Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:39:17 IST
From: Shaul Wallach <F66204@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Land of Israel (Canaan only part of Israel)
 <92267.102133F66204@BARILVM.BITNET> <1992Sep29.155002.202924@uctvax.uct.ac.za>

In article <1992Sep29.155002.202924@uctvax.uct.ac.za>, naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
(Baby Doc Naturman) writes:

>In article <92267.102133F66204@BARILVM.BITNET>, Shaul Wallach
><F66204@BARILVM.BITNET> writes:
>> In article <66411@cup.portal.com>, hassan@cup.portal.com (hassan monu alam)
>> writes:
>>>land of Israel. Different groups put different emphases on this particular
>>>Is there an agreed upon definition what the land of Israel is? Are there
>>>fixed boundaries? Or does it simply refer to a homeland?
>>>Question is in the spirit of understaning, hope it will be taken that
>>>way.
>>>Hassan>
>>     This question is much more complicated than it sounds. The Land
>> of Israel does not simply refer to a homeland, but it does have
>> boundaries. However, various Jewish sources give different definitions
>> of the boundaries and there are different interpretations of what
>> places we know today these definitions refer to.
>>
>>  (borders omitted)
>
>The borders you gave are not the borders of Israel but the borders of Canaan.
>The land of Israel refers to all land promised to Abraham and subsequently
>inhereted by Isaac and Jacob (Israel). Canaan was only the a small part of
>this
>land, that part from which the Israelites were commanded to oust the
>"Canaanites". Israel also comprised "all the land of the Aramaeans" as well as
>the eastern dersert (called the Aravah but which should not be confused with
>the modern region bearing that name) and Kedem which was the area just west of
>the Euphrates.

     As I wrote before, the borders of Erez Yisrael present a involved subject
that cannot br summed up as simply as you would like to imply in your
response. The Enzyklopedia Talmudit (Vol. 2, ET in the sequel) devotes
a 36-page article to Erez Yisrael, of which 8 pages alone (pp. 205-213)
deal just with the borders. Here I will try to give a brief summary of
the material in these pages as it relates to the points you brought up.

    First of all, we must define what land was promised to Abraham
Avinu and his descendants, for what time and under what conditions.
In Gen. 15:18-21, G-d gave to his seed the land of 10 nations, from
the River of Egypt to the Euphrates. These nations included the 7
nations of Canaan plus three others - the Qeni, the Qenizi and the
Qadmoni. However, only the land of the 7 nations of Canaan was
given to Israel as an inheritance (Deut. 7:1), and only this land
was shown to Moses (Deut. 34:4, Bava Batra 56a). The lands of the
other 3 nations (over whose identity opinions differ, cf. B.B. ibid.)
are to be an inheritance in the days of the Messiah (Bereshit Rabba
44). According to the Ramban (Deut. 19:8), the 3 nations will be
given to us when it becomes clear to G-d that our love for Him has
become complete and never-ending and that we will sin no more.
Unfortunately, I don't think we have reached this level in spiritual
development yet.

     Opinions are divided over whether the extended borders up to
the Euphrates are to be considered part of Erez Yisrael (ET, pp. 208-
209). However, they do not have the same sanctity as Erez Yisrael as
far as observing all the commandments which depend on Erez Yisrael,
as will be explained below.

>The full land of Israel extended from "The River of Egypt to the
>river Euphrates"

     This is the land of the 10 nations as mentioned above. But not
all of it is the inheritance of Bnei Yisrael, as explained above.
See also below.

>                  Its southern border was common with the northern border of
>the land of Havilah.

     This is new to me. What is your source?

>                     Canaan comprised the whole mediterranean coast from the
>Nile to the bay of Alexandretta, there is no mention of any cutoff point south
>of the bay, and so the full land of Israel also included this region. The
>northern border was a mountain pass in the Taurus mountains.The eastern border
>is the Euphrates.

      I remember seeing this reasoning in Rabbi Hirsch's commentary to
the Pentateuch, on Numbers 34 to the best of my memory. As long as you
are dealing with the land of the 10 nations, you have a better case. But
if we are dealing with the land of Canaan, it becomes more difficult to
hold that the northern border reaches up to the Taurus mountains. ET
(p. 207) does quote some ancient sources supporting this view, but
cites other opinions holding that the border does not reach so far
north. From the language of the Rambam (Hilchot Qiddush Hahodesh 18:16),
it appears that the northern border reaches to 35 degrees north latitude,
placing it a little north of Tripoli, but south of Ludqia in northern
Syria. However, even this is still far north of what is actually called
Erez Yisrael (See below).

>The idea that the river of Egypt is the Wadi Al-Arish is a modern
>nonsensical idea, the term was always understood as the Nile. Now bearing in
>mind that Israel extended up to Shor, east of the Sea of Reeds (Yam-suf), it
>appears that only the tip of the easternmost branch of the Nile delta was part
>of the border. This point more or less marked the junction between the
>Mediterranean and Yam-suf. The border between Yam-suf and the Havilah border
>is clearly the Red Sea proper.
>
>The main problem we have is that it is not clear where the Havilah border
>actually is.

     As long as you rely on Gen. 15:18, you can hold that the River
of Egypt is the Nile. However, Numbers 34:5, giving the borders of
the land of Cana`an which was the whole inheritance of Bnei Yisrael,
reads "nahla Misrayim". On this also opinions are divided. Some,
following the ancient Targumim, do hold that it refers to the Nile.
But R. Sa`adia Gaon translates it in his Arabic Tafsir by "Wad el-Arish",
and later authorities follow his view (ET, p. 206). Do you still consider
this a "modern nonsensical idea"?

>It is true that this vast region was never united under a single king but
>Judaism considers borders to be determined by G-d not by conquests.

    In this you are completely wrong. In the practice of Judaism, borders
are determined by conquest, not by the Bible. Here is the definition the
Rambam gives for Erez Yisrael (Hilkhot Teruma 1:2):

   Erez Yisrael as mentioned everywhere is in the lands which a king of
   Israel or a prophet conquered in accordance with the majority of
   Israel, and this is what is called a "conquest of the many". But
   an individual of Israel or a family or a tribe who went and
   conquered for themselves a place, even within the land which was
   given to Abraham, it is not called Erez Yisrael in order that all
   then commandments be observed therein.

The Rambam goes on to explain (ibid. 1:3) that the places in Aram
which David conquered are not considered wholly as Erez Yisrael because
he conquered them before all of the lands of the 7 nations of Canaan
were conquered. The lands in Aram that David conquered are called
Suriya (Mishna Shevi`it 6:2).

    The Mishna (ibid. 6:1) defines what lands are subject to the
restrictions of the Sabbatical year, and makes a distinction between
the lands conquered by those who returned from Babylon (in the time
of Ezra) and those conquered by those who came from Egypt (in the
time of Joshua). The latter conquered more territory, but this
extended only up to "the river and to Amana". The identification
of the "river" and Amana are a subject of widely varying opinions
(ET, pp. 209-211, see also the commentary of R. Y. Qehati on the
Mishna op cit.). R. Qehati cites the opinion of R. Shaul Yisraeli
Shelit"a that the "river" refers to the northern boundary and is
to be identified as Wad el Qisemiya, which according to the map
in ET is the Litani in southern Lebanon. ET (p. 210) quotes a later
authority who writes that everyone is used to saying that the
northern border of Erez Yisrael is Nahal Qisemiya. As far as Amana
of the Mishna goes, some commentators identify it with one of the
peaks of Mount Lebanon.

     All this refers to the northern limits of the conquest of
those who came out of Egypt. However, the exiles who returned from
Babylon conquered only as far north as Akko on the coast and a strip
inland extending to Keziv (south of Tyre). Only the latter conquest
conferred sanctity on the land for all time, in contrast to the
conquest by Joshua, whose sanctity became void with the Babylonian
exile (Rambam, Hilchot Teruma 1:5). Thus there is room for discussion
today to determine exactly what parts of modern Israel must observe
the laws of tithes, Sabbatical year, and other laws which depend on
the Land of Israel.

    We have thus seen that the operative definition of Erez Yisrael
depends precisely on what territory was conquered by those who came
from Egypt or from Babylon. The Rambam (op cit.) gives the precise
details. On the basis of these definitions, R. Judah Hannasi was
able to exempt places like Bet Shean from the Sabbatical year
restrictions (Rambam, op cit.), even though they are part of Erez
Yisrael.

Shalom,

Shaul Wallach
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish