Friday, August 18, 2006

eivar hayarden and yishuv eretz yisrael

The Meshech Chochma in the opening to this week’s parsha addresses a kashe raised on the Ramban's opinion that there is a mitzvas aseh of yishuv Eretz Yisrael. The gemara in Sota asks why Moshe was so anxious to enter Eretz Yisrael – did he desire to eat the fruit of the land?! Obviously not – his desire was to fulfill the mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz. According to the Ramban, even without mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz Moshe should have wanted to enter Eretz Yisrael simply to fulfill the mitzvah of kibbush and yishuv ha’aretz! The Meshech Chochma answers that Moshe had already fulfilled yishuv ha’aretz by conquering the land of Sichon and Og. The simple proof he offers is that it is unthinkable that the tribes of Reuvain and Gad would want to completely abrogate the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz by living in Eiver haYarden – it must be that these lands too are included in the mitzvah of yishuv. What the Meshech Chochma takes as a given is a major debate in rishonim and achronim. The Mishna in Bikkurin has an argument between Tanna Kamma and R’ Yosi whether bikkurim can be brought from Eiver haYarden. R’ Yosi holds that these lands are patur because this land is not “zvas chalav u’devash” – does this mean these are not included in the borders of Eretz Yisrael, or simply that these lands, although part of Eretz Yisrael, do not produce choice produce and are therefore exempted by the pasuk? Rashi (Sanhedrin 11b) holds that the korban ha’omer could be brought (b’di’evad) from wheat grown in Eiver haYarden, while the Ran (Nedarim 22) disagrees. The Parashas Derachim notes Moshe’s sevara for davening to enter the Eretz Yisarel after defeating Sichon v’Og was based on “neder sh’hutar miktzato hutar kulo”, a neder which has been partially been annulled is completely void. Clearly, the logic here assumes that entering the Eiver haYarden was already a partial termination of the neder, yet at the same time Hashem did not acquiesce to this sevara! I have not done a full survey of the mekoros on this topic - just wanted to call attention to the issue for now. Yishma chacham v'yosif lekach

14 comments:

  1. Bill Selliger10:59 AM

    Which Derech in the Preshes Drachim? I can check the new edition of the P"D (which I'm sure you don't have)...the Magiah adds superb notes...he might point the way to other sources.

    ReplyDelete
  2. l.j. horowitz11:03 AM

    I don't remember where I saw this particular Sifri, but if I recall correctly, there is machlokes Tanaim whether the Yarden itself is considered a part of the boundaries of Eretz Yisroel. The corollary of this machlokes could have a bearing on this inyan. If we take the position that the Yarden itself is a part of Eretz Yisroel, that could mean that beyond that Yarden, beyond the bounds of Eretz Yisroel, it is not part of Eretz Yisroel vis a vis the kiyum of the mitzveh of Eretz Yisroel. According to the opposing point of view, if the Yarden is not considered a part of the boundaries of Eretz Yisroel, than how could the area beyond i.e. Eiver HaYarden, have a din of Eretz Yisroel? In any event, this is problematic when confronted with the approach outlined in your post. Any thoughts? Do you know where this Medrash is?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re: the omer from eiver ha-yarden, I remember hearing how the Rav ztl noted that the mishnah in the first perek of kelim identifies kedushas EY because of the korban omer -- why didnt the mishnah identify any of the other more common mitzvos ha-teluyos ba-aretz (terumah, maaser, chalah, shmitah, etc)? The explanation is that the mishnah is focusing on aspects of kedushas ha-aretz with respect to the kedushas ha-mikdash. Thus, the korban omer could be different from kedushas ha-aretz le-inyan yishuv ha-aretz as the korban ha-omer is tied more to kedushas ha-mikdash then the aretz.

    Re: the MC basic question (it has been a while since I have seen it inside), the gemara in Sotah simply says that there are many mitzvos ha-teluyos ba-aretz which Moshe wanted to be mekayem. Why couldn't one of those many mitzvos be yishuv EY?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bill - new edition, page 99. Yes I do own a copy : )
    I.J. Horowitz - I have seen this and cannot seem to remember where. I believe the Rogatchover addresses this exact Sifri and ties it to the Ran in Nedarim 22, but I am having a brain freeze up trying to recall where I saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>>Why couldn't one of those many mitzvos be yishuv EY?

    I wouldn't call yishuv a mitzvah hateluya ba'aretz the way teruma or ma'aser is.

    Re: kedushas ha'aretz viz a viz kedushas mikdash, that fits the lashon of the Ran who seems to indicate there is some kedusha but not enough to bring omer. But why not use bechor as an example, which also is not brought from chutz l'aretz?

    ReplyDelete
  6. yehuda11:49 AM

    Had Moshe entered Eretz Yisroel and died soon after (as he knew he would)would that be considered yishuv haretz? Many shitos hold a temporary stay in EY is no mitzvah of yishuv haretz.However mitzvos such as Trumah and Maaser could of been done even by a quick visit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just looked back at the lashon ha-gemara. It says "harbeh mitzvos nitztavu yisrael ve-ein miskaymin elah be-eretz yisrael." I would think that yeshuv ha-aretz is one of the mitzvos that are only mekuyam in eretz yisrael. The gemara did not say mitzvos ha-teluyos ba-aretz similar to the lashon in the mishnah in kidushin (36b). Again it has been a while since I saw the meshech chochmah -- but could it be that the question was as follows:

    the achronim discuss whether one should put oneself in a position to become chayav in mitzvah if you otherwise would not be chayav. They actually bring a rayah from this gemara that one should make onself chayav. Yishuv EY is different. At least the simple reading of the Ramban is that it is a mitzvah chiyuvis (putting aside R'Chaim ha-Kohen in Tosfos and R'Moshe in the Igros where he says it is a mitzvah kiyumis). Thus, if it is a mitzvah kiyumis, Moshe should want to do the mitzvah simply to mekayem the chiyuv. Terumos, maasros etc. are all chiyuvim but only if the circumstances present themselves. Thus, by the fact that Moshe was looking to put himself in a chiyuv situation rather than saying that there is an affirmative chiyuv to live in EY, perhaps that is the question on the Ramban (with the answer dealing with ever ha-yarden). Maybe this is clear from the MC, maybe my sevara is off. Any thoughts?

    Re: the kedushas ha-aretz and the omer, my recollection is that the Rav did tie it to the Ran in nedarim.

    ReplyDelete
  8. >>>Had Moshe entered Eretz Yisroel and died soon after (as he knew he would)would that be considered yishuv haretz

    What is the shiur of temporary in this context? Is it 30 days?

    The M.C. does not deal with chiyuvis/kiyumis aspect, but I am not sure what you gain by reformulating the question that way.

    ReplyDelete
  9. anon13:02 PM

    the mashmaus of the gemara is that Moshe was looking to become mechuyav in the mitzvos of EY (per the achronim's discussion) -- not that getting there alone is a chiyuv. I guess that helps me understand the MC's question on the Ramban. Maybe it wasnt a problem in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  10. anon13:02 PM

    the mashmaus of the gemara is that Moshe was looking to become mechuyav in the mitzvos of EY (per the achronim's discussion) -- not that getting there alone is a chiyuv. I guess that helps me understand the MC's question on the Ramban. Maybe it wasnt a problem in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Bill Selliger9:21 PM

    I checked the P"D over Shabbos...harei lifanecha k'shulchan aruch...check out the notes...everything you want to know about the issue is there.

    ReplyDelete
  12. yehuda11:43 AM

    I assume the shiur of a permenant stay in EY as to be mikayom Yishuv Horetz is an indefinite one.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hey nice blog. I need to find a Cash Advance site

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whats up!! Anybody know where I can find any good Posters

    ReplyDelete