Parsha Pearls: Parshas Matos-Masei

 

Is it a mitzvah or a sin?
Does the Ramban Contradict the Three Oaths?
The Ramban Does Not Advocate Conquest
Only with a Prophetic Command
Fruits of Eretz Yisroel During Exile
Basing Sins on the Torah

It has also been proposed by Rabbi David Smith (Derech Hachaim, p. 25) that the Ramban’s intent was that even the commandment that a Jew should live in the land as an individual during exile applies only when living in the land is consistent with exile, that is, when a non-Jewish government rules the land. But living under a Jewish government such as the State of Israel might itself constitute a violation of the oath. The Ramban felt no need to mention this exception to the commandment because he did not foresee the rise of a Jewish government in the Holy Land before moshiach.

…

Some people mistakenly think that the Ramban means that the mitzvah during exile is the same obligation as during the time of the Beis Hamikdash: to conquer the land and drive out its inhabitants. But this is incorrect – this would be forbidden by the oaths against taking over the land “as a wall” and “forcing the end” of exile (Kesubos 111a). Rather, he means that if an individual Jew lives in the land, he fulfills a mitzvah. This is apparent from the Ramban’s choice of words: “If so, it is a positive commandment for all generations, in which every one of us is obligated, even during the exile.” (Vayoel Moshe 2:2)

Similarly, Rabbi Shmuel Salant quotes the law that a wife may force her husband to move to Eretz Yisroel (Kesubos 110b), and then asks why – even according to the Ramban, he says, there is no obligation on every Jew to move to Eretz Yisroel, since this is one of the Three Oaths. He therefore explains that she can only force him to move if she is willing to move even without him. In that case, if he refuses to come along, he is not fulfilling his marital obligations to her, and he must divorce her. But if she wants to move only with him, then he has no obligation to move. (Printed in Tzefunos, year 3 issue 1, p. 46)

***

 The Minchas Elazar explains that in the time of Moshiach, the mitzvah to conquer the land and expel its inhabitants will not simply come back into force like terumah and maaser. Moshiach will come in a miraculous way, predicted by a prophet; he himself will be a prophet close to Moshe Rabbeinu’s level (Rambam Teshuva 9:2), and he will be able to tell each Jew what tribe he comes from (Melachim 12:3). He will succeed in getting all Jews to repent (Melachim 11:4), a feat no one could accomplish under normal conditions. All the gentile nations will call in the name of Hashem (ibid.), and they will come to hear Moshiach as well (Teshuva 9:2). The statement of the Gemora (Shabbos 63a), quoted by the Rambam (Melachim 12:2), that “there is no difference between this world and the days of Moshiach except the subjugation of the nations,” means that in the general world there will be nothing miraculous, but Moshiach himself will be a wondrous person. Thus the Jewish people will not have to conquer Eretz Yisroel in those future times; Moshiach, with his influence over the nations, will solve that problem. It is thus incorrect to say that the mitzvah of taking over the land will apply in the future, for even in the future it will not be a mitzvah for the Jewish people; it will be Moshiach’s task. (Minchas Elazar 5:16)

The Minchas Elazar adds that nowadays, since the Zionists have made living in Eretz Yisroel the center of their ideology, even the Ramban would agree that we should not put effort into this mitzvah. This is comparable to the one-stone altar called a matzeivah, which was used by the Avos and was beloved to Hashem at that time, but later became forbidden because the idol worshippers had begun to use it (Rashi on Devarim 16:22).

…

Some Zionists have claimed that it is better for irreligious Jews to live in Eretz Yisroel than elsewhere in the world. They based themselves on the Yalkut on Eichah 3:20: “Said the Holy One, blessed is He: If only the children of My people would be in Eretz Yisroel, even if they defile it!” But the true meaning of the Yalkut is in line with the Ramban in his introduction to the book of Devarim. The Ramban says that the reason Moshe Rabbeinu told the Jews all the stories of how they rebelled in the wilderness, and how Hashem Yisborach forgave them, was so that they should not be afraid to enter Eretz Yisroel. The Jews might have said, “How can we live in Eretz Yisroel? Everyone commits some sins, and in that holy land where everything proceeds with strict justice, we will be punished immediately.” Therefore Moshe taught them how merciful and forgiving Hashem Yisborach is. He wants his children to stay in the land He gave them, even though they sin occasionally. This is what the Yalkut means: “If only the children of My people would be in Eretz Yisroel” – as long as they are My people, even if they commit some sins. But those who completely turn their backs on Hashem, His people and the Torah have no place in the Holy Land. (Vayoel Moshe 1:103)

This is the time of year when we mourn the destruction of Jerusalem and give thought to why it has not yet been rebuilt. The criticisms voiced by Yirmiyahu Hanavi and Rabbi Yochanan are still applicable to us today. We have in our midst many false prophets who use Torah arguments to claim that we have the right to rule over Eretz Yisroel during galus. Those who know better are, for the most part, silent on this issue. That leaves us simple Jews to decide the matter on our own. If we understand the spirit of the Torah – that Hashem placed us in galus and wants us there for many good reasons – we will know that any efforts to counter His decree are wrong and will ultimately be met with failure.

…

Furthermore, our non-acceptance of galus prolongs the galus. Rabbi Yehuda Halevi describes a dialogue between the king of the Khazars and a rabbi. The rabbi states that the Jewish people is closer to G-d today, in their humble state of exile, than if they were a mighty nation. The king asks: “That might be so if your humility were voluntary; but it is involuntary, and if you had power you would slay.” The rabbi replies: “You have touched our weak spot, O King of the Khazars. If the majority of us had accepted our humble status for the sake of G-d and His Torah, G-d would not have forced us to bear it for such a long period. But only the smallest portion of our people thinks thus…If we bore our exile and degradation for G-d’s sake, as we should, we would be outstanding even by the standards of the generation of the messianic era, for which we hope, and we would accelerate the day of our long-awaited deliverance.” (Kuzari Maamar 1, 113-115)

Full Reading:

https://torahjews.org/2023/11/26/parsha-pearls-matos-masei

Tags:

Rambam – Ramban  David Smith – VaYoel Moshe – Minchas Eleazar – Isaac of Komarno – Bach – Kuzari -