Parashot

If there is any justification to draw directly from primary source material, it has emerged upon initiation of this project. Whereas Lichtman[1] “stretches” to find references to Israel, it is actually quite simple to detect the land-theme at the onset of the Torah’s narrative.

Lichtman’s three opening essays are, perhaps charitably, best described as “inferential.” The first was composed immediately after Joseph’s Tomb was (again) desecrated [2] (10/7/2000) by Palestinian Arabs, and it prompted him to draw upon Midrash and Rashi. The former was employed to dramatize his anguish…and to suggest that massive Aliyah could help to populate Judea/Samaria and, thus, undermine the current demographics:

There are three places about which the nations of the world cannot taunt the Jews and say, “You stole them”: Me’arat HaMachpeilah [the Tomb of the Matriarchs/Patriarchs, near Hebron], (the site of) the Beit HaMikdash [the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem], and Joseph’s Tomb [near Nablus].[3] {I would add Rachel’s Tomb, for the sake of completeness, near Bethlehem; she was a towering figure, too.} [BeReishit Rabbah 79:7]

The latter averred the Torah having started with Creation and not the first mitzvoth—later described as Abraham’s individually going to Eretz Yisrael [Genesis 12:1] and Israelites’ collectively establishing a calendar [Exodus 12:2]—explains why Eretz Yisrael belongs to Jews. It was a higher calling to focus on the land, as per the following reply by Rashi to a specific challenge to Jewish land-claims (1000 years ago!) by “nations of the world” (“You are robbers, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations”), to wit:

The entire world belongs to the Holy One Blessed be He. He created it and gave it to whom He saw fit. He willingly gave it to them, and He willingly took it away from them and gave it to us.

The other two essays cite Midrash averring Creation began at and emerged from Zion and “The air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise” [Bava Batra 158b], with the latter viewed as a “hidden reference” to the exalted status of merely residing in the Promised Land.

His additional references cite two events (sanctification of the Sabbath and Cain having killed Abel) as having roots in “the land,” again quoting interim sources (The Kuzari). All these references, alas, are too obscure to be viewed as germane, let alone definitive. Thus, in their stead, it is apt to note, as did the JPS Commentary, the first citation of what is termed “moral ecology.” Commenting on 3:17-19 (which affirms man’s culpability):

17…Cursed be the ground. Once again, the punishment is related to the offense. The sin of eating forbidden food results in complicating the production of goods. The man himself is not cursed, only the soil. The matter from which he sprang turns against him. His pristine harmony with nature is disturbed by his transgression. This notion of moral ecology is a major biblical theme; it is explicitly formulated in Leviticus 18:24-28 and 20-22, and it underlies the great exhortations of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.

By Toil. Hebrew ‘itsavon is the same term as is used in verse 16 for the woman’s anguish. The man’s backbreaking physical labor is regarded as the male equivalent of the labor of childbearing. The curse lies not in the work itself, which is decreed for man even in Eden [2:15], but in the uncooperative nature of the soil, so that henceforth the wresting of subsistence from it entails unremitting drudgery.

18. Thorns and thistles. Weeds that rob the cultivated plants of light, water, and the soil’s nutrients and that require much effort to control. And this occurs in the face of mankind’s need to subsist on the grasses of the field! Humankind is once again viewed as being vegetarian, and agriculture is taken to be man’s earliest occupation.

19. The sentencing ends on an ironic note. Human beings had attempted to elevate themselves to the level of the divine. All they achieved was to condemn themselves to a ceaseless, brutal struggle for subsistence, with the consciousness of the fragility of life ever hanging over them.

This is what G-d’s “sentence” entailed; the discussion supra is well within its ambit:

This is consistent with the way Buber and others had portrayed the dynamic nature of the land/people relationship to be, vide supra, and this presages how the particular nature of the Israel/Israelite relationship is to be formulated. Parallels with Leviticus/Deuteronomy link this prodrome to Abraham’s Covenant to the specifics of what is to emerge, just as the initial (generous) delineation of the Promised Land was specifically limited thereafter.

If all of the land, indeed, is “alive,” then what currently makes Eretz Yisrael so special? After newly-inebriated Noah had uncovered himself (blameless, for he hadn’t anticipated the effects of the fruit of his newly-planted vineyard), his son Ham had viewed him and had told his two brothers of this fact; in contrast, his brothers immediately covered him with a loincloth (to alleviate his shame), prompting Noah both to curse Ham—who was the “father” of the land of Canaan, inasmuch as Canaan was his great-great-grandson [10:6] and, in turn, the ancestor of other clans inhabiting what was to be Eretz Yisrael [10:16-18]—and to invoke G-d when meting out his punishment [9:25-26]:

Thus was a pecking-order established for the three sons’ descendants (by birth-order, as it turned out): (1)—Ham’s descendants (Canaanites, the indigenous population of this land at some future time) would become dominated (enslaved) by the descendants of Shem and Japheth; (2)—Shem’s descendants (with Abraham notably arising in the genealogy ten generations hence) would rule the Canaanites; and (3)—Japheth’s descendants would prosper and would be able to inhabit the land ruled by Shem’s descendants.

Lichtman also quotes Midrash that suggests Eretz Yisrael had a special significance, even before Abraham’s arrival, constantly tethered to editorialization favoring Aliyah: (1)—It had rained everywhere except in Eretz Yisrael (but the Flood had been global, thus having rendered Canaan less damaged), explaining why Abraham’s father (Terah) had started journeying to Canaan from Ur (near the current Syrian-Turkish border); and (2)—The dove (representing the Jewish people) didn’t find rest (a home) until it had returned to Noah (Israel), who already had demonstrated “behavioral” reverence to G-d. The “message” here is that Abraham was later to complete this trip—after his father had settled in Haran (and had died)—because he was responding to a fresh request from G-d, and that all Jews should emulate this behavior, rather than wandering all over the world. This “telegraphed punch” not withstanding, Eretz Yisrael had already been singled-out.

Again elevating the importance of Eretz Yisrael, the first commandment to Abraham is to travel to the Promised Land, for “I will make you into a great nation” [12:2] and “To your descendants, I will give this Land” [12:7] “forever” [12:14-17]. Naturally, Lichtman amplifies this mandate to encompass making Aliyah, but he also notes that this antedated what would be viewed ordinarily as a set of orders of greater “behavioral” magnitude …such as those contained in the Ten Commandments…serving again to emphasize Land.

Abraham’s first acquisition was of a well in Beer-sheba from King Avimelech [21:30]. Perhaps this is not emphasized as the initial purchase of land in Eretz Yisrael because Abraham was said to be living among the Philistines immediately thereafter [21:34], rather than staking a quasi-independent “claim” at that particular site (then or thereafter), as occurred formally at Machpelah (infra) following negotiation (then and thereafter). Perhaps, essentially, Abraham was “renting” rather than “buying” this site in the Negev.

That the Akidah occurred on Mount Moriah (currently encased by a mosque, The Dome on the Rock) renders the Temple Mount of particular importance to Jewry [22:2]… enhanced by the fact that this was the site of the two Temples, a millennium hence.

Lichtman also notes that G-d totally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of their inhabitants having sinned on Eretz Yisrael [19:24-25], presaging the fact that “the Land would eventually spit-out the entire (Canaanite) nation because of its abominations.”

Finally, the conflict between Isaac and Ishmael revolved around the Land, as evidenced by Sarah’s request of Abraham: “Cast out this maidservant with her son, for the son of that maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac” [21:9-10]. Yet, ultimately, Ishmael’s descendants were to become a “great nation,” albeit outside the Promised Land (initially, in the Eastern Sinai), as per the decree of an Angel of G-d [21:18].

