming, "since Ezra went up and sanctified it, he sanctified it not through conquest but through the chazakah with which they took possession of it": just as the definition of chazakah (in its plain sense) is the complete ownership of the one taking possession — that the thing is his, and not that it became his by taking away the ownership of another (through conquest) — so too it is understood regarding the sanctity that came about through chazakah, that the taking effect of the sanctity at that time is bound up with their having returned to the land (which belonged to them even before Yehoshua's conquest), and therefore it is not nullified.
In other words: at Ezra's going up, the ownership (in the monetary sense) also had its effect on the sanctity of the land; and consequently, just as the fact that "the Land of Israel is possessed" is never nullified, and even after the destruction it is "our land" and "our soil," so too the (second) sanctity, which is bound up with the chazakah, is not nullified.
8. The above explanation also accords with the explanation of the difference between the first sanctity and the second sanctity in the inner dimension of things: that at the time of the first sanctity the Jews were (in general) on the level of tzaddikim, and at the time of the second sanctity — on the level of baalei teshuvah[56].
Among the differences between the two levels is[57]: the service of tzaddikim is (mainly) in the manner of from Above to below — they effect a refinement and elevation in the "lower realm" by drawing down holiness (by the power of G‑d's Torah) — G‑dliness from Above. Since the accomplishment comes from Above, it is not bound up (to such an extent) with the "below," and therefore there can be in it a change and an "interruption" —
Comparable to the first sanctity through conquest[58], which comes through prevailing over the opposing side, which, however, remains in existence, and therefore the conquest can afterward be nullified.
And similarly in man's service in general: if a Jew's service is of a kind that has nothing to do with the world, and he has not been tested with a "trial"[59] from the opposing side, there is no certainty that if he comes to a trial he will be able to withstand it.
Whereas a baal teshuvah, whose service is in the manner of from below to Above — the refinement and purification of the lower realm so that it becomes a "vessel" for holiness — the revelation of G‑dliness in the "below" is in a manner that has permanence; it is not interrupted. And similarly in the general scope of his service of his Maker: since after he has already had dealings with the world (and even after having stumbled, G‑d forbid, in matters that are contrary to the Supreme Will) he nevertheless returns to G‑d and to His Torah and mitzvos, this is proof that Torah and mitzvos have permeated him, and to such an extent that even the stumbling cannot tear him away from G‑d; i.e., his bond with G‑d is a permanent one, without limitations.
Comparable to the second sanctity, which came through chazakah: even after "because of our sins we were exiled from our land," Jews return to the Land of Israel — not as to a land that they must first conquer (which does not belong to them), but as to a land that belongs to them permanently.
9. Based on all the above, one will understand the connection of the first sanctity to a gift, and of the second sanctity to inheritance:
It is known[60] that an inheritance has no interruption, while a gift has interruption. The reason for this[61] — that a gift has interruption — is: although "had he not derived satisfaction from him, he would not have given him a gift"[62], nevertheless the gift comes (not so much because of the recipient's virtues, but) mainly from the side of the giver, and the recipient has no (claim or) connection to the gift; therefore it has interruption even after it has been given.
And therefore the idea of a gift (of the Land of Israel to the Jews) relates mainly to the first entry (Yehoshua's conquest): just as the manner of the Jews' entry was by way of "conquest" (from Above to below) — both literally and in man's service, as explained above — so too the manner of giving the Land of Israel to the Jews was by way of a gift, which comes from the side of the giver ("Above"), and not from a claim and connection on the part of the recipient ("below").
Whereas an inheritance, on the contrary, comes because the heir is a relative of the one bequeathing[63] — he has a claim and connection to the inheritance; to the point that the true nature of inheritance is that the heir is "the very essence of the one bequeathing" (— it is not considered a change of domain at all)[64]:
And therefore the giving from Above is in the manner of inheritance with the second sanctity, when (also) the Jews' entry was — both literally and in man's service, as explained above — by way of "chazakah," which means, as explained above, that they have an essential connection to the Land of Israel; they are always the owners of the land.
And one may say that this is also the allusion in the verses: in connection with the idea of a gift in the first sanctity the wording is "To your seed I will give," "to you I will give it" — in the future tense; and in connection with the second sanctity — the wording "To your seed I have given," in the past tense (as mentioned in section 1):
The first sanctity was bound up with a connection of the Jews with the land that had yet to come about in the future — conquering the Land of Israel from another's domain, which is not holy;
Whereas the second sanctity was such that through their action (chazakah) they merely revealed their connection with the land, that the Land of Israel was theirs from before (by virtue of the giving to the Patriarchs).
10. The difference between gift and inheritance with regard to the Land of Israel is, as explained, only in connection with the sanctity of the land that came about upon Israel's entry into the land — that the first sanctity was in the manner of a gift, and with the second sanctity there was added also the element of inheritance, which has no interruption.
But the essential ownership of the Jews over the Land of Israel has always been whole and utterly complete, ever since G‑d gave the land to Avraham our father at the Covenant Between the Parts as an "everlasting inheritance," for in a covenant no change or interruption is possible.
Consequently, in this there is no difference in what state the Jews find themselves: even when the situation is that "because of our sins we were exiled from our land and distanced from our soil," the Land of Israel is then too "our land" and "our soil"[65]; and as the Gemara says, as mentioned, "the Land of Israel is possessed" and "it is an inheritance to you from your fathers" — from Avraham our father — even though in the meantime there was the sin of the Golden Calf and the sin of the spies etc.[66]
[And especially according to what was explained above in the Rambam's ruling, that the element of inheritance was also drawn into and established in the sanctity of the land, so that the (second) sanctity too has no interruption — "it was sanctified for the future."]
From this it is understood that this is a matter in which there is no room for any bargaining or "trade" and the like. For besides the fact that the entire Land of Israel to its borders, "from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates," is an inheritance to all Jews and to every Jew, and therefore no one, G‑d forbid, can relinquish any part of the Land of Israel — the desire to give it away, G‑d forbid, is something that goes against the will of G‑d, Who "by His will gave it to us"[67] as an everlasting inheritance.
And when Jews stand firm on this with the appropriate strength — not because of "my strength and the might of my hand"[68], but because it is an "everlasting inheritance," from G‑d, the G‑d of the world, to the eternal people — they succeed in it —
Until the promise is fulfilled, "Kings shall be your nurturers and their princesses your nursemaids"[69], that the nations of the world help the Jews carry out G‑d's will in general, and in the above matter in particular, while still in the time of exile; and this hastens the coming of our righteous Moshiach, when the entire Land of Israel will belong to the Jews, including the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni[70], and "then I will transform the peoples to a pure language, that they all call upon the Name of G‑d and serve Him with one accord"[71], speedily in our days, literally.
(From talks of 20 Menachem Av and the night following Shabbos Parshas Re'eh, 5738; Simchas Beis HaShoevah, 5724)
Key Lesson
A gift depends on the giver and can be interrupted; an inheritance flows from the heir's own essential bond and has no interruption. The first sanctity of the land, won by conquest, was like a gift and was lost with the exile, while the second, established by chazakah, revealed that the land was already ours and remains holy forever, just as the baal teshuvah's return proves a bond with G‑d that nothing can sever. Since G‑d gave the whole Land of Israel to Avraham's descendants as an everlasting inheritance, it is not ours to bargain away; standing firm on this, out of trust in G‑d rather than our own might, brings success and hastens the Redemption.