Land

I am an ardent Zionist; thus, I feel Jews should perceive Israel as carrying particular importance in their lives. Whether it be for political reasons (“Only Democracy in the broader Middle East”…although Iraq and Afghanistan threaten to challenge that perch), for religious reasons (“Ancient Israel Reborn”…established 1190 B.C.E. by Joshua), or for a broad swath of cultural reasons situated between these secular-philosophical poles, Modern Israel’s existence is as gripping now—as she matures—as it has ever been during a brief-but-tumultuous 60-year struggle to survive and prosper and achieve Tikkun Olam.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to adopt a dispassionate perspective so as to reveal new sets of insights into Israel’s linkages to the Bible. It is this posture that was adopted during the month of May (which, thankfully, allowed him five Saturdays to approach this task) by Rabbi Josh Waxman (of Or Hadash) in recognition of Israel’s birthday celebrations. He drew from one key-reference that identified every citation of Israel in the Parashot (by Rabbi Moshe D. Lichtman, an unabashed/repetitive aliyah-advocate), wisely using this 454-page text as a starting-point for dialectics rather than an end-point for apologia.

He suggested that there is a dearth of comprehensive literature in this academic area[1].

Thus, although this project could justifiably be expanded to accommodate the additional 34 books of the Bible (Prophets/Writings), it is sufficient to probe the Torah as a priority, inasmuch as all the essential characteristics of the Jewish State were articulated therein.

This task has been organized as methodically as is possible, recognizing the dual-needs to identify what is to be viewed as germane (distillation of detail regarding what Israel was candidly envisioned to entail versus what has become manifest) and what is to be ignored (myriad interpretations of the ethical import of what a committed “Jewish” life entailed). If this is to be an exercise in unbiased polemics, a disinterested perspective is mandatory.

Thus, the structure of the analysis is based on six Biblical land ideologies formulated by Norman C. Habel that—individually and collectively—encompass key-excerpts from the Parashot: royal, agrarian, theocratic, prophetic, ancestral household, and immigrant. Superimposed—after each Torah Portion has been so-classified—is the degree to which these data can reinforce the concept of Intellectual Nationalism formulated by Avi Erlich.

[How the Orthodox glean references to the Promised Land from the Parashot is vital, but it is more important to determine how such observations/constraints inform Israel. It’s less important to “talk the talk” than it is to “walk the walk” of contemporary life. Torah quotations are derived from the Jewish Virtual Library; English terms are used preferentially to Hebrew, for these forms appeared in most references that were cited.]

This information is being presented in an Adult Education format…and is expanded to be submitted as an academic essay to Gratz College (three years following class attendance).

Because there apparently is a vacuum of such accessible information for the community, feedback acquired in the former setting will guide how the latter effort is then completed. To be presented are depictions of what the Promised Land was envisioned to be…and is; to be analyzed are the implications thereof, regardless of one’s personal belief-system.

Both literally and figuratively, the Jewish “land” theology is predicated on the concept of Moral Ecology, an independent force rather than just a site on which events transpire. How it interacts with the Torah and the Israelites represents what must be characterized.

Norman C. Habel (in The Land is Mine – Six Biblical Land Ideologies) has analyzed Israel’s import from six distinct, dynamic perspectives that are not easily harmonized: immigrant, agrarian, theocratic, ancestral household, prophetic, and royal. In the process, he has, in the view of his Editor (Walter Brueggemann), shown that “the Bible should not be read innocently (for the G-d practiced in the several ideologies is a player in Israel’s propertied life)” and that the traditional ‘ideological-theological’ positions continue to be poignantly pertinent in the world of contemporary interpretation.” These models reflect “ongoing and sustained passions and interests” that resonate, regardless of one’s politics.

In his Preface, Habel emphasized the ability to apply his observations to modern-day land-claims and, perhaps in part to dramatize this capacity, he dedicated his book to the Aboriginal people of Australia—celebrating their having successfully laid claim to the Murray Island group, north of Australia—while tasking all parties to initiate a dialogue regarding land issues/claims that “may prove helpful in the process of reconciliation.” That he would envision these models being used throughout the world is a palpable goal.