As noted supra, Abraham’s procurement of Machpelah (the burial place of all Patriarchs and Matriarchs except Rachel) was one of the three allegedly-documented purchases that prompt Jews (not just Zionists) to lay eternal-claim to Jerusalem, Hebron and Nablus.

[Granted, they could be bought-back, one might suppose, but it is not anticipated that they will be placed upon the real estate market any day soon…particularly because they are situated within the borders of the Promised Land (in all Biblical depictions thereof).]

In contrast to his prior ability to use the wells of Beer-sheba (for a fee), this transaction concluded by noting that this land had passed “to Abraham as his possession” [23:18].

When Abraham sought a wife for his son, Isaac, he mandated that he she not be recruited from among the Canaanites “among whom I dwell”; instead, she was to be found “in the land of my birth” and then to be returned to Eretz Yisrael, as per the Covenant [24:3-8].

Prior to his death, “Abraham willed all that he owned to Isaac, but to Abraham’s sons by concubines, Abraham gave gifts while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the East” [25:5-6]. Again, he specifically sent away all of his offspring to another “land,” emphasizing that his own inheritance went to Isaac.

The Jacob-Esau sibling-rivalry is characterized by G-d as presaging the emergence of “two separate peoples (who) shall issue from your body…and the older shall serve the younger” [25:23]. While Esau was a hunter, Jacob was agrarian…and the Land-related occupation was again to be deemed dominant. [Lichtman then editorializes that claims that Isaac had “stolen” Esau’s land (inheritance) spurred development of anti-Semitism; again, regardless of whether this theory is accurate, it reflects the importance of how land (and its control) is perceived throughout history…and Jewish history in particular.]

After “a famine in the land” occurred, the Covenant is restated. G-d tells Isaac [26:2-5]:

Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore unto Abraham thy father; and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves; because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My command-ments, My statutes, and My laws.

After prospering due to having successfully “sowed in that land” [26:12], Isaac is evicted by the Philistines (perhaps due to Lichtman’s manifestation of anti-Semitism) from Gerar and then “went up to Beer-sheba” [26:23]. Lichtman notes that “Eretz Yisrael proper is higher than the Land of the Philistines” and, thus, tacitly recognizes that this land was not actually a portion of the Promised Land. [He suggests this would be rectified only after the arrival of the Messiah, but the plain meaning of this Parashah appears undeniable.]

Next, Isaac’s (purloined) blessing of Jacob is again predicated on the land [27:28-29]:

Finally, Rebecca sends Jacob to marry a non-Canaanite (from the daughters of his uncle, Laban), again linking this process with manifestations in the Promised Land [28:3-4]:

And G-d Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a congregation of peoples; and give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land of thy sojournings, which G-d gave unto Abraham.

Again, early in the Parashah, G-d repeats the Abrahamic Covenant in Jacob’s Dream—

I am HaShem, the G-d of Abraham thy father, and the G-d of Isaac. The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed.

And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south. And in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee whithersoever thou goest, and will bring thee back into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.

—linking Jacob’s ancestors/descendants, Eretz Yisrael, and G-d’s presence [28:13-15]. All these quotations emphasize the specialness of Eretz Yisrael but (despite Lichtman’s yeoman’s efforts) none “proves” residing elsewhere affords demonstrably lesser-status. G-d can supportive of Jacob, regardless of what problems/opportunities he encounters.

Lichtman justifies Aliyah by noting linkage of living in Eretz Yisrael and Godliness—

—by suggesting Jacob’s being outside Eretz Yisrael affords lesser status [28:20-21].

The counter-argument, here, is that Jacob links receiving sustenance and future fealty. [Curiously, Lichtman quoted only the latter verse, eliding over the principal clause.]

This argument also emerges from G-d’s suggestion that he leave Laban’s home—

Return unto the land of thy fathers, and to thy kindred; and I will be with thee.

The counter-argument can be made, however, that G-d is merely enhancing Jacob’s confidence in his decision to depart; again, G-d is “with” Jacob, regardless of his venue. [And again, Lichtman omits citing context, diminishing reinterpretive capacity.]

Overall, when reciting a saga, reference to the land on which it is occurring is anticipated; thus, it is necessary to identify references to the “aliveness” of the land in order to justify the conclusion that it has a particular role in the life of Jewry. It may be intuitive that interactions with the land can only transpire when one resides thereupon, but it can not be concluded that life elsewhere affords a lesser-quality, sub-optimally fulfilling existence.

Again, early in the Parashah, Jacob repeats his Abrahamic Covenant in a plea to G-d—

O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac, O HaShem, who saidst unto me: Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred, and I will do thee good; I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, which Thou hast shown unto Thy servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am become two camps.

Deliver me, I pray Thee, from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esau; for I fear him, lest he come and smite me, the mother with the children.

And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.

—again reflecting the importance of Eretz Yisrael while inserting a situational reference, here, fear of Esau [32:10-13], which Lichtman enhances with eschatological implications.

Lichtman’s posture is contradicted by the JPS Commentary, with regard to this event—

—which occurred as he was to encounter Esau, upon his return to Eretz Yisrael [32:23]. He quotes Midrash that suggests he had actually crossed the Jordan River because he felt he could benefit from the additional protection of being in the Promised Land at that time (“He wanted to have the merit of Eretz Yisrael on his side.”). But the JPS identifies this particular river as flowing into the Jordan River (20 miles north of the Dead Sea). Here, the suggestion is made, instead, that his tactic was “to reduce the interval between Esau’s encountering the gifts and his own arrival heralded by his messengers, each in turn.” Thus, this was done to convey the impression that he was eager to see his brother ASAP (for he was “family” not adversary), rather than to avoid or delay a face-to-face meeting.

Lichtman suggests that Jacob’s residual fear of Esau was predicated on the belief that anyone in the Promised Land (even if living in sin) is afforded a degree of exalted status; back-handedly, this also reinforces the desirability of living honorably in Eretz Yisrael. Lichtman also notes that Jacob’s prompt land-purchase (near Shechem/Nablus, the site of Joseph’s Tomb) after returning to the Promised Land reflected, again, the high priority continuously placed on justifying claims of the special status in Jewry of Eretz Yisrael.

At the end of the Parashah, G-d repeats his Abrahamic Covenant to Jacob [35:11-12]—

I am G-d Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; and the land which I gave unto Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.

—again (with added specificity, here related to future kings) referencing Eretz Yisrael.

Lichtman closes with recognition of the specialness of Benjamin (as the only son of Jacob who was born in the Promised Land), citing this fact as explaining the separate site of Rachel’s Tomb (rather than her being relocated to Machpelah) as recognizing him, where she died during childbirth on the road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem,

The JPS Commentary notes [e.g., regarding 37:1, 37:3] that “Throughout the narrative, the two names of the patriarch (Jacob/Israel) interchange indiscriminately”; this loose terminology also applies when the “Israel” denotes both the land (Eretz Yisrael) and the people (Hebrews/Israelites/Jews)…connoting the tightness of these inter-relationships. In any case, it is noted that “Jacob settled in the land where his father had sojourned, in the Land of Canaan” (37:1]. Lichtman interprets this as connoting his desire to honor and to care for his aging father, while the JPS Commentary notes both that this contrasts with Esau’s having migrated and that this recognizes that only Isaac (among the three patriarchs) had never left Eretz Yisrael. The latter interpretation again elevates the land as harboring particular currency. Contrariwise, when Joseph said, “I was stolen away from the Land of the Hebrews [Genesis 40:15], he was segregating himself therefrom (although his emotional response to this level of self-awareness is to be explored infra).

In contrast to prior (vibrant, celebratory, etc.) references to the land, those that appear in the dreams [e.g., 41:29] are sterile, even when something (such as famine) is occurring thereupon, as is also the case when Joseph’s activities are mentioned [e.g., 42:6]. Later, however, he names his firstborn son (Manasseh) because “G-d has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home” [41:51]. And Egypt is then referred to as “the land of my affliction” [41:52]. Taken together, this connotes “home-sickness.”

