Moreshet Shaul: Eretz Yisrael in Halacha and in Sanctity – part I | Various Rabbis | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
Moreshet Shaul

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

[The piece comes from a response to a letter of Yaakov Shtiglitz (then a student at Merkaz Harav, now Harav Yaakov Ariel, the former Chief Rabbi of Ramat Gan). The letter commented on a section from Rav Yisraeli’s early work, Perakim B’Machshevet Yisrael. We will skip over certain intricate halachic parts of the discussion.]
In raising the matter of the connection between Halacha and philosophy, you discuss my contention that the hidden sanctity of Eretz Yisrael does not find direct expression in Halacha. You believe that this contradicts what Rav Kook writes in Shabbat Ha’aretz (ch. 15): "The mitzva to settle in the Land is not dependent on conquering it and sanctifying it…"
In fact, the very matter of whether there is an independent mitzva from the Torah to live in Eretz Yisrael is the subject of dispute. The Rashbash (2), Pe’at Hashulchan (1:9) and several other Acharonim’s understanding of the Rambam is that there is no such mitzva from the Torah, and this also seems to be the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim in Tosafot (Ketubot 110b).
Actually, even if there is a mitzva from the Torah, it does not overlap precisely with the specific place’s spiritual sanctity. This is what the Tashbetz (III:200) writes: "The sanctity in regard to the Divine Presence and the sanctity regarding mitzvot are two different matters. Sanctity of the Divine Presence exists specifically to the west of the Jordan River, whereas the kedusha [that is related to] mitzvot is on either [side of the Jordan]." The obligation to move to Eretz Yisrael is due to the sanctity regarding mitzvot.
In the language of the Kaftor Vaferach, which Rav Kook cited, different expressions are used. In one place, he writes: "… the sanctity of the entire Land, from the time of the first sanctification (at the time of Yehoshua) and on, remains as it was." This indicates that the conquest of the Land and its sanctification in relation to its inhabitation renew the mitzva, just that [according to his opinion, once the sanctity begins] it does not cease. In any case, this is not the spiritual sanctity of the Land that started from the time of Creation, and it applies only west of the Jordan. Thus, the spiritual sanctity does not align precisely with the practical implications of the Land.
It is clear that the foundation [of the status of the Land] is the spiritual sanctity, but that in order for this to find fruition, the fulfillment of other conditions is needed. According to some, it can also expand or contract in regard to space, as can happen when [the control that came] with conquest ceases. This aligns with what I wrote that the innate sanctity does not have a direct expression in Halacha. In other words, the halacha is influenced by the spiritual foundations, but the mechanism is activated only indirectly through other practical factors, whether in the positive or the negative direction.
The Ramban (Omissions, Aseh #4) does not relate in presenting his thesis (that there is a mitzva from the Torah to conquer and inhabit the Land in all eras) to the connection to the spiritual sanctity of the Land (the Kaftor Vaferech does). [Rav Yisraeli then goes into some more detailed halachic analysis, which he says will be discussed in his upcoming book (Eretz Hemdah, published in fact the next year)].