גריי מאטר א, מדינת ישראל, שטחים תמורת שלוםGray Matter I, The State of Israel, Exchanging Land for Peace

א׳

1Hashkafic Considerations

ב׳

2Peace negotiations and agreements between Israel and her neighbors have aroused much controversy in recent years. In the next two chapters, we discuss the permissibility of ceding Israeli land in the attempt to achieve peace with other nations. In this section, we will address the hashkafic issues (claims based on religious perspective as opposed to religious law).

ג׳

3The Importance of the Land of Israel

ד׳

4Before discussing the technical permissibility of ceding land, it should be emphasized that everyone recognizes the great importance of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel). The great love that the Jewish nation has for Eretz Yisrael fuels the passionate debate regarding this issue. The following anecdote from the Gemara (Ketubot 112a) illustrates the love we have for Eretz Yisrael:

ה׳

5Rabi Abba kissed the rocks of Acco. Rabi Chanina repaired the roads of Eretz Yisrael (Rashi: "Because of his love of Eretz Yisrael he made this effort, so that no one would cast aspersions on the quality of roads in Eretz Yisrael "). Rabi Ami and Rabi Assi moved the students [during the summer] from the sun to the shade and [during the winter] from the shade to the sun (Rashi: so they would not complain about Israel's weather). Rabi Chiya bar Gamda used to roll in the dirt of Eretz Yisrael, as the Scripture (Tehillim 102:15) states, "For your servants desire her stones and find charm in her dirt."

ו׳

6We even love the rocks and dirt of Eretz Yisrael, despite their lack of economic worth. While everyone agrees that Eretz Yisrael is very important to the Jewish people, some believe that Eretz Yisrael's central role in Judaism, and especially its role in the redemption process, precludes any discussion of ceding land, even if the result would be peace. Others feel that circumstances might arise where exchanging portions of Eretz Yisrael for peace is permissible.

ז׳

7Hashkafic Opposition to Any Cession

ח׳

8Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap believed that Eretz Yisrael is so vital to the Jewish people that it may never be yielded. He wrote a fiery reaction to the division of Palestine suggested by the Peel Commission in 1937 (published in Techumin 9:271-273 [see p. 280 for a map outlining the proposed boundaries]). When there was not yet a Jewish state, Rav Charlap opposed accepting anything short of the entire Eretz Yisrael:

ט׳

9There is no doubt that if it should come to, God forbid, being forced to sign an international agreement which would include concessions on our rights to Eretz Yisrael, it is better for the signers to cut their thumbs off [!] than to cut away any portion of… beautiful Zion, upon which God's beauty appears. Just as one who claims that the entire Torah is of Divine origin, save for one letter, is deemed a heretic, similarly one who says that all of Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jews, save for one inch, detracts from the holiness of the Land.¹It should be noted that two outstanding authorities, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski (Techumin 9:293-295) and Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Techumin 9:276-277), permitted accepting the proposal of the Peel Commission. Their rulings do not necessarily indicate how they would feel about ceding land today, because the land that the Peel Commission gave to the Arabs had not yet been under Jewish control.

י׳

10Opponents of "land for peace" also cite certain aggadic statements to support their position. They often quote Rabi Shimon Bar Yochai's statement (Berachot 5a) that God presented the Jewish people with three precious gifts, which are acquired only through great difficulty: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World to Come. They also point to the Rashbam's explanation of why God subjected Avraham to the ordeal of binding Yitzchak (Bereishit 22:1). He suggests that God meted out a punishment to Avraham for making a peace treaty with Avimelech, King of the Philistines.

י״א

11The passionate love for Eretz Yisrael is further fueled by what some believe regarding the resettling of the Land of Israel in the past century. Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook is said to have often cited the Gemara (Sanhedrin 98a) to show that the State of Israel represents the atchalta dig'ulah, the beginning of the Final Redemption:

י״ב

12Rabi Abba states that there is no greater indication that the Redemption has arrived than what is described by the Navi (Yechezkel 36:9), "Hear ye, O mountains of Israel, your branches should bear fruit for My nation, Israel."

י״ג

13The Maharsha (commenting on this passage) presents two alternative interpretations whether the fruits spoken of are natural fruits or "supernatural fruits." Rav Tzvi Yehudah's belief that the Gemara's promise was already fulfilled presumably adopts the first interpretation.

י״ד

14The deep commitment to Eretz Yisrael is further reinforced by the belief of some that the current return to Israel is irreversible. This attitude may stem from the promises of many prophets that God will not reverse the Final Redemption. Amos, for example, concludes his book with these sentiments (9:13-15):

ט״ו

15I shall return my nation, Israel, to the land, and they will rebuild abandoned cities, and they shall settle [them], and they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall create gardens and eat their produce. And I shall plant them on their land, and they will no longer be removed from their land that I have given them, says Hashem your God.

ט״ז

16Indeed, there is a story told of Rav Yitzchak Herzog's return trip to Israel in 1943, while the Battle of El Alamein was raging, which conveys this firm belief. Upon being warned of the danger inherent in the return trip to Israel at that time, Rav Herzog's replied that the Beit Hamikdash was destroyed twice and will not be destroyed again. Rav Herzog uttered these words when the Nazis (may their evil names be blotted out) were only ninety miles from Eretz Yisrael and were expected to defeat the allies at El Alamein.

י״ז

17The Ramban, in his commentary to Vayikra (26:16), states that the destruction describes there refers to destruction of the First Temple, and the similar destruction described in Devarim (Chapter 28) alludes to the destruction of the Second Temple. Rav Hershel Schachter (Be'ikvei Hatzon 32:15-16) understands that according to the Ramban, no destruction will occur in Israel subsequent to the destruction of the Second Temple. Rav Schachter notes that the Ramban, in his description of the Second Temple's destruction, focuses on the destruction of the Jewish government, and not on the destruction of the Temple itself. Since what happened then is never supposed to repeat itself, Rav Schachter suggests that the redemption becomes irreversible once a sovereign Jewish state has been established in Eretz Yisrael.

י״ח

18Hashkafah Behind Exchanging Land for Peace

י״ט

19Rav Yehuda Amital (Alon Shevut 100:34-62) argues that we must prioritize our national values. From the core values of the physical Jewish people, the Torah, and the Land, Rav Amital seeks to prove that a clear hierarchy exists (following the order that we have listed them), so saving people takes precedence over the Land of Israel. Thus, if it is in the interest of saving lives to relinquish sections of Eretz Yisrael, we must do so.²This author has heard Rav Yaakov Meidan respectfully counter Rav Amital's claim. Rav Meidan argues that the needs of the Land and people of Israel are identical. It can thus never be in the interest of the people to relinquish control of sections of Eretz Yisrael.

כ׳

20In a similar vein, Rav Ovadia Yosef (Techumin 10:8) cites the a story from World War I to emphasize that the desire for redemption should not override the value of human life:

כ״א

21People said to Rav Chaim Soloveitchik, during a conversation, that if this war (the First World War) would bring the redemption, perhaps it was worthwhile. Rav Chaim rebuked them and said, "It is better that many redemptions should be delayed from the Jewish people than that one Jewish life should be lost. And so, if the question were to come before us, that by sacrificing one Jew the Messiah would come, of course we would rule that it is better for the Messiah not to come, and a Jew should not die. Does not pikuach nefesh override every mitzvah in the Torah, including the Messiah and the redemption?"

כ״ב

22As we have already noted, the hashkafah of those who permit returning land in no way intends to belittle the value of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, who also permits exchanging land for peace, once cited a story involving Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook to illustrate this point. Rav Tzvi Yehudah cried the day the State of Israel was established out of disappointment that much of Eretz Yisrael would wind up under non-Jewish control. Rav Lichtenstein firmly stated that even if one does not agree with Rav Tzvi Yehudah's view regarding the exchange of land for peace, his view regarding the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael must be accepted. For the Jewish people, Eretz Yisrael is not merely a national homeland, but the Holy Land given by God to His nation. Surrendering land for peace must involve great pain for a Jew, analogous to amputating a limb to save the life of an individual.

כ״ג

23Halachic Arguments

כ״ד

24Aside from their hashkafic considerations, each side in the debate about ceding land in return for peace presents halachic claims. We will begin by citing a number of sources around which the debate focuses, after which we will explain how each side interprets these sources.

כ״ה

25The Opinion of the Ramban

כ״ו

26The Torah (Bemidbar 33:53) commands, "And you shall conquer the land [of Canaan] and settle in it, because it is for you I have given the land to inherit it." The Ramban comments:

כ״ז

27In my opinion, this is a positive commandment with which we are commanded to settle and conquer the land,¹For a discussion of whether to translate the Ramban's term as "sovereign control" or "military conquest," see the debate between Rav Nachum Rabinowitz and Rav Yaakov Ariel in Techumin (4:302-306 and 5:174-186). as it is given to us and we must not reject our inheritance from God.

כ״ח

28The Ramban explains his position at greater length in his critique of the Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot (additional positive commandment #4). He concludes his comments by stating:

כ״ט

29Accordingly, [conquering and living in Eretz Yisrael] is a positive commandment that applies in all generations and obligates each individual, even during the time of exile, as is evident from many places in the Talmud. The Sifrei says that "it happened that Rabi Yehudah Ben Beteira, Rabi Matya Ben Charash, Rabi Chananya Ben Achi, Rabi Yehoshua, and Rabi Natan were departing Eretz Yisrael. They came to Platia and recalled Eretz Yisrael. Their eyes swelled with tears, and they tore their garments and mentioned the following verse: 'And you shall conquer and settle in it, and be certain to do this.' They proclaimed that settling and conquering the land of Israel is equivalent to all of the mitzvot."

ל׳

30From these comments of the Ramban, we see that he considers it a mitzvah to conquer the land of Israel. The Ramban does not address surrendering this land for peace, but we shall soon see how those who oppose ceding land support themselves with his comments.

ל״א

31The Argument of the Minchat Chinuch

ל״ב

32The Sefer Hachinuch (425) writes that if someone has the opportunity to kill a member of the seven Canaanite nations without endangering himself, failing to do so violates the mitzvah to destroy them (Devarim 7:10). The Minchat Chinuch (a commentary on the Sefer Hachinuch) finds the Sefer Hachinuch's ruling puzzling. Why should this mitzvah only apply when there is no danger involved? Although most mitzvot do not require that we sacrifice our lives to fulfill them, here the Torah requires us to do battle with the seven nations. It is understood, the Minchat Chinuch points out, that the Torah's laws do not assume that a miracle will occur (as explained by the Ramban's comments to Bemidbar 5:20 and 13:2). Since the normal course of the world is that people die in battle, we see that the Torah commands us to fight with the seven nations even at risk to ourselves.²Although the Minchat Chinuch concludes with an expression of some doubt, a number of Acharonim do embrace his argument, including Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Meromei Sadeh, Eruvin 45a and Kiddushin 43a) and Rav Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik (Parshat Beshalach, p. 32; cited by Rav J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Probems 3:296-297).

ל״ג

33The argument for prohibiting exchange of land for peace combines the comments of the Ramban and Minchat Chinuch. It claims that the Torah obligates us to conquer Eretz Yisrael with force, so this mitzvah, by its very nature, entails risking our lives. We thus cannot surrender portions of Eretz Yisrael even if we are certain that it will save lives, for this would violate our obligation to conquer. Among those who make this argument is Dayan Yehoshua Menachem Aaronberg (Teshuvot Devar Yehoshua 2:48 and Techumin 10:26-33). Of course, Dayan Aaronberg notes, if there is concern that military defeat (Heaven forbid) will remove more territory from Jewish control, the obligation to wage war does not apply.

ל״ד

34Response to the "Ramban - Minchat Chinuch Argument"

ל״ה

35The above argument against relinquishing land for the sake of peace is based on the Ramban's belief that it is a mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael even if it involves loss of life. Rav Yehuda Amital (Alon Shevut 100:34-62) counters that the Rambam (Maimonides) believes that the mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael does not apply today. He questions the ability of a rabbi to rule that we must risk life in accordance with the Ramban (Nachmanides), if the Rambam does not agree with his assertion. Moreover, some Acharonim interpret the Ramban as ruling that only the mitzvah of settling the land, but not conquering the land, applies today. The Pe'at Hashulchan (Hilchot Eretz Yisrael 1:3) rules in accordance with this view.³The Pe'at Hashulchan is considered authoritative regarding mitzvot of the Land of Israel.

ל״ו

36According to this approach we are no longer commanded to conquer Eretz Yisrael. Thus, if surrendering land will lead to peace, it would be permissible to do so. The mitzvah of settling the land of Israel can still be fulfilled in those areas that remain under Israeli control. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in a speech at Yeshivat Har Etzion in which he defended the Camp David accords with Egypt, cited Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Rav Moshe Feinstein, and Rav Yitzchak Hutner as believing that Israel is permitted to exchange land for peace.

ל״ז

37The Prohibition of Lo Techaneim

ל״ח

38The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 19b) prohibits the sale of Israeli real estate to non-Jews, providing another possible reason to prohibit ceding land. This is based on the Torah's words, "Lo techaneim" (Devarim 7:2). The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 20a) interprets these words as "lo titein lahem chanayah bakarka" ("Do not give them permanent dwelling in the Land"). Some prohibit giving land to non-Jews even to save lives (see Teshuvot Dvar Yehoshua 2:48), while others argue that this prohibition may be ignored if lives would thereby be saved (see Rav Ovadia Yosef, Techumin 10:34-47). Rav Ovadia also points to the minority of authorities, such as the Bach (Choshen Mishpat 249:2), who claim that lo techaneim does not apply to non-Jews who do not worship idols, such as Muslims.

ל״ט

39A Questionable Peace

מ׳

40Until now, we have discussed the question of surrendering land to secure peace. The issue that Israel faces now is whether to surrender land in exchange for an uncertain peace. The country is divided as to whether the current peace process will bring peace or further danger to Israel. Even Israel's top generals disagree as to whether ceding land in this case will actually bring peace. The question that arises now is whether land may be exchanged when we are uncertain of the results of this action. In this situation, Rav Hershel Schachter (Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, 16:79-80) offers one suggestion for determining how to proceed:

מ״א

41The question at hand seems comparable to that of a sick individual who must decide the course of action his doctors should undertake. The Poskim discuss the case of a patient who is fatally ill but who could receive treatment that would prolong his life although cause painful side effects. In such a situation, since there is no consensus whether going ahead with such treatment is desirable, the decision is left to the sick individual [see Nishmat Avraham, Yoreh Deah 155:2 and 349:3, and B'ikvei Hatzon 34 -H.J.]. Likewise, in the case of a nation in mortal danger, faced with a solution of dubious value, the decision on the course of action to be taken should be in the hands of the majority of those affected.⁴See B'ikvei Hatzon (32:9), where Rav Schachter discusses precisely who should be permitted to vote in such a referendum.

מ״ב

42Professor Eliav Schochetman (Techumin 17:107-120) disagrees with this approach. He cites numerous sources to demonstrate that the nation cannot decide matters of Halachah. Moreover, he cites the ruling of Rav Mordechai Eliyahu that in a case where doctors disagree regarding the plan of action for a sick patient, the doctors should adopt a policy of maintaining the status quo (sheiv v'al ta'aseh). Similarly, reasons Professor Schochetman, since there is disagreement among military experts if exchanging land for peace is prudent or reckless, the status quo should be maintained.

מ״ג

43Conclusion

מ״ד

44It is important to recognize the complexity of this issue. Many great rabbis permit exchanging land for peace, while many others forbid it. May God help the State of Israel attain everlasting security and peace.