Lichtman notes references to “the Land of Canaan” [42:5,7,29] as being repeated because of the ongoing desire to emphasize its importance. The JPS Commentary notes that the land of Egypt was referred to as being “naked” [42:9] due to the desire to emphasize the (relative) shame of living there (indeed, anywhere in the Galut) in comparison with being in Eretz Yisrael. Both instances reinforce the concept of the specialness of Eretz Yisrael.

This Parashah repeats established concepts regarding the importance of seeking to reside in the Promised Land without specifying just what was to be done thereat. Jacob is now “going down” to Egypt (45:9, 46:3-4) and he is “going up” to the Land of Canaan [45:25, 46:4]. Lichtman also repeats his established viewpoint when he notes that the last line of this Parashah yields the need for G-d to relocate the Israelites forcibly (via the Exodus) from having allowed themselves to have become “too comfortable” in the Galut [47:27]:

Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen; and they got them possessions therein, and were fruitful, and multiplied exceedingly.

This is, apparently, to be distinguished from the mandate from Joseph to Jacob [45:9]—:

Hasten ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him: Thus saith thy son Joseph: G-d hath made me lord of all Egypt; come down unto me, tarry not.

—because Joseph had previously explained to his brothers that this was to be a respite due to the famine, to sojourn in Egypt safely rather than to settle permanently [45:7]:

G-d sent me before you to give you a remnant on the earth, and to save you alive for a great deliverance.

Indeed, Joseph’s brothers portrayed themselves to the Pharaoh as sojourners [47:3], just as had been presaged [n.b.¸ Abrahamic reference to their being “strangers”; see 15:13]. Curiously, soon thereafter, Jacob portrayed himself to the Pharaoh as having been a “sojourner” while being alive on earth [47:9], suggesting again the lack of permanance. Still later, Joseph distributed seed to his brothers for use in the land he had acquired but, again, it was not “owned” because a 20% tithe was to be returned to the Pharaoh [47:23].

Jacob told Joseph to bury him in Eretz Yisrael rather than in Egypt [47:29, 49:29, 50:5]; G-d would “bring him back” [48:21, 50:24], for it had been G-d-given [48:4]. And when Jacob blessed Israelites with the aspiration that they were to be blessed to be like “Manasseh and Ephraim” [48:20], Lichtman suggests this is because these foreign-born Israelites (the first) were to both thrive in the Diaspora…but ultimately return to Israel.

In BERESHIT, the land-theme, manifest as “moral ecology,” emerges at the onset of the Torah’s narrative. Adam is condemned thusly [3:17]:

[C]ursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

The JPS Commentary establishes this manifestation of man’s culpability thusly:

[T]he punishment is related to the offense. The sin of eating forbidden food results in complicating the production of goods. The man himself is not cursed, only the soil. The matter from which he sprang turns against him. His pristine harmony with nature is disturbed by his transgression. This notion of moral ecology is a major biblical theme; it is explicitly formulated in Leviticus 18:24-28 and 20-22, and it underlies the great exhortations of Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28….The curse lies not in the work itself, which is decreed for man even in Eden [2:15], but in the uncooperative nature of the soil, so that henceforth the wresting of subsistence from it entails unremitting drudgery.

This is consistent with the way Buber and others had portrayed the dynamic nature of the land/people relationship to be, vide supra, and this presages how the particular nature of the Israel/Israelite relationship is to be formulated. Parallels with Leviticus/Deuteronomy link this prodrome to Abraham’s Covenant to the specifics of what is to emerge, recalling that some authorities claim the Torah should not always be interpreted chronologically.

Recognized at the onset is the need to cite Lichtman critically, for his Aliyah-advocacy is unabashed, absolute and repetitive. [For example, he cites Midrash averring Creation began at and emerged from Zion and “The air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise” [Bava Batra 158b], with the latter viewed as a “hidden reference” to the exalted status of merely residing in the Promised Land.] Nevertheless, his Rashi-citation establishes a concept that correlates with discussion of border-related essentials (vide supra); Rashi wrote:

The entire world belongs to the Holy One Blessed be He. He created it and gave it to whom He saw fit. He willingly gave it to them, and He willingly took it away from them and gave it to us….

There are three places about which the nations of the world cannot taunt the Jews and say, “You stole them”: Me’arat HaMachpeilah [the Tomb of the Matriarchs/Patriarchs, near Hebron], (the site of) the Beit HaMikdash [the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem], and Joseph’s Tomb [near Nablus].[4] {I would add Rachel’s Tomb, for the sake of completeness, near Bethlehem; she was a towering figure, too.} [BeReishit Rabbah 79:7]

In NOACH, because his son Ham had seen him unclothed, Noah cursed him by stating the descendants of Shem (who had not seen him unclothed) would enslave those of Ham.

In LECH LECHA, G-d’s first commandment to Abraham was to go to Eretz Yisrael, for “I will make you into a great nation”[12:2] and “To your descendants, I will give this Land” [12:7] “forever” [12:14-17]; this magnifies the importance of the land, because G-d considered this to be of greater importance than mandating any other conduct.

In VAYERA, the Isaac/Ishmael conflict revolved around the Land, as evidenced by Sarah’s request of Abraham: “Cast out this maidservant with her son, for the son of that maidservant shall not inherit with my son, with Isaac” [21:9-10]. Yet, ultimately, Ishmael’s descendants were to become a “great nation,” albeit outside the Promised Land, as per an Angel’s decree [21:18]. That the Akidah occurred on Mount Moriah renders the Temple Mount of particular importance to Jewry [22:2]…enhanced by the fact that this was the site of the two Temples, a millennium hence. G-d totally destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because their inhabitants had sinned in Eretz Yisrael [19:24-25].

In CHAYE SARAH, Abraham’s purchase of Machpelah (ultimately, the burial place of all Patriarchs and Matriarchs except Rachel) supports Jewry’s claim to Hebron (with the purchases of Nablus and Jerusalem to follow) because this land had passed “to Abraham as his possession” [23:18]. As per the Covenant [24:3-8], Abraham recruited a wife for his son, Isaac, from “the land of my birth,” for return to Eretz Yisrael, rather than from among the (local) Canaanites. Abraham willed all the land that he owned to Isaac; to his sons by concubines, he had given gifts (while he was still living) and had “sent them away from his son Isaac eastward” to another “land” [25:5-6]: the land-inheritance was given unambiguously to Isaac, distinguishing Eretz Yisrael from other neighboring areas.

In TOLEDOT, the Jacob-Esau sibling-rivalry presages the emergence of “two separate peoples…and the older shall serve the younger” [25:23]; Jacob’s agrarian occupation (Land-related) was to dominate that of Esau (hunting). After “a famine in the land,” the Covenant was restated [26:2-5, 28:3-4] as entailing a Land-gift to Isaac’s descendants (“and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves”). After Isaac proved to be a successful farmer, [26:12], he was evicted by the Philistines and then “went up to Beer-sheba” [26:23]; this distinction recognizes that Eretz Yisrael does not encompass the Land of the Philistines (Gaza). Later, Isaac’s (purloined) blessing of Jacob was again predicated on inheriting the land, for he was to “be lord over thy brethren” [27:28-29]. Finally, Rebecca sent Jacob to marry a non-Canaanite (from the daughters of his uncle, Laban), again linking this process with manifestations in the Promised Land).

In VAYETZE, G-d repeated the Abrahamic Covenant in Jacob’s Dream, mandating Jacob’s descendants would inherit the Promised Land and linking three distinct entities: Jacob’s ancestors/descendants, Eretz Yisrael, and G-d’s presence [28:13-15].

In VAYISHLACH, Jacob repeated the Abrahamic Covenant within the context of his conflict with Esau [32:10-13] and globally [35:11-12]; the Promised Land was located west of the Jordan River, as noted when Jacob approached Esau from the north [32:23].

Jacob’s prompt land-purchase (near Shechem/Nablus, the site of Joseph’s Tomb) after returning to the Promised Land reflected, again, the high priority continuously placed on justifying claims of the special status in Jewry of Eretz Yisrael.

In VAYESHEV, that Jacob settled in the land where his father had sojourned, in the Land of Canaan [37:1] contrasted with Esau’s having migrated. The tightness of the linkage between the Land and the People is reflected both by indiscriminate exchange of the patriarch’s two names (Jacob/Israel) and use of the word “Israel” to denote (again, repetitively) both the land (Eretz Yisrael) and the people (Hebrews/Israelites/Jews).

In MIKETZ, Joseph manifest “home-sickness” when he chose the name Manasseh (“G-d has made me forget completely my hardship and my parental home”) [41:51]. Indeed, Egypt was referred to as “the land of my affliction” [41:52] and as being “naked” [42:9] to emphasize the (relative) shame of living there compared with being in Eretz Yisrael. Repeated references to “the Land of Canaan” [42:5,7,29] emphasized its importance.

In VAYIGASH, established concepts are repeated regarding the importance of seeking to reside in the Promised Land. Jacob is now “going down” to Egypt (45:9, 46:3-4) and he is “going up” to the Land of Canaan [45:25, 46:4]. Overall, they viewed themselves as sojourners in Egypt due to famine, not permanent residents [45:7, 47:3, 47:23].

In VAYECHI, Jacob told Joseph to bury him in Eretz Yisrael rather than in Egypt [47:29, 49:29, 50:5]; G-d would “bring him back” [48:21, 50:24] to this G-d-given Land [48:4].

OVERALL, in Genesis, the Land was deemed special, introducing and maintaining the concept of Moral Ecology that reflected creation of a relationship between Eretz Yisrael and the Jews to whom it had been deeded by the Deity. The Promsied Land was given distinct borders, including in particular Me’arat HaMachpeilah [the Tomb of the Matriarchs/Patriarchs, near Hebron], (the site of) the Beit HaMikdash [the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem], and Joseph’s Tomb [near Nablus]; excluded were Gaza and the region east of the Jordan River (and doomed were the other peoples in the region). Repeatedly, the Abrahamic Covenant was cited as both a pledge and a prediction of the fate of Eretz Yisrael, and residency in the Galut was always characterized as a “sojourn.” Yet, the Torah had yet to specify just what was to be done in the Promised Land….

References to the land illustrate its importance, both in Egypt and elsewhere. When the Israelites were prolific, “the land was filled with them” [Exodus 1:7]. When the Hebrews gathered stubble for straw, they were sent “throughout the land of Egypt [Exodus 5:12]. But it was when G-d heard the moaning of the slaves that He remembered the Covenant with the Patriarchs [2:23] and “took notice” of the need to take action accordingly. The result emphasized by Lichtman is pervasive throughout Pesach and other liturgies: all Jews (past and present) were enslaved and participated in the Exodus from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael and, thus, all now live in the Promised Land (“Attention, Diaspora Jews!”).

Just as the first Commandment to Abraham was to go to Eretz Yisrael [Genesis 12:2], Moses is given his first “marching order” to go to Eretz Yisrael [Exodus 3:8, 3:10, 3:17]:

I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite….Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth My people the children of Israel out of Egypt…. And I have said: I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Amorite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.

Moses was neither able to enter the Promised Land [having personalized a miracle, per Numbers 20:7-13], nor permitted to be buried therein. Although some authors consider the latter decision to be based on his sheer magnitude as a deliverer, prophet and lawgiver (whose burial site could become a potential distraction from what had had accomplished),

Lichtman quotes Midrash to suggest Moses had remained silent when described as an Egyptian (rather than as a Hebrew) and, thus, had behaviorally rejected Eretz Yisrael (thereby not meriting entering the Promised Land (pre-/post-death, despite his stature). The justification in this Parashah for this concept is questionable, but the concept is not. Lichtman quotes the following as suggesting that Moses had wrongly remained silent when, actually, it suggests that he wasn’t present at that moment [Exodus 2:18-20]:

When they came to Reuel their father, he said: “How is it that ye are come so soon to-day?” And they said: “An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and moreover he drew water for us, and watered the flock.” And he said unto his daughters: “And where is he? Why is it that ye have left the man? Call him, that he may eat bread.”

Another possible explanation for this outcome is raised when Moses challenges G-d and is told only of the outcome which he would, himself, later witness [Exodus 5:22-6:1]:

This is a “negative inference,” because Lichtman quotes Rashi as having concluded, “You will see what happens to Pharaoh, but you will not see what happens to the kings of the Seven nations, when I bring the Jews into the land.” Again, it is not conclusive.

When Moses named his son “Gershom,” he explained “I have been a stranger in a strange land” [3:21]. On the one hand, this echoes G-d’s prophesy to Abraham [“Your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs (Genesis 15:13)]; on the other hand, this suggests that Moses had stopped feeling as if he was foreign to Egypt. Here, because all people in a strange land are initially strangers, the past-tense might mean that he was no longer self-described as a “stranger” in Egypt prior to his sudden departure following his having killed the taskmaster. (He certainly wasn’t referring to his current status in Midian, again noting use of the past-tense.) Lichtman, supporting the latter interpretation, concludes that Moses perceived himself as having become an Egyptian (thereby not a “Hebrew”) but also that he could not forget where the rest of the Hebrew nation currently resided.

Thus, it may be more accurate to conclude that he was to remain among the rest of the Israelites who had participated in the Exodus…and who were not to enter Eretz Yisrael …except for Joshua, who was to provide the missing link between the past and the future.

Even Revelation is perceivable as a secondary event, for emphasis is placed upon service to G-d at a physical site (which was to change), rather than generic behavior [3:5, 3:12]:

Draw not nigh hither; put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.

When thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve G-d upon this mountain.

The former (the Burning Bush) is designated transiently holy (because of G-d’s transient presence), as per this explanation from Rashi, which encompasses Mount Sinai:

The pronoun הוא, which is masculine, does not concur with the feminine noun, אדמח־קדש, which it comes to substitute. Therefore, the pronoun is referring to the noun המקום, which is also masculine. A compound phrase would have resolved this potential confusion, but was not used because only this specific place was holy, because G-d revealed Himself there. The actual soil, however, had no intrinsic holiness, for it was outside Eretz Yisrael. Only the soil of Eretz Yisrael is holy, even in places where G-d’s presence is not outwardly revealed. We also find this idea with regard to Mount Sinai. It was holy only as long as G-d’s presence rested there, but the moment the great revelation ended, so did the sanctity of the place.

The idea of explicitly sacred space is encountered here for the first time. No such concept exists in Genesis, which features only sacred time—the Sabbath. The pagan mythological notion that certain areas are inherently holy does not exist in the Bible. It is solely the theophany that temporarily imparts sanctity to the site, rendering it inaccessible to man.

Sinai possess no inherent or “natural” holiness, nor does it acquire such by virtue of the theophany. Its sanctity and hence untouchability do not outlast the limited duration of the event.

[Averring that land could not be permanently holy (see JPS Commentary to Exodus 3:5, “The pagan mythological notion that certain areas are inherently holy does not exist in the Bible”) did not extend to Eretz Yisrael but, rather, to land elsewhere, Chutz LaAretz. This may be explained by suggesting that Eretz Yisrael wasn’t “inherently” holy at the moment of Creation but, rather, it was made holy after the Covenant was implemented.]

The conclusions that can be drawn from this Parashah emphasize the primacy of the need to go to Eretz Yisrael, the site where conduct based on the Ten (at least) Commandments would occur. G-d’s presence anywhere else (at the Burning Bush and on Mount Sinai) did not confer comparable “sacredness.” Moses was not buried in the Promised Land, perhaps, because he had identified himself as an Egyptian (rather than as a Hebrew) prior to initiating, leading, and embarking upon the Exodus (of his compatriots, the Israelites).

Canaan is identified as “the land in which [Hebrews] lived as sojourners” [Exodus 6:4], despite the fact that they were currently sojourners in Egypt. Lichtman suggests this referred to the transience of earthly existence (“dwelled primarily in the upper worlds, always walking before G-d”). The JPS Commentary notes, simply, “The Patriarchs received ownership of the land; their descendants would receive possession of it,” as per “I will give it to you for a possession” [Exodus 6:8]. Thus, prior generations had “sojourned” in Eretz Yisrael, until such time as they were soon to have conquered it.

Lichtman emphasizes that this latter verse refers to it as a “heritage” requiring ongoing attention, and an “inheritance” which is not based merely on acquisition. Regardless, recognizing a two-step process (promise through covenant, delivery through conquest) necessitates adherence to proper conduct (lest the latter process—sadly—be reversed). All of these references are distinguished from multiple references to the land of Egypt where plagues are occurring [e.g., Exodus 7:21], to which Hebrews have no allegiance.

On three occasions, behavior is to occur “when you come to the Land,” such as observing the Pesach sacrifice [12:25], eating matzah [13:3-5] and setting-aside first-born male cattle [13:11-12]…each of which is to recall the Exodus from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael (and, with specific regard to the first and third activity, to recall the tenth plague). Also, the “gift” of the land of the Canaanites is specifically not to be taken for granted [13:11].

Again, the Israelites “went up” out of the land of Egypt [13:18], eating manna [16:35] until they had been guided to the Promised Land [15:13], the land they inherited [15:17]. More important, perhaps, is the fact that they were advised to travel (to Eretz Yisrael) instead of complaining [14:15]. This is both an object lesson (it’s therapeutic to rectify problems by one’s self) and a specific suggestion that arrival in Eretz Yisrael is desirable.

As opposed to the “thought” Commandment (#10, “coveting,” unique to Judaism[5]), one of the “action” Commandments is associated specifically with Eretz Yisrael: “Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which HaShem thy G-d giveth thee” [20:12]. And the demand to perform justice [18:22-23]—

Let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge themselves; so shall they make it easier for thee and bear the burden with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and G-d command thee so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people also shall go to their place in peace.

—links establishing a judicial system and peaceful entry into the Promised Land. Thus, these two mandates initiated the process of defining what was to occur in Eretz Yisrael; further, they did so in a format that was “optional,” in that they could easily have been conveyed in a free-standing fashion (i.e., not linked specifically to the Promised Land).

The process of defining what was to occur in Eretz Yisrael continued when the Shemittah (the “Sabbath of the Land” was established [23:10-22]:

Six years thou shalt sow thy land, and gather in the increase thereof; but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat; and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy olive-yard.

The process of defining what was to occur in Eretz Yisrael was extended to establishing the “pilgrim holidays” (Pesach, Shavuot and Succoth) to agricultural events [23:15-17]. Meanwhile, the borders of the Promised Land (to be conquered) were cited [23:20-21]. Of course, many of the enumerated laws are related specifically to the land [e.g., 22:4]; all of them are applicable to events that occur on the land (e.g., theft, murder, finance). [Rather than reprint them, this entire Parashah is adopted “by-reference” in this regard.]

Thus, even details of how the Tent of Meeting was to be created were linked to the Land.

Because Lichtman is unable to find a reference to Eretz Yisrael in this Parashah, he avers that it is entirely related thereto, albeit in an unstated form. Preferable, perhaps, is citing the specific use of pomegranates on the hem of the robe [28:33], for the JPS Commentary notes this is one of the seven characteristic fruits of Eretz Yisrael [Deuteronomy 8:8]. Therefore, the vestments of the priests are derived from particular agricultural products.

After G-d threatened to destroy the Israelites because they had made the Golden Calf, Moses convinced him otherwise by inter alia invoking the Covenant (32:13); after His ire had abated, forty days hence, he urged the Israelites to “ascend” to Eretz Yisrael [33:1-3]. And they were not to “stray” after the gods of the inhabitants of the Land [34:11-15]. On all occasions, after G-d recalled the Promised Land, he bonded with the Israelites. And, finally, celebration of the Pilgrim Festivals was again linked to the land [34:18-24].

The only reference to the land is the mandate that honoring the Sabbath must occur “throughout your settlements” [35:3]. Here, there is no distinction between Eretz Yisrael and Chutz LaAretz, perhaps because of the absolute nature of the laws of the Sabbath.

Lichtman resorts to Gematria to educe a reference to the land but, again, the vestment is noted to have pomegranates [39:26] grown, in particular, in the Promised Land.

In SHEMOT, it is established that the need to go to Eretz Yisrael is ascribable to the need to have a site where conduct based on the Ten (at least) Commandments would occur. And in VA’ERA, the need to uphold the “heritage” of Eretz Yisrael was recognized.

In BO, three Pesach-related behaviors were noted to be maintained in Eretz Yisrael. And in BESHALACH, the Israelites were told to transcend troubles by going to Eretz Yisrael.

In YITRO, the process of defining what was to occur in Eretz Yisrael was started, noting the need to adhere to the Ten Commandments and to establish an independent judiciary. And in MISHPATIM, the laws of the land (n.b., Shemittah) were elucidated in-detail, while in VAYAKHEL, the overall importance of the Sabbath was re-emphasized.

In TERUMAH, G-d was specifically recognized to wish to dwell in the Promised Land. And in TETZAVEH (and PEKUDE), the vestments were to include fruit unique to Eretz Yisrael. Finally, in KI TISA, the Covenant stopped G-d from destroying the Israelites.

OVERALL, in Exodus, laws that were to be honored in Eretz Yisrael were elucidated.

Leviticus has been dubbed “The Law of the Priests,” perhaps, because the focus is ritual. [This Parashah focuses on sacrifices, and it would be too much of a “stretch” to suggest that any of the details therein enlighten the reader regarding the importance of the Land.]

[This Parashah focuses on sacrifices, and it would be too much of a “stretch” to suggest that any of the details therein enlighten the reader regarding the importance of the Land.]

As noted (repeatedly) earlier, when G-d “brings you up from the land of Egypt” [11:45], He elevates the Israelites to a loftier site, the Promised Land. [Otherwise, this Parashah again focuses on rules that are not specifically tethered to Land-related concerns.]

[This Parashah focuses on diseases, and it would be too much of a “stretch” to suggest that any of the details therein enlighten the reader regarding the importance of the Land.]

It is in this Parashah that the concept of Moral Ecology is dramatized, as per [18:24-28]:

And the land was defiled, therefore I did visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomited out her inhabitants.

Ye therefore shall keep My statutes and Mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you--for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled--that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.

This follows the litany of sexual indiscretions, and invokes the need to reject the norms of other communities, most notably the Canaanites presently residing in the Promised Land, to which they were going. This was also applicable to the Egyptians, as per [18:3]:

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes.

Clearly, there is an interaction between the people and the Land reflecting the activity (rather than passivity) of the latter within this relationship. It also portends the ability of an exile to transpire should the Israelites misbehave (as they did), reflecting sacredness of both the Land and the rule-of-law predicated on the Torah…mandating adherence. Thus, Lichtman considered this “The Secret of the Land” and, as noted in the JPS Commentary, “It is as though the land, personified, is angered by its defilement at man’s hand.”