In his Orientation, he noted, first, that “land is the ground of our being” as humanity and, second, that land “is such a comprehensive symbol in the Old Testament [‘Torah’] that it could be ranked next to G-d in importance.” Moreover, invoking Buberian philosophy, he quoted A.D.H. Mayes as adopting a “dialogical” approach to efforts to understand the importance of land; it is “a matter of bringing that life-world [of text] into a relationship with the life-world of the interpreter” thereof. He added a disclaimer that links the great challenge of Biblical interpretation to the issues upon which he intended to focus:

The meaning of “land” in a given passage is not confined to the immediate sense of a particular word, but is determined by the total literary, social, and ideological focus of the context. Land is a dominant symbol related to a complex of ideas and symbols that need to be taken into consideration in any given context.

He focused not on ideology, justification, history, social reality or on political posturing. Rather, he wished to ascertain the set of beliefs that promulgates an ideology of Israel. The alternative would be to validate those who would characterize the Bible as “primarily concerned with the issue of being displaced and yearning for a place” to call one’s own.

Each of the six ideologies was to be analyzed from five perspectives (stated herein simply to demonstrate the level of analysis that exceeds the ambit of this review of the Torah): Dominant images of the land; Location of G-d, Locus of power in the land; Charter justifying entitlement to the land; and Rights to/of the land. The goal is to portray how a literary unit is interpreted and presented to the implied audience (ancient and modern). [At the book’s end, he synthesized each ideology in tabular form using these parameters.]

He recognized the potential for this analysis to be invoked when dispensing “justice,” but claimed his analysis was neutral, mutually exclusive of his personal belief-system. This approach is emulated throughout this discussion of the Torah, despite stated-bias.

The contention, here, is that the portrayal of the inhabitants of the Promised Land are not to be vanquished as subsequently occurred; rather, according to events experienced by Abraham [Genesis 11:31 – 23:30], it is felt that the original inhabitants are potentially friendly peoples, living in a host country into which the Israelites become immigrants.

The Covenant is portrayed as follows; in return for accepting G-d’s Ethical Monotheism, Abraham will become “a great nation”; Abraham’s “name” will become “great”; Abraham will mediate “blessing”; and Abraham’s seed will obtain “the land.” Therefore, he is “sharing the land through generous grants, peaceful negotiations, or legal purchase.” Those who curse Abraham—and, presumably, his seed—will experience G-d’s curse.

Thus, this more benign viewpoint (which is contravened by subsequent events) can easily be rectified by assuming a negative act by the indigenous population prompted conquest by Joshua, centuries later. Because this perspective may also be used to explain the generous portrayal of the Promised Land (e.g., extending to the Euphrates), its overall impact is to note the “net” Promised Land (dutifully seized by Joshua and his successors) was encompassed by the “gross” Promised Land (which Abraham had traversed, but from which Abraham’s offspring had departed…to sojourn in Egypt…for 400 years).

In this realm, the land is Sabbath-bound. In Leviticus 25-27, G-d owns the land, for it is not possible for people to alienate any portion thereof (by sale, exchange or title-transfer): G-d “controls the use of the land, ownership of the land, tenancy on the land, conditions of land usage, and the seven-year cycle of production. In short, G-d is the owner and the custodian of the land.” Yet, after establishing G-d’s empowerment, it is emphasized that “There is no interest in gaining or maintaining a national territory under royal control.”

Instead, the model emphasizes tenure over property rather than entitlement [Gen. 47:11], evidenced by Joseph’s distribution of land to his brothers for their use…not ownership [despite subsequent assignment of specific territories to specific tribes, see Joshua 13-20].

The rules of the Sabbath and of the Jubilee Year (“the Sabbath of Sabbaths”) emerge as evidence of G-d’s ownership over the land and his portrayal thereof as His “Sanctuary” [Exodus 15:17; Leviticus 26:2]. Violation will yield physical ejection of Israelites—pursuant to the interactive relationship between Israelites and the land they call “home”—for this is inherent in the Covenant [Leviticus 26:11-13]. G-d is portrayed as dwelling in the land he owns, rather than as an absentee-landlord; he has a mishkan [Leviticus 26:11]. [This could even presage reference to the Tabernacle, or to the subsequent Temple(s).]

G-d’s goal is portrayed to be not only an exodus that brings Israelites to Canaan [Leviticus 25:38], but also empowerment that they “walk erect” [Leviticus 26:13] as free, independent people in their landowner’s sanctuary. The peasant-society is to be honored.

The law of the jubilee [Leviticus 25:8-9] is noted to “introduce a unique social institution designed to incorporate further regulations that will govern this new economy and epitomize its ideology.” Declaring economic amnesty (deror) has both operational and metaphorical implications, for it mandates “acts of liberation, release and restoration”; this is not dissimilar to Abraham Heschel’s triad of creation, revelation and redemption.

The ideological implications of this mandate are profound; they retard monopolization, yield potential to reverse prior failures (from weather conditions or to personal errors), and recognize certain cyclical benefits to allowing the land to be sallow episodically.

Conversely, violations of these laws risk exile from the land…and repentance can yield restoration thereto [Leviticus 26:40-41]. Societal implications entail (per Yairah Amit) the need to fight inequality and exploitation (again, extended beyond economic bounds); social justice necessitates rural farmers not become dominated by the urban elite. Thus, the way to avoid having G-d (the “landowner”) eject the Israelites (“tenants”) is to ensure they honor the Commandments and, thus, their end of the bargain (“Covenant”).

If it were possible (and it is), an even more “extreme” portrayal of the inherent linkage of the Israelites to the land has become embodied in the book of Deuteronomy, which is a “political document…a charter for a constitutional theocracy.” It is simply characterized (as per S. Dean McBride) as “a divinely authorized and comprehensive polity” (politeia).

Already established is G-d’s ownership of and rule over the land. Now, the label of Israelites being the “Chosen People” emerges, not withstanding controversy over the ideal method by which contemporaneous theologians choose to (re)interpret this idea (i.e.¸ as “chosen” to be “better” than others vs. “chosen” to carry the burden of being a role-model for others…with the latter Reconstructionist interpretation being preferred):

Regardless of how this chosen-ness concept is perceived, the Israelites are charged with the solemn duty to uphold the Commandments so as to deserve the ability to see the land be maintained under the control of their offspring. It is a gift…with key strings attached. The three-stage process that is mandated entails possession, dispassion and settling, and the implications of these mandates carry Zionistic implications that rippled through the land of the Ancients and that created a tsunami through the land of the Moderns.

There can be no doubt that explicit instructions exist in each of these three realms. Indeed, “the land is the primary and crucial gift in the ideology of Deuteronomy.”

When HaShem thy G-d shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations greater and mightier than thou. [Deuteronomy 7:1].

All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which HaShem swore unto your fathers. [Deuteronomy 8:1].

And HaShem said unto me {again, Moses}: “Arise, go before the people, causing them to set forward, that they may go in and possess the land, which I swore unto their fathers to give unto them.” [Deuteronomy 10:11].

Therefore shall ye keep all the commandments which I command thee this day, that ye may be strong, and go in and possess the land, whither ye go over to possess it. [Deuteronomy 11:8].

This land is unambiguously that which was given to the Patriarchs and their descendants [Deuteronomy 6:10, 18; 7:13; 8:1; 10:11; 11:9] to be invaded and occupied [3:18; 5:31; 12:1; 17:14; 19:1, 14]. And it was G-d’s land to give, for he was its absolute owner.

Israelites are to clear-out and dispossess the existing inhabitants from the Promised Land, for they are viewed by G-d as too wicked [Deuteronomy 9:4-7] to merit survival:

Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thy heart, dost thou go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations HaShem thy G-d doth drive them out from before thee, and that He may establish the word which HaShem swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Know therefore that it is not for thy righteousness that HaShem thy G-d giveth thee this good land to possess it; for thou art a stiff-necked people.

Remember, forget thou not, how thou didst make HaShem thy G-d wroth in the wilderness; from the day that thou didst go forth out of the land of Egypt, until ye came unto this place, ye have been rebellious against HaShem.

And it shall come to pass, when HaShem thy G-d shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt set the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal.

The Israelites are explicitly reminded of their indebtedness to G-d for this event at the end of a gentle-restatement of their responsibilities [Deuteronomy 8:11-18]:

Beware lest thou forget HaShem thy G-d, in not keeping His command-ments, and His ordinances, and His statutes, which I command thee this day; lest when thou hast eaten and art satisfied, and hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and thy gold is multiplied, and all that thou hast is multiplied; then thy heart be lifted up, and thou forget HaShem thy G-d, who brought thee forth out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage; who led thee through the great and dreadful wilderness, wherein were serpents, fiery serpents, and scorpions, and thirsty ground where was no water; who brought thee forth water out of the rock of flint; who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that He might afflict thee, and that He might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; and thou say in thy heart: “My power and the might of my hand hath gotten me this wealth” But thou shalt remember HaShem thy G-d, for it is He that giveth thee power to get wealth, that He may establish His covenant which He swore unto thy fathers, as it is this day.

Finally, the Israelites are to settle in the land and prosper (while abiding by G-d’s laws). Settlement is to occur [Deuteronomy 11:31; 12:10; 17:14; 26:1; 30:20], followed by a bit of rest-and-relaxation, “R & R” [3:20; 12:9, 10; 25:19]. Everything is owed to G-d:

And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him: “I profess this day unto HaShem thy G-d, that I am come unto the land which HaShem swore unto our fathers to give us.”

And the priest shall take the basket out of thy hand, and set it down before the altar of HaShem thy G-d.

And thou shalt speak and say before HaShem thy G-d: “A wandering Aramean was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.

And the Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage.

And we cried unto HaShem, the G-d of our fathers, and HaShem heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression.

And HaShem brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders.

And He hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the land, which Thou, O HaShem, hast given me.” And thou shalt set it down before HaShem thy G-d, and worship before HaShem thy G-d.

And thou shalt rejoice in all the good which HaShem thy G-d hath given unto thee, and unto thy house, thou, and the Levite, and the stranger that is in the midst of thee. [Deuteronomy 26:1-11].

Thus, the Israelites are to be indebted for this good land (“flowing with milk and honey”) to G-d [Deuteronomy 4:21-22; 6:3; 8:7-10; 11:9], and must continue to deserve it.[2]

Lest the tenets of the land-treaty that had been created be minimized, the opportunity was then taken (in Deuteronomy) to restate the Ten Commandments. [Multiple references to various other facets thereof are omitted, but they serve to reinforce this fundamental.] But one must resist the temptation to rest upon one’s laurels, thereby idolizing the power and sufficiency derived from land rather than from G-d [Deuteronomy 8:20]:

As the nations that HaShem maketh to perish before you, so shall ye perish; because ye would not hearken unto the voice of HaShem your G-d.

The status of the Levites within the power-structure created Divinely is reminiscent again of the discussion of the Parashah on 6/14/2008 by Rabbi Josh; just as Joshua is to be the conqueror of the Promised Land [Deuteronomy 1:37-38; 3:23-28], the Levites are to be empowered by G-d (and not by Moses) to carry the ark, to stand before G-d to minister, and to bless in G-d’s name [Deuteronomy 10:8], rather than to have a distinct land-grant. Power is thusly diffused (a “separation of powers” that reflects the U.S. Constitution).

All those detailed discussions of sacrifices may be perceived as reflecting the need to be committed to nourishing the priests (Levites) by the fruit of the land, all in the process of honoring the Mitzvot. Grouped with the other landless, disenfranchised, underprivileged (such as the slaves, aliens, widows and orphans), Levites are to be supported by society. This linkage is behaviorally explicit; the “official tender” of having their religious needs supplied by the priests is to provide them material supports…derived from the land.

Within these boundaries, justice is to be administered (again, through the Levites/Priests). One stipulation that is again explicit relates to establishing the boundaries of the land:

This carries profound implications in the modern political world, as does the admonition that the landless be provided material support [Deuteronomy 24:19-20; 24:14; 24:7-10] by their being able to share in the harvest, be paid for their labors, and enjoy justice. Essentially, there remains an operational linkage between those enjoying the ownership and those who are landless, recalling the prior status of the Israelites in Egypt, as slaves. And there is a functional linkage among all of the peoples within the Israelite community that is tethered to the protections afforded “equal due process” under the law-of-the-land.

The book of Joshua is “a campaign document, designed to encourage landless ancestral households and families—whether in exile or in Israel—to claim the royal lands once allocated to them, but not now in their possession. The narrative of the book of Joshua provides an ideological charter for these ancestral households to choose G-d and take matters into their own hands.” This is reminiscent of the three-stage plans for the entire Israelite community (possess, purge, prosper)[3]. A map of the Promised Land shows where the Israelites were to have settled, and other maps are extant that define the locales that each of the twelve tribes were to claim. (Not incidentally, the latter are consistent with the smaller size of the Promised Land, rather than the more generous version… excluding, for example, the Transjordan portion thereof because Reuben and Gad clearly recognized prospectively that it was not a portion of the Promised Land, vide infra).

The vanquished foes who had inhabited the land were not universally smitten; instead, survivors (by “cunning, confession of faith or strength”) were accorded no rights, but they were still able to be absorbed into the Israelite community as all lived off of the land. In any case, the militarist-perspective doesn’t significantly amplify the other viewpoints.

This is predicated on a discussion of the book of Jeremiah, and it is themed upon the idea that there is a symbolic relationship among G-d, the land, and the Israelites. Essentially, Jeremiah’s pro-Babylonian politics are intended to offset temptation to revive Baalism, envisioning restoration of the land to the Israelites (as long as they honor the mitzvot). This recapitulates references in the Torah suggesting the land had been defiled/polluted when a trespass has occurred, in one example the return of a divorced woman to a man [Deuteronomy 24:1-4]. Jeremiah’s strong denunciation of fertility cults reflects, also linkage of societal injustice to land suffering.

As a result, the land itself suffers [e.g., “How long will the land mourn, and the grass of every field wither?” Jeremiah 12:4]. Ultimately, redemption of the land must be preceded by redemption by the Israelites.

When portraying land as a source of wealth, it is necessary to cite Kings I and the Psalms, but this analysis is not—of course—included in the Torah. Thus, although certain links between empire and wisdom are explored, this component is best perceived as tangential to both the theology that is to be the focus of the Torah-study and the text to be quoted.

[Indeed, the Parashah discussion conducted on 6/14/2008 by Rabbi Josh focused on the issues of empowerment/leadership—citing Numbers 11—as potentially flowing from the Deity to Moses (prior to that time) and then to a “Committee of Seventy” (at that time, which could have been the forerunner of the Sanhedrin) and then to Joshua (later-on). Thus, although power-relationships can indeed be probed theologically through the Torah (here and, assuredly, in other Parashiyot), text-support therefor emerged subsequently.]

In any case, the “peak moment” in the conclusion of this section was that it was through royalty that Solomon built the Temple and, thus, was felt to have maximized the ability to praise G-d…fulfilling multiple commandments. He had noted that the Commandment to “Honor your father and your mother” was followed by a linkage to the land that was to be given to the Israelites, again demonstrating the linkage of devout behavior and territory (“…that you may long endure on the land that the Lord your G-d is assigning to you”). Thus, this criterion is noted, but not emphasized, when choosing citations from the Torah.

[1] This surprising observation was confirmed after surfing the Internet and rummaging through two proximate libraries (Reconstructionist Rabbinical College & Gratz College).

[2] This is reminiscent of the comment by Benjamin Franklin regarding the Constitution; he said that the government that had been created was “A republic, if you can keep it.”

[3] That recalls Julius Caesar’s claim, “Veni, Vini, Vinci.” (“I came, I saw, I conquered.”)