Parshas Toldos
1. On the verse[1] "And the L‑rd appeared to him and said, 'Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you. Sojourn in this land…,'" the Midrash[2] says: "'Sojourn in this land' — Rabbi Hoshaya said: You are an unblemished burnt offering. Just as a burnt offering, if it goes outside the curtains, is disqualified, so you, if you go outside the land, are disqualified."
Rashi, in his commentary on the words "Do not go down to Egypt," explains: "For he intended to go down to Egypt as his father had gone down in the days of the famine. He said to him, 'Do not go down to Egypt, for you are an unblemished burnt offering, and outside the land is not worthy of you.'"
The Re'em understands Rashi's commentary thus: since he is an unblemished burnt offering, which is kodesh kodashim, the whole land is for him like the Temple courtyard for kodesh kodashim, and "outside the land is regarded by him as outside the courtyard; and kodesh kodashim may not go out of the courtyard, and if it did it is disqualified and forbidden forever." According to the Re'em's interpretation, it follows that Rashi means to explain it in the same way as the Midrash above.
But when one looks closely, one sees that between Rashi's commentary and the Midrash's interpretation there are such differences as also bring out a difference in the content of the interpretations:
a) According to the Midrash, Yitzchak's leaving for outside the land involves a disqualification — "if you go outside the land, you are disqualified" — exactly like a burnt offering that goes outside the curtains. But Rashi in his commentary emphasizes only that "outside the land is not worthy of you."
b) In the Midrash the exposition is on the words "Sojourn in this land,"[3] while Rashi pauses on the words "Do not go down to Egypt."[4]
From both these differences (which depend on one another[5]), it is understood that there is a difference in the content of the interpretations. According to the Midrash, the prohibition of leaving for Yitzchak results from the fact that he must be in Eretz Yisrael ("Sojourn in this land") — because of the superiority of Eretz Yisrael, for Eretz Yisrael for Yitzchak is like the area within the curtains for a burnt offering — and consequently "if you go outside the land, you are disqualified," because he has left Eretz Yisrael.
But according to Rashi, the negation of Yitzchak's leaving is connected not with the special superiority of Eretz Yisrael but with the deficiency of the lands outside it — "outside the land is not worthy of you." Therefore it is connected (not with the obligation "Sojourn in this land" but) with the negative "Do not go down to Egypt."
2. According to this one could seemingly explain the reason for the above difference between Rashi and the Midrash:
According to the Midrash it is connected with the holiness of the land:[6] Eretz Yisrael is holier than all the lands, and Yitzchak's leaving is compared to the leaving of a burnt offering from the holiness of the courtyard — "Just as a burnt offering, if it goes outside the curtains, is disqualified, so you, if you go outside the land, are disqualified."[7]
But according to Rashi, whose way is the plain meaning, in the plain meaning of Scripture we do not find that Eretz Yisrael in the time of the Patriarchs, when it was still the land of Canaan, possessed holiness.[8]
That is why Rashi says that his not leaving for outside the land is mainly (not because of the command "Sojourn in this land," from the standpoint of the holiness of the land, but) because of the deficiency of the lands outside: "outside the land is not worthy of you."
In truth, however, one cannot learn it this way, as we see by first posing a question. The matter of Yitzchak's not leaving Eretz Yisrael is already found earlier: when Avraham sent Eliezer outside the land, "to my land… and you shall take a wife for my son, for Yitzchak,"[9] then in response to Eliezer's question, "Perhaps the woman will not be willing… to this land; shall I take your son back…?" Avraham answered him, "Take care that you do not take my son back there."[10] And there we do not find[11] an explanation[12] that this is because Yitzchak was an unblemished burnt offering.[13]
Seemingly this could be answered and explained, at least along the lines of halachah:
The law[14] is that "it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for outside the land ever, except to study Torah or to marry a woman… (and even then, afterward) he should return to the land… But to dwell outside the land is forbidden, unless the famine there has become so severe that a dinar's worth of wheat is worth two dinars."