After prior patterns again appear, specific rules related to the Land are now promulgated. Israelites are the “people of the land” [20:2] who must not fill the land with lewdness by being sexually unfaithful [19:29], lest they be “vomited-out” [20:22] and not inherit the “land flowing with milk and honey” [20:24]; even proselytes dwelling “in your Land” are to be subject to these laws [19:33]. Pivotal and novel are agricultural laws [19:9-10]:

When ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest.

And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather the fallen fruit of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger.

Not only are Israelites obligated to feed the poor and the stranger, but they also must ensure the land is not abused by aggressive farming techniques [19:23-25]:

When ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden; three years shall it be as forbidden unto you; it shall not be eaten. And in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise unto HaShem. But in the fifth year may ye eat of the fruit thereof, that it may yield unto you more richly the increase thereof.

The Israelites are obligated to cultivate the soil and, in the process, respect both the Land (maximizing its renewal) and the people who are unable to be farmers (the poor). Thus, seemingly, the “Moral Ecology” of an “alive” Land necessitates individualization of the relationship that the Torah would create between the People Israel and the Land Israel.

This Parashah mandates that the Israelites count the Omer (the seven weeks between Pesach and Shavuot) when they enter the Land “and reap its harvest” [23:10], and it then repeats the mandate to feed the poor and the “proselyte” (the stranger) [23:22]:

When ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest; thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the stranger.

Again, it is recognized that procedures to be followed in Eretz Yisrael are rooted in the (sociologic and philanthropic) agricultural approach to residing in the (Promised) Land; respect for earth necessarily shows respect for the Creator of the earth (G-d).

This Parashah mandates that the Israelites celebrate a “Sabbath of the Land” [25:2-13]; the fiftieth year is to be a “Jubilee Year” which carries non-agricultural implications:

When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto HaShem.

Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the produce thereof.

But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a sabbath unto HaShem; thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.

That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather; it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land.

And the sabbath-produce of the land shall be for food for you: for thee, and for thy servant and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant and for the settler by thy side that sojourn with thee; and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food.

And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and there shall be unto thee the days of seven sabbaths of years, even forty and nine years.

Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn on the tenth day of the seventh month; in the day of atonement shall ye make proclamation with the horn throughout all your land.

And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

A jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you; ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it, nor gather the grapes in it of the undressed vines.

For it is a jubilee; it shall be holy unto you; ye shall eat the increase thereof out of the field.

Again, the law of the Land serves as a metaphor for mandated non-agricultural activities.

That is why fiscal dealings are referenced as occurring in the Land of Canaan [25:35-38]:

Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy G-d; that thy brother may live with thee.

Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase.

I am HaShem your G-d, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.

Lest there be any doubt about why the Land is felt to be so special (not withstanding the obvious, ongoing challenge to acquire foodstuffs, faced by people living at that time), there is an overtly articulated recognition that G-d is the true owner thereof [25:23-24].

But the fields of the open land about their cities may not be sold; for that is their perpetual possession.

Excursus #10 in the JPS Commentary discusses the historical context of these mandates encompassing, for example, both the major reason for the decline of the once prosperous Neo-Sumerian economy of Mesopotamia early in the second millennium B.C.E. (the high alkaline soil content in areas of the Diyala River region, due to excessive irrigation) and the structuring of public/private fiscal transactions (related to land tenure and taxation). [Land was as much a source of life at that time as, today, it is a source of political strife.] Pervasive within the Moral Ecology context was how ethics governed day-to-day actions.

The Israelites are again starkly reminded that good conduct will prompt the Land to yield its produce [26:3-4), the people will be well-fed and live securely in the Land [26:5], and there will be peace in the land [26:6]. Contrariwise, bad conduct will make the Land desolate [26:32], although Jewry would never be obliterated due to the Covenant [26:44]. [As was noted by Rabbi Josh during the discussion of this Parashah, if the Israelites were to depart (i.e., were to be exiled therefrom, presumably justly), the land would suffer.] G-d plans to dwell with the people whom he brought from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael [26:12]. And this is recalled when “tithes from the land [are noted to be] the L-rd’s [27:30].

In VAYIKRA, TZAV, SHEMINI, TAZRIA, and METZORA, the ”Laws of the Priests” are elucidated, along with references to being brought “up” from Egypt and quarantining.

In KEDOSHIM, the Land is again demonstrated to be capable of “vomiting” sinners and of feeding the poor and strangers when property corners are left unharvested. In EMOR, leaving unharvested land is again mandated, and counting the Omer is land-linked.

In BEHAR, the establishment of the Jubilee year is land-linked. In BECHUKOTAI, it is noted that the Land’s response to good and bad conduct is commensurate, although the Covenant (to preserve the people Israel) is never to be jeopardized within this context.

OVERALL, in Leviticus, evidence of Moral Ecology was manifest; the Land was alive!

[This Parashah is comprised of a census to prepare to conquer the Promised Land. Therefore, Lichtman considers this fact to be an oblique reference to Eretz Yisrael, but the focus is on the military power of ~2,000,000 Israelites, poised to cross the Jordan.]

[This Parashah is comprised of myriad laws and definitions (such as the Nazirites) that served as a prelude to initiating use of the Tent of Meeting (for worship and sacrifice). Again, Lichtman extends discussion to the Temple Mount (as the destination of the Ark, one might say) and, thus, to the need to maintain (current-day) control over Jerusalem.]

The two essays by Lichtman cite a reference to the Land were the Israelites attacked (after which time sounding trumpets will prompt G-d to remember and save them) and cite the request of Moses of his father-in-law Jethro to refrain from returning to Midian (and to remain on the journey to Eretz Yisrael); Lichtman considers the former to be a reminder that current-day Israel will be preserved, despite its being beset by enemies [10:9] and the latter to be a reminder that making aliyah is even desirable for Jews who were not born in Israel [10:29-32]. Overall, no pivotal “new ground” is broken in either.

Two additional references cited by Lichtman are followed by Talmudic commentaries, neither of which characterizes the Promised Land with any additional specificity. First, Moses quoted G-d (in a state of pique) as having commanded him to carry the Israelites “in thy bosom, as a nursing-father carrieth the sucking child, unto the land which Thou didst swear unto their fathers” [11:12], depicting his having paternalistic responsibility. Second, Eldad and Medad were recognized by Moses as prophets [11:26-29] who were rewarded for this activity with the ability to enter entered Eretz Yisrael [34:21,24]. Thus, the four references to the Land in this Parashah do not reinforce the Moral Ecology motif.

Contrary to its predecessor, this Parashot has numerous references to Eretz Yisrael that do reinforce the Moral Ecology motif; they are derivative specifically of the Spy Scandal. Lichtman finds thirteen specific “Land” citations, but the others are generic restatements of its definition as “the Land of Canaan which I give to the Children of Israel” [13:1,17] or as “the Land into which I bring you” [15:2,17]. This latter introduction is reminiscent of that which preceded an enumeration of laws in an earlier Parashot [Leviticus 19:23].

The focus is on the initiation, implementation and import of the spying on Eretz Yisrael. G-d requested the scouting [13:1-2] and Moses approved the scouts [13:16]. Curiously, the JPS Commentary characterized them as “malcontents,” but would then lead to the query as to why Moses would knowingly undermine his future credibility in this fashion. One could argue that this process allowed Joshua and Caleb to distinguish themselves—with their being enabled divinely to enter the Promised Land thereafter [14:24, 38]—but it would appear that the “price” paid for this political achievement was risking the destruction of the Israelites [14:12]. Therefore, reluctantly perhaps, it must be concluded that the reconnoiterers represented a cross-section of contemporaneous “public opinion.”

