Borders

Nations are defined internationally by recognition of borders; indeed, political scientists generally agree that the minimal responsibility of any government is to guard its borders[1]. Therefore, it is necessary to probe just what the Promised Land was to be constituting—both Biblically and in modern times—both to appreciate the activities of the Israelis and to discern the degree to which they are compliant with the aforementioned (six) tenets.

The following are four depictions of the Promised Land, as per quotes from the Torah. Depiction of the Promised Land in the JPS-Torah is from the books of Numbers (adapted from G.J. Wenham, Numbers, Tyndale Commentaries, 1981) and Deuteronomy [1:7], whereas the Promised Land is depicted in The Promise of the Land – The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan by the Israelites (by Moshe Weinfeld) in two formats (big and small) that are drawn from differing Biblical sources [Genesis 15: 18-21 & Numbers 34:3-12]. [Note the two JPS-versions conflict (n.b., Wilderness of Zin and Conjectured Border).]

At the risk of appearing overly ambitious, there is a desire to rationalize these depictions. First, however, some rationale must be derived from text, commentary and excursus based on the most specific version throughout the Torah [Numbers 34:1-15], as per JPS. Therefore, the entire texts of these sections are quoted infra, verbatim and completely. [Although an effort has been made to focus entirely upon the Torah herein, exception is needed to capture cogent liturgical/anthropological discussion of the borders’ evolution.]

“Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye come into the land of Canaan, this shall be the land that shall fall unto you for an inheritance, even the land of Canaan according to the borders thereof.

Thus your south side shall be from the wilderness of Zin close by the side of Edom, and your south border shall begin at the end of the Salt Sea eastward; and your border shall turn about southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass along to Zin; and the goings out thereof shall be southward of Kadesh-barnea; and it shall go forth to Hazar-addar, and pass along to Azmon; and the border shall turn about from Azmon unto the Brook of Egypt, and the goings out thereof shall be at the Sea.

And for the western border, ye shall have the Great Sea for a border; this shall be your west border.

And this shall be your north border: from the Great Sea ye shall mark out your line unto mount Hor; from mount Hor ye shall mark out a line unto the entrance to Hamath; and the goings out of the border shall be at Zedad; and the border shall go forth to Ziphron, and the goings out thereof shall be at Hazar-enan; this shall be your north border.

And ye shall mark out your line for the east border from Hazar-enan to Shepham; and the border shall go down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain; and the border shall go down, and shall strike upon the slope of the sea of Chinnereth eastward; and the border shall go down to the Jordan, and the goings out thereof shall be at the Salt Sea; this shall be your land according to the borders thereof round about.”

And Moses commanded the children of Israel, saying: “This is the land wherein ye shall receive inheritance by lot, which HaShem hath commanded to give unto the nine tribes, and to the half-tribe; for the tribe of the children of Reuben according to their fathers' houses, and the tribe of the children of Gad according to their fathers' houses, have received, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received, their inheritance; the two tribes and the half-tribe have received their inheritance beyond the Jordan at Jericho eastward, toward the sun-rising.”

Its area includes the mountains of Lebanon and Sirion (Anti-Lebanon), extending as far north as Lebo, thereby including the Damascus region and the Bashan, reaching the Galilee along the Yarmuk valley (but excluding the Gilead and southern Transjordan), and extending as far south as Ladesh before entering the Mediterranean at El-‘Arish.

The boundaries are described by a series of border points just as are the boundaries of the individual tribes in Joshua 15-19. These borders do not correspond to Israel’s territory at any time in its history; they do, however, coincide with the Egyptian province of Canaan during the fifteenth through thirteenth centuries. This map was reflected in the account of the scouts’ reconnaissance of Canaan in 13:21 [see also Joshua 13:2-5]. However, its chief influence is upon the prophet Ezekiel who, in 47:15-48:29, rearranged the tribal territories in his futuristic map of Israel to accord with the borders of ancient (Egyptian) Canaan.

The present map, although ascribed to Moses, reflects the period after the conquest when the chieftains actually apportioned the land (see Joshua 15-19) to the tribes in the exact geographical order from south to north as the tribal chieftains are listed [vv. 16-29]. This chapter follows logically upon 33:50-56. Having been commanded to displace and replace the present occupants of the land, it becomes imperative to know its boundaries.

This is the JPS Excursus (#73) regarding “The Boundaries of the Promised Land”:

Map 3 [see page 13, supra] shows that the borders of Canaan given in chapter 34 do not correspond with the reality of Israelite settlement in any historical period. The most outstanding discrepancy was established in the time of Moses and detailed in chapter 32—the settlement of two and a half tribes in Transjordan; yet the Promised Land as delineated in Chapter 34 marks the Jordan River as Israel’s easternmost boundary.

It was B. Mazar, followed independently by R. de Vaux, who first discovered that these boundaries correspond precisely to those of the province of Canaan of the New Kingdom of Egypt. Beginning in the fifteenth century, Canaan was the official name of Egyptian holdings in Asia. Its northern boundary was fixed in the thirteenth century by the peace treaty between Ramses II and the Hittite empire (ca. 1270), which left the city of Kadesh in Hittite hands and the Damascus region under Egyptian control. Since Egyptian records never mention the Gilead or southern Transjordan—archaeology informs us that they were unsettled until the thirteenth century—it is clear that the Jordan was the eastern border of Egyptian Canaan.

Indeed, all the data in the Book of Numbers confirm that the land of Canaan never extended east of the Jordan [32:29-10; 33:51; 34:2; 35:10; see Joshua 22:19,12], and it is these borders that are alluded to earlier, in 13:17,21, and described in detail in chapter 34 as well as in Joshua 13:2-5 and Ezekiel 47:15-20. [Joshua 13:4-5 adds significant data concerning the northern boundary: Aphek, modern Afqa, 24 kilometers (15 miles) east of Byblos; Byblos within Canaan; the Amurru kingdom outside Canaan.] This view is also held by the rabbis, who declare that the Land of Israel is holy [Mishnah Kelim 1:6] but not Transjordan [Sifrei on Deuteronomy 26:2].

The discrepancies between the promised land and the real land of Israel can be quickly determined by superimposing the map of one on the other. The results, illustrated in Map 3, reveal three kinds of discrepancies: (1)—land that was neither apportioned nor annexed—approximating parts of present Lebanon and Syria in the north; (2)—land apportioned but not annexed—the coastal strip of Philistia and the one between Acre and Sidon; and (3)—land not apportioned but annexed—lower Transjordan.

One significant consequence of the latter observation is that upper Transjordan, the Bashan, is within the confines of Canaan. This means that the Manassite clans that settled there did not require special permission to do so. And indeed this is clearly indicated by the evidence of chapter 32. Only Gad and Reuben arouse Moses’ ire and must subsequently demonstrate their loyalty to their people, whereas the Manassite passages in this chapter [vv. 33,39-42] as well as in Joshua 22 are later interpolations [see Excursus #70] that are independent of the settlement traditions of Gad and Reuben. Now the reason is clear: The conquest of Bashan—part of Canaan—would not have raised any objections from Israel’s leaders; and, indeed, the text records that Moses gave his consent [32:40].

There is yet another map, one that is truly utopian, of the Promised Land. Its northern borders reach the Euphrates; in the east, it extends to the desert [Genesis 15:18, Exodus 23:31, Deuteronomy 1:7; 11:24; Joshua 1:4], and its southern border reaches the Nile Delta [Genesis 15:18; Joshua 13:3]. Perhaps it corresponds to the reality of the Davidic-Solomonic empire. Certainly, this vast area was under the influence of Israel [see 2 Samuel 8:2-10; I Kings 5:1,4]. But what is of special interest here is that this is the only map to which the Book of Deuteronomy refers, and it sets the eastern border not as the Jordan but as the wilderness. This means that Deuteronomy acquiesces in the annexation of Transjordan by Israel. To be sure, Deuteronomy acknowledges the patriarchal map, with the Jordan as its eastern boundary [Deuteronomy 2:29; 4:21; 11:31; 12:10; 27:2], but it refrains from stating or implying that the annexation of Transjordan was not sanctioned by G-d.

To the contrary, in distinction to the Book of Numbers, in which Moses attacks Sihon on his own initiative [see the Comments to 21:12-32 and vv. 33-35], Deuteronomy attributes the entire Transjordan campaign to the command of the L-rd: “Up! Set out across the wadi Arnon! See, I give into your power Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land. Begin the occupation: engage him in battle” [Deuteronomy 2:24-25] [see M. Weinfeld].

The contrast between Deuteronomy and (the priestly material in) Numbers could not be sharper. Deuteronomy has accommodated itself to history; Numbers has not. The priestly tradition consistently adheres to the map of Canaan as it existed up to the thirteenth century and does not admit to its slightest alteration in the light of subsequent events. Once again, the priestly texts have proved themselves to be the bearers of Israel’s most ancient traditions [see also Excurses #1, 4-6].

Perhaps the Numbers-Deuteronomy contrast is metaphorical for the modern Middle East Conflict; the “realistic” Deuteronomy is silent regarding the annexation of Transjordan, thereby affording the ability to abide by a resolution that would not covet more territory. [When efforts are made to rationalize the idea of land-for-peace swaps, the rabbis attempt to rectify modernity by confronting Halakhic Problems methodically. One such effort (by J. David Bleich, also a medical ethicist) was formulated in 1983; Judea and Samaria: Settlement and Return concluded that this process could be justified when mandated as a method to save lives (much as the prohibition against travel on the Sabbath is voided when it is necessary to save a life). Further, “Should territorial concessions prove to be warranted and necessary, they will yet be unrelated to the ultimate, divinely vouchsafed destiny of Israel.” This level of rationalization not withstanding, the rest of this essay notes Israelites in Israel “accumulate great merit, even in the absence of fulfillment of an express mitzvah.” Moshe Lichtman explores this issue in considerable detail, infra.]

It is understandably difficult to differentiate theology from advocacy when attempting to distill the essence of the portrayal of Israel in the Torah vs. its contemporary existence.

For example, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin initiates his discussion of The Land of Israel in the Bible, the Talmud, and Jewish Law by quoting G-d’s promise to Abraham [Genesis 17:8] and citing Biblical scholar Harry Orlinsky, who “rightly underscored Israel’s centrality in the relationship between G-d and the Jews.” He cites the Fifth Commandment (supra), Amos [“I will restore my people Israel.” Amos 9:14-15], the Psalms [“If I forget thee…,” Psalms 137:5-6], the Mishna (permitting divorce over the issue of Aliyah, Ketibot 110b, and the desirability to make Aliyah, Ketibot 110b), Rashi (who initiated his discussion of Genesis 1:1 by referring to Israel, Commentaries on the Pentateuch), and a contemporary Orthodox rabbi who rejected the concept that the manifestations of Zionism had to await the return of the Messiah [Samuel Mohilever, The Zionist Idea, pages 401-405].

On the other hand, Weinfeld [1993] noted that two Covenants (with Abraham and David) weren’t conditional, whereas that with Moses had been. Because only the latter Covenant was operational when the land was conquered, it seems that it was controlling when the Ancient State of Israel was established (on the 10^th of Nisan, in 1190 B.C.E.). This date is drawn from Joshua 4:19 and Timetables of Jewish History. Therefore, particularly when so many linkages have been articulated between the need to uphold the law and the gift of the land (vide supra et infra), it seems unlikely that the land was provided gratis to the Israelites (recognizing limits both to the details of subjective prophecy and to the wiles of historical revisionism). Instead, they had to recognize that Israel was “the gift that keeps on giving”…necessitating that they continue to earn it.

Ultimately, Weinfeld concluded (consistent with the above argument, but more lucidly):

The divine promise of land to an ethnic group or tribe who goes to settle in a new territory is not unique to Israel. It is a phenomenon also found among other peoples, particularly in the Greek world, when the colonization of the Mediterranean shores first began.

What is unique about Israel’s relationship to the land is neither the divine promise nor the permanence of the patrimony, but rather the religious and moral ramifications of the promise: the belief that, in order to dwell safely in the land, it was necessary to fulfill the will of the G-d who gave the land. The land was thus transformed into a kind of mirror, reflecting the religious and ethical behavior of the people. If the people were in possession of the land, it was a sign that they were fulfilling G-d’s will and observing his commandments; if they lost the land, it was an indication that they had violated G-d’s covenant and neglected his commandments. All of biblical historiography is based on this criterion: the right to possess the land.

Weinfeld cited Patriarchal stories as being invoked to justify Israel’s existence, noting the following arguments: A man leaving a great civilization and charged with a universal mission (Abraham); A gap between migration of the ancestor and the actual foundation; Promise at stake; The pious ancestor; The ancestral Gods; The burial place of the founder; and Canaan vs. Aram, Rome vs. Carthage. He noted the parallel between the Torah and certain Greek/Roman Mythologies, thereby linking the former to ambient cultural sagas. Finally, after considerable Biblical scholarship (invoking supra), he concluded that “It was Davidic scribes who stood behind the formulation of the covenant of grant in Israel.”

Avi Ehrlich [Ancient Zionism – The Biblical Origins of the National Idea, New York, New York. Simon & Schuster. 1995] has “little to say here about modern Zionism, though my argument—insofar as it succeeds—accords respect to the living civilization whose foundations were laid by the literate inventors of ancient Zionism.”

His book honors efforts made to establish and to maintain the Ancient State of Israel, but it does not lose its strong academic flavor. His noncommittal conclusory statement suggests the linkage between them: “The value of ancient Hebrew ideas, rather than their mere longevity, constitutes the strongest part of modern Israelis’ attachment to Israel.”

By adopting the principles of ancient Zion, our Arab cousins will achieve the blessing of their own nationhood, as was promised to Abraham our father on behalf of Ishmael his son. By adopting the vision of Abraham’s signifying Land, they will fulfill the prophecy that, in Zionism, all the nations of the earth be blessed. And because we are instructed that Zionism is meant even for our former enemies as it was once meant for our oppressors the Assyrians in Nineveh, we will do our part to make peace with our cousins. We will not quibble over every field in Judea and Samaria. We will draw a border, and we will make it represent peace.

Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook’s books—Essential Writings and Gold from the Land of Israel, a discussion of the weekly Torah portion—are more mystical than precise. That he was Israel’s first (Ashkenazic) Chief Rabbi is recognized, but that he could not compare/contrast how Israel was envisioned and how she was manifest (because he died in 1935) limit how his ideas might be assessed in the context of the effort that prompts composition of this essay (and ongoing analysis of a particularly seminal consideration).

Other internet-based sources have been consulted (as per input from myriad sources), but these are not exclusively devoted to comparing/contrasting the Ancient/Modern Israels; these include works of Shlomo Aviner, Tal Chermon, and Virtual Beit Midrash.

The comprehensive characteristics of the State of Israel are distilled in the textbook A Country Study [by William Evans-Smith, Director, Foreign Area Studies, American University, Washington, D.C., Published by the Department of the Army in 1979]. Composed just after the Camp David Accords, profiled the country from myriad views: History, Society, Government & Politics, Economy, and National Security. If the points made by Habel are assumed to be sufficiently comprehensive, Israel is in “compliance” with the distilled portions thereof (as well as the concepts that greatly inform them).

The problems with the contents of this textbook [vide infra] not withstanding, it still has the capacity to portray Israel in a distilled light, as a snapshot taken three decades ago. Because there is a justifiable temptation to politicize this process extant in the media[2], resistance from losing an academic posture herein has been predicated on the belief that the strong and comprehensive literature-review provided prior to the Parshot-review yields sufficient confidence that, ultimately, the validation of this linkage will suffice when addressing/answering the question that has been carefully articulated prospectively. [If it is necessary to provide additional documentation, this exercise will be followed.]

[1] The desirability that America defend its sovereignty by enforcing its southern border (vis-à-vis the issue of Illegal Immigration) reflects this historical fact.

[2] For example, Google Earth inappropriately now conveys Palestinian Arab propaganda.