Therefore: in Parshas Chayei Sarah, where Eliezer's question, "Shall I take your son back to the land from which you came?" meant that Yitzchak should remain there permanently (not with the intent to return, since the woman would not be willing), it is understood why this was ruled out and why Avraham instructed him, "Take care that you do not take my son back there."
But in our parsha, which speaks of "And there was a famine in the land," when the above prohibition of leaving "to dwell" outside the land does not apply[15] (as is also seen from the fact that Avraham our father did so[16] in the days of the famine[17]), the Holy One, blessed be He, had to warn him, "Do not go down to Egypt… Sojourn in this land": that Yitzchak may not leave for outside the land for a special reason — that he is an unblemished burnt offering.[18]
But it is difficult to explain it this way. The Rambam concludes the above-mentioned halachah: "And although it is permitted to leave, it is not the measure of pious conduct, for Machlon and Kilyon were two great men of their generation, and they left because of great distress, and they became liable to destruction before G‑d." Thus if we were to say that the laws of the prohibition of leaving for outside the land applied also to the Patriarchs (at least because the Patriarchs fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given,[19] even the eating of matzah[20] and even the Rabbinic decrees and prohibitions of Shabbos[21] and the like), they would certainly have also taken care not to leave for outside the land, since this is not the measure of pious conduct (and it is connected with such a punishment,[22] may G‑d spare us).
Further, and most importantly: we see that Avraham our father left Eretz Yisrael to go back to Charan after the Covenant Between the Parts,[23] and that was not even at a time of famine.[24]
From this it must be concluded that in the time of the Patriarchs the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael for outside the land did not apply, and consequently it was also not relevant for the Patriarchs to take care about it, although they fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given. For the status of the holiness of the land (regarding leaving the land[25]) did not yet[26] apply then [as is also understood from the statement of the Mechilta,[27] "Before Eretz Yisrael was chosen, all lands were fit for Divine communication; (and specifically) once Eretz Yisrael was chosen, all the other lands were excluded"].
And the reason Avraham instructed Eliezer, "Take care that you do not take my son back there," is understood (even in the plain meaning) from Avraham's own words (in the verses that follow): "and who swore to me, saying, 'To your descendants I will give this land.'" Since this is the land the Holy One, blessed be He, will give to Yitzchak, there is no place for Yitzchak (for the sake of "marrying a woman") to go away from it and settle outside the land.[28]
But in our parsha, which speaks of a time of famine in the land, when there is no other choice but to leave the land, it stands to reason, simply, that this should not prevent him from going temporarily to a place where there is food until the famine ends (were it not for the reason that Yitzchak is an "unblemished burnt offering").[29]
But according to this the question arises: since Eretz Yisrael was not yet then distinguished in its holiness,[30] what does it accomplish that Yitzchak is an "unblemished burnt offering,"[31] especially according to the Midrash's emphasis, "just as a burnt offering, etc., so you, if you go out, etc."?
3. This may be explained by first considering another difference found between the wording of Rashi and the wording of the Midrash. On the verse[32] at the Covenant Between the Parts, "On that day the L‑rd made a covenant with Avram, saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land,'" the Midrash[33] says: "The word of the Holy One, blessed be He, is a deed, as it says, 'To your descendants I have given.' It is not written here 'I will give this land' but 'I have given this land.'" But Rashi, in his commentary on "To your descendants I have given," explains: "The saying of the Holy One, blessed be He, is as if it were done."
It follows that according to the Midrash, at the Covenant Between the Parts there already took place the "deed" of giving through the word of the Holy One, blessed be He, and all of Eretz Yisrael was then acquired by Avraham and his descendants after him[34] [which also fits the statement of the Yerushalmi[35] that "To your descendants I have given" is not a promise but "I have already given" — it belongs to the Jewish people even before they entered Eretz Yisrael; and likewise what the Gemara[36] says as law, that "Eretz Yisrael is held in possession," "it is an inheritance for you from your forefathers"].[37]
But according to Rashi, G‑d's saying did not accomplish the actual deed of giving, such that Eretz Yisrael should from then on belong[38] to the Jewish people.[39] It is only that (the saying of the Holy One, blessed be He) "is as if it were done," and because of this too it is fitting (even in the plain meaning of Scripture) to use the expression "To your descendants I have given."[40]
This must be understood: since it is said, according to the Midrash (and the halachah), that G‑d's saying affects the very land itself, so that it was acquired by Avraham and his descendants after him, why not say that it also brought about holiness in the land? (And more than this: since we find that immediately "when He created the world," "He chose Eretz Yisrael"[41]) there is room to say that from then on it became a holy land, and consequently all the matters required by the holiness of the land[42] should apply (including also the prohibition of leaving it, even for one who is not an unblemished burnt offering).
4. The reasoning behind this may be stated as follows:
It has been said many times[42*] regarding the difference between the mitzvos the Patriarchs fulfilled before the Giving of the Torah and the mitzvos Jews fulfill after the Giving of the Torah: since fulfilling mitzvos before the Giving of the Torah was in the mode of "one who is not commanded (by the Holy One, blessed be He) and does," the mitzvos did not have the power to change the nature of a thing created by G‑d, to change the object with which the mitzvah was done so that it should become an object of mitzvah (cheftza shel mitzvah). The effect of fulfilling mitzvos was only in relation to the person (gavra) who fulfilled the mitzvah.[43] After the Giving of the Torah and G‑d's command, however, through fulfilling mitzvos a change is made in the object, so that it becomes an object of mitzvah and holiness, and so forth.
The reason for this is, as it says in the Midrash,[44] that before the Giving of the Torah there was a decree that the upper realms should not descend to the lower and the lower should not ascend to the upper; and at the Giving of the Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, annulled the decree, so that there could be a joining of the upper with the lower.
That is, the command at the Giving of the Torah[45] brought about the status of an object of mitzvah (and of transgression) in the matters of the world (even before a person fulfills the mitzvah with them), so that they become a vessel fit for a mitzvah to be fulfilled with them and through them. And through a person's fulfilling the mitzvah in deed, holiness (the upper) is actually fixed in an object below (the lower), and it becomes an object of mitzvah or holiness, and so forth.
The same is understood regarding Eretz Yisrael: although the acquisition of and ownership over Eretz Yisrael came about also before the Giving of the Torah (through G‑d's word), the taking effect of holiness (even the holiness not connected with the obligation of mitzvos) could not then be fixed in the "object" of the land.[46] After the Giving of the Torah, however (even before the conquest), the status and the possibility of holiness were newly introduced into it (because of the command to conquer it). And when the Jewish people actually took Eretz Yisrael[47] (through conquest[48]), the holiness of the land became fixed in it.[49]
5. Just as this is so according to the Midrash regarding the holiness of the land, so it is according to Rashi, in the plain meaning of Scripture, regarding the acquisition of ownership of the land:
The manner and status of G‑d's giving of the land to the Jewish people is not like a thing given from an ordinary giver to an ordinary recipient, where the giving is only a change of domain that does not change the nature of what is given (which is why ownership of the thing can lapse and depart through an acquisition, or conquest and the like, and pass from one domain to another).
Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave away (also) its essence to the Jewish people (removing from it every connection to other nations). He gave it in such a way that a change took place in its essence: the object of the land became, through the Holy One, blessed be He, Eretz Yisrael.
From then on it cannot belong to another nation (a change of domain through an acquisition and the like cannot change the essence of the thing).[50]
Consequently (like the general status of holiness, which could be brought about only after the Giving of the Torah) this too could be brought about only through the Jewish people's actual conquest — "you conquered the lands of the seven nations" — at which point there took effect in actuality "by His will… He gave it to us,"[51] the giving of the very essence of the land (from the standpoint that "all the earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it").[52]
6. According to this we can explain the difference between the commentary of Rashi and that of the Midrash. That a burnt offering may not be taken outside the curtains, and "if it goes out, it is disqualified," is not because of the status of holiness (that it left for a place of a lower degree of holiness) but because this is "outside its boundary"[53] — and this is a general law[54] applying to any meat that has "gone out of its boundary." On the contrary, this law is derived[55] from the verse[56] "You shall not eat meat torn in the field" (which does not speak of holy meat): "Once meat has gone out of its boundary it is forbidden." Since this kind of meat has its boundary, which defines the fixed place to which it belongs, therefore "meat of kodesh kodashim that went outside the wall of the courtyard, and meat of lesser holy offerings that went outside the wall of Yerushalayim,"[57] or "the meat of the Pesach offering that went outside its group,"[58] or "an unborn animal that put out its leg,"[59] become "disqualified and forbidden forever,"[60] because "once meat has gone out of its boundary"[61] it becomes like treifah.[62]
And since according to the Midrash G‑d's saying is a deed, and Eretz Yisrael already then (from the Covenant Between the Parts) belonged to the Patriarchs, it follows that through the Holy One, blessed be He, commanding him (Yitzchak) to be offered as an unblemished burnt offering, Eretz Yisrael automatically became fixed as his place[63] and boundary (just as, through the offering of a burnt offering, the courtyard becomes its place and fixed boundary[64]).
Consequently, outside the land is for him "outside his boundary."
But according to Rashi, as above, the giving at the Covenant Between the Parts had no effect on the object of Eretz Yisrael.[65]
However, Rashi has already explained in Parshas Chayei Sarah[66] (in Avraham's answer to Eliezer, "Take care that you do not take my son back there"), on the words "The L‑rd, G‑d of the heavens, who took me from my father's house": "Now He is the G‑d of the heavens and the G‑d of the earth, for I have made Him familiar in the mouths of people. But when He took me from my father's house, He was the G‑d of the heavens and not the G‑d of the earth, for the inhabitants of the world did not recognize Him and His name was not familiar on the earth."
By this (as discussed at length elsewhere[67]) Avraham explained to Eliezer that outside the land, in "my father's house," the Holy One, blessed be He, is only "the G‑d of the heavens," not "the G‑d of the earth" — since there they have no recognition of G‑d and His holy name is not familiar in the mouths of people — and therefore "do not take my son back there." In Eretz Yisrael, however, He is (not only) "the G‑d of the heavens (but also) and the G‑d of the earth, for I have made Him familiar in the mouths of people."[68] But on the other hand it is there only in the mode of "I have made Him familiar in the mouths of people" — no change of essence in the people, in their conduct and deeds (which is why "you shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell").
From this it is understood that in relation to the superiority of Yitzchak, who was an "unblemished burnt offering" [although the importance of the land is not (so much) relevant — for there was (as yet) no special superiority in the land itself[69] nor in the nature of the people of the land], the negation of leaving was (mainly) because "outside the land is not worthy of you," since there is no "G‑d of the earth" there; even His name is not familiar outside the land.
7. The difference between the two views may be explained in the inner dimension of the matter:
According to the Midrash (and halachah), the Jewish people's ownership of Eretz Yisrael existed also in the time of the Patriarchs, and because of this Yitzchak could not leave (being an unblemished burnt offering). According to Rashi's commentary there was no actual ownership; that came about only through the Jewish people upon their entry into the land, and the absence of leaving the land was only because "outside the land is not worthy of you":
From the standpoint of Midrash, which is above the plain meaning (including the plain sense of things) and more connected with the spiritual side of matters (but this is relevant to and has effect also in the physical world), the Jewish people's ownership of Eretz Yisrael comes about through "the word of the Holy One, blessed be He, is a deed."
According to Rashi — the plain meaning of Scripture — account is taken only (as it is in the world of the plain meaning, the world of action) of actual deed as it exists in this world.
Therefore the Jewish people's ownership of Eretz Yisrael too came about specifically through their entry and conquest in deed.
But on the other hand, through the actual deed of the Jewish people the very essence of the land is changed, and there is revealed G‑d's giving of the very essence of the land, so that it becomes Eretz Yisrael, a Holy Land, permanently, as above.
(From talks of 20 Menachem Av and Motzaei Shabbos Parshas Re'eh, 5738)
Key Lesson
The Midrash sees G‑d's word as already a deed; Rashi, the plain meaning, reckons only with what is actually done in this world. And precisely through that actual deed of the Jewish people, the land was changed in its very essence and became Eretz Yisrael forever. A Jew's action below does what nothing else can: since the Giving of the Torah, it fixes holiness in the physical world itself.