This explains why G-d considered the sin to have been a severe affront by the Israelites, in a way that is reminiscent of the transcendent “Moral Ecology” concept detailed supra:

The land of Israel, in R. Sorotzkin’s words, behaves “like a living thing.” The land does not tolerate sin, and spews out sinners, of whatever nation [Leviticus 18:27-28]. The land is provided with a year of rest, Shemittah [Leviticus 25], and if the people do not observe the Shemittah, then the very land will demand its rest by expelling the people [Leviticus 26:34]. Furthermore, one who does not acknowledge his connection to Israel does not deserve to be buried there [see Devarim Rabbah 2:5], because the land is insulted.

Thus, says R. Sorotzkin, the land of Israel, including its “trees and stones,” is a living entity that is less tolerant of an affront than is Moshe. The scouts should have learned that, if it is lashon hara to speak against the unassuming Moshe [as Aaron and Miriam had done, as related in the immediately-prior Parashah], it is all the more so to speak against the noble Land of Israel.

Each of us is an emissary of the Land of Israel, and we should defend her honor.

Although it had been agreed that the Land was flowing with milk and honey by both the sinful-scouts and the righteous-scouts (Joshua and Caleb) [respectively, 13:27, 14:8], divergent views were articulated regarding the potency of its inhabitants [13:28, 14:9] and of the proposed action, returning to Egypt vs. conquering Eretz Yisrael [14:4, 13:30]. Ultimately, this led to the double-sin of slandering/despising Eretz Yisrael [13:32, 14:31].

Lichtman asserts that the spies had malice aforethought and harbored an evil motive. Evidence for the former was predicated on their having returned with non-essential fruits, (one cluster of grapes, pomegranates, figs and dates) [13:23, 27] rather than those that are more essential for human survival (wheat, barley or olive oil). Evidence for the latter was based on the alleged intent to cause the Jews to tarry in the desert so that the princes (in each tribe) would retain their positions of authority. [He quoted Shelah HaKadosh, Torah SheBichtav, Parashat Shelach, which “found the same idea in the Zohar.”] Throughout, the customary references to “going up” abounded [13:21,22, 14:40].

The JPS Commentary discussed the exploration of Hebron in considerable depth [13:22], not only because it encompassed Machpelah, but also because it was subsequently both the capital of the tribe of Judah and the site where David reigned for seven years. Thus, certain PARTICULARLY sacred sites in the Promised Land were beginning to emerge.

The JPS Commentary devoted a number of Excursuses to the scouting episode, and it explored use of the term “Ger” (“stranger”) and its implications regarding Eretz Yisrael. The laws are applicable equally to Israelites and to strangers [15:29-30], for “The implicit reason is that the Holy Land will become polluted by sins committed upon it, be they ritual or ethical, whether by citizen or stranger (Leviticus 18:24-30).” This is why:

In return for being loyal to its protectors and bound by their laws, the ger, as indicated by its Arabic cognate jâr, was a “protected stranger.” Israel regarded itself as a ger, both in its own land (during the time of the forefathers) and in Egypt. Moreover, since the land belonged to G-d, Israel’s status upon it was theologically and legally that of a ger. Strangers had attached themselves to Israel during their flight from Egypt, as did many Canaanites after the conquest. Therefore, gerim could not own landed property and were largely day laborers and artisans or were among the wards of society. Indeed, since the Levites—through Israelites—were also landless, they were dependent upon the tribes in whose midst they settled and, hence, they too could be termed gerim….

Though the ger enjoyed equal protection with the Israelite under the law, he was not of the same legal status; he neither enjoyed the same privileges nor was bound by the same obligations. Whereas the civil law held the citizen and the ger to be of equal status, the religious law made distinctions according to the following underlying principle: The ger is bound by the prohibitive commandments but not by the performative ones.

…The injunction that “there shall be one law for you and one for the resident stranger” [Numbers 15:15 (among other citations)] should not be misconstrued. It applies only to the case given in the context; it is not to be taken as a generalization….The rationale is clear: Failure to eliminate impurity threatens G-d’s land and sanctuary. The welfare of all Israel residing in G-d’s land and under the protection of His sanctuary is jeopardized by the prolongation of impurity. The principle is underscored by Chapter 15, which requires the bringing of a communal purification offering to atone not only for individual wrongs of Israelites, but for the gerim as well [Numbers 15:26]….

Does this mean that the ger is required, as is the Israelite, to observe the minutiae of ritual and ethical prohibitions, such as not wearing garments of mixed seed or not spreading gossip? The answer is not clear Most likely, the ger is limited in his obligations to refrain only from those violations that engender ritual impurity…..

The exception is the right of the ger to slaughter his animals profanely, that is, not as a sacrifice….This distinction between the ger and the Israelite is also apparent in the corollary prohibition concerning the animal suit: The ger may eat it, but the Israelite may not….The ger must observe the prohibitive commandment not to worship other gods, but he is not compelled to observe the performative commandment to worship Israel’s G-d [Leviticus 17:8-9]. {The remaining discussion related to evolution of the status of the ger through the Prophets, accommodating conversion.}

These details have some import with regard to the way Modern Israel has afforded status to Jews that non-Jews cannot enjoy, and the controversies associated therewith (e.g., whether the Jewish National Fund should be able to countenance land sale to gentiles). As they relate to the portrayal of Eretz Yisrael, pivotal is its being perceived as G-d’s.

The “complaint” theme was immediately resumed, with both an attack and an implied insult (via word-choice) being delivered from Datan and Aviram to Moses [16:12-14]:

We will not come up; is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, but thou must needs make thyself also a prince over us?

Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards; wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.

Here, it was not sufficient to rail (incorrectly) against Eretz Yisrael (which did “flow”), for it was also (brazenly, maliciously) asserted that Egypt had this precise attribute. Thus, a profoundly unpleasant demise was inevitable, and justifiable, noting that the sin of defaming the Promised Land was paired with that of the Golden Calf as the two that had been the most profound during the post-Exodus wanderings in the wilderness (according to the JPS Commentary to Chapter 13) [Exodus 32-34 and Numbers 13-14].

G-d concluded that Moses and Aaron “did not believe in Me to sanctify Me in the eyes of the Children of Israel” and exacted this penalty: “you will not bring this congregation to the Land that I have given them [20:12]. This punishment was felt to befit the crime, recognizing the mitigating circumstance of their prior contributions to the Israelites. Otherwise, the only major reference to the Promised Land in the Parashot is inferential, based on previously-established concepts; when the Israelites complained about insufficient food, they noted that they had been caused “to ascend from Egypt” [20:5].

Lichtman suggests that reference to dwelling in tents while wandering in the desert [“How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwelling places, O Israel,” 24:5] suggests the temporary nature of this status, compared with the permanence of living in Eretz Yisrael. The JPS Commentary, however, recognizes the reference to a “temporary” structure, but cites Midrash to provide an alternative viewpoint: “the ideal of the Jew in his home and synagogue, and for this reason it was placed at the opening of the daily morning prayer.”

Lichtman suggests that reference to the desire of the daughters of Tzlofchad to have a “holding” [27:4] reflects the compulsion to gain inheritable property and, thus a portion of what will be allotted in Eretz Yisrael. The JPS Commentary corroborates this view, noting that the desire for a “holding apportioned to them” denotes “inalienable property.” Thus, in settling a dispute worthy of being memorialized in the Torah, the driving force is the intent to personalize one’s stake (as both a woman, and a man) in the Promised Land.

This segues from the need to conduct another census, specifically, to determine to whom “shall the Land be divided as an inheritance” [26:53]. Again, it’s all about the Land.

Lichtman also explained reference to Judah’s sons (Er and Onan) as having “died in the Land of Canaan” [26:19] by suggesting this connoted “death”—destruction—of the two Temples in Eretz Yisrael, recalling their having displeased the L-rd, per Genesis 38:7-10; this is less an explication of Eretz Yisrael as it is a depiction of how events were situated. The JPS Commentary does not explore this fact in any detail, instead simply noting that this explains why they were absent from the list of clans that had descendants [26:20].

The request of the tribes of Reuben and Gad to settle east of the Jordan River [32:1-5] prompted Moses to attack them as sinful for having abandoned their brethren [32:6] and Eretz Yisrael [32:7-14]; ultimately, their agreement to assist in conquering Eretz Yisrael ostensibly resolved the matter [32:32]. But Lichtman likened their conduct to the sins of materialism, rejection of the Promised Land, and fracturing Jewish unity. The problem with this construct, however, is that three clans from the tribe of Manasseh settled north of them in Transjordan, but were not portrayed as comparably sinful [32:39-43]. Thus, instead of allowing for Lichtman’s view that living in the Diaspora was sub-optimal, it is far more likely that this outcome legitimized the capacity of Jews to reside knowingly outside of the Promised Land and still be accepted as included within the Jewish People. In any case, the JPS Commentary offers no such condemnatory outcome and, therefore, Jews in the Galut seem empowered to participate in the affairs of Eretz Yisrael from afar. (Indeed, whatever unfortunate fate subsequently befell the Israelites did not victimize them in a way that was fundamentally distinct from how the other tribes were affected.)

G-d issued a comprehensive mandate to the Israelites with broad implications [33:31-36]:

When ye pass over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten images, and demolish all their high places.

And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein; for unto you have I given the land to possess it.

And ye shall inherit the land by lot according to your families—to the more ye shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer thou shalt give the less inheritance; wheresoever the lot falleth to any man, that shall be his; according to the tribes of your fathers shall ye inherit.

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then shall those that ye let remain of them be as thorns in your eyes, and as pricks in your sides, and they shall harass you in the land wherein ye dwell.

And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so will I do unto you.

First, from Lichtman’s perspective, this obligation should be applied contemporaneously. Yet, conspicuously absent is the mandate that this transpire “forever,” and it makes no intuitive sense in light of the acceptance of the settlement in Transjordan by the tribes of Reuben, Gad and (three families in) Manasseh. Indeed, the focus is trained on linking the ongoing survival of the Israelites to their not emulating the current (pagan) inhabitants.

Second, the mandated inheritance [34:2,16-29; 35:1-8] is inherent; it is presented in a way recalling the Moral Ecology of Jewish Theology (vide supra), as per Midrash cited by Lichtman [Eim HaBanim Semeichah, pp. 283-285] which parses key phraseology:

This also explains why the verse says, “This is the Land that shall fall to you as an inheritance,” and not “that you shall inherit.” “That you shall inherit” would have implied that you, by your own virtues, deserve this. Then, it makes sense to ascribe the act of inheriting to Israel. It would have referred specifically to a time when the people of Israel do the will of HaShem. Therefore, the Torah says, “that shall fall to you.” This implies that you will not receive the Land because you acted properly, but because the Land desires it. The Land says, “It is preferable for me to fall to you than to other servants.”

Indubitably, this denotes an “active” function of the Promised Land, not passivity, and this (in turn) connotes the necessity for the Israelites to interact with this new life-force.

After the borders are defined [34:3-12] as discussed in considerable detail supra, they are portrayed as “temporary” by Lichtman, “for they will constantly expand, as occurred at the time of David, Solomon and Herod, whose kingdoms spread to the Euphrates. This will certainly happen in the future.” He offered no quote to buttress this (Greater Israel) prognostication and, therefore, it does not undermine the depiction of the Promised Land as existing entirely to the west of the Jordan River. He explained his view in this fashion: “We are forced to say that the borders mentioned here are limited to the present (i.e., the Generation of the Wilderness), when their numbers were small and they were unable to take hold of more land.” But because these borders were contemporaneously “locked-in” via exhaustively-precise geographical description, they should be viewed as definitive.

Cities of refuge are established for those who had unintentionally killed someone [35:10], and this allowed for the Land to be otherwise unencumbered by sinners [35:32-34]:

So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood, it polluteth the land; and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

And thou shalt not defile the land which ye inhabit, in the midst of which I dwell; for I HaShem dwell in the midst of the children of Israel.

G-d recalls the unique capacity of the Land to function actively (“vomit”) if defiled; also, imagery is conveyed that suggests the Deity will also inhabit Eretz Yisrael. Essentially, the Israelites have no excuse but to behave optimally in the Promised Land, for those who would injure the Land behaviorally have already been isolated in the Cities of Refuge.

In BEMIDBAR and in NASO, allusions to the upcoming conquest of the Promised Land may be derived directly from the fact that a census is taken to assess troop-strength and indirectly by the fact that laws are established that are to be manifest in Eretz Yisrael.

In BEHA’ALOTECHA, it is noted that, after having been summoned by trumpets, G-d will protect the Israelites; also, it is noted that Jewish converts should also make aliyah.

In SHELACH-LECHA, conclusions drawn from the Spy Scandal reinforce such notions as the desirability of entering Eretz Yisrael (reward/punishment). That this is one of the two sinful events that transpired during the journey from Egypt to the Promised Land is indicative of how vital it was to honor/respect and not slander/despise Eretz Yisrael. And at least one commentator noted how the “Land” rose to the level of being perceived as “a living thing…less tolerant of an affront than is Moshe” (susceptible to being insulted, intolerant of and reactive to sin, etc.). Hebron was dutifully identified as a key-locale.

Finally, how the stranger is to be treated in Ancient/Modern Israel is explored thusly: The laws are applicable equally to Israelites and to strangers, for Eretz Yisrael will become polluted by sins committed upon it—be they ritual or ethical—but religious law bound the “protected stranger” to prohibitive (but not performative) commandments (because failure to eliminate impurity was felt to threaten G-d’s land and sanctuary.) These concepts are derivative of the principle that G-d owns Eretz Yisrael and, therefore, that the Israelites are also viewable as “strangers” residing on volatile, interactive Land.

In KORAH, those who besmirched/cursed Eretz Yisrael were doomed to perish promptly.

In CHUKAT, when Moses and Aaron attempted to personalize a miracle created by G-d, they were profoundly punished by being excluded from entering the Promised Land.

In BALAK, it may be possible that reference to dwelling in tents represented recognition that the Israelites had a transitional status, temporarily residing in makeshift structures.

In PINCHAS, it is noted that people wanted to acquire Land as part of their inheritances and, thus, that this elevated the imminent importance of the key-“Land,” Eretz Yisrael.

In MATOT, it is noted that Diaspora-Jews may participate in Israeli affairs from afar.

In MAS’EY, it is noted that, after the Israelites have displaced (rather irreversibly) the inhabitants of the Promised Land, they are to inherit regions thereof (as per their clans) because the Land (an active force, per Moral Ecology concepts) “desires” this to occur. Nevertheless, Diaspora-Jewry is legitimized, borders are established, and the land is then rendered sufficiently “pure” to empower it to eject those who engage in deviant conduct.

OVERALL, in Numbers, convergence of law and opportunity is congealing for, even as the Israelites are physically approaching the Promised Land, they are being operationally prepared to possess it and to respect their ongoing/intimate/dynamic relationship with it. Diaspora Jewry is recognized, as are specific reverential sites in Eretz Yisrael (Hebron). Even as the honor to enter the land is increasingly recognized, so too is the need to honor those who will be “protected strangers” therein. [Emerging is the concept that the Jews are “chosen” to set a good example for gentiles, both in Eretz Yisrael and worldwide.] Ethical principles are threaded through simple presentation of narratives and mandates (such as finding abhorrent any human effort to leverage advantage from Acts of G-d), as is the Moral Ecologic concept of facing exile (if Israelites sin against the Land).

Moses provided a recap: G-d initially told the Israelites to take possession of the Land promised to the patriarchs and to their heirs [1:8]. During the Spy Scandal, the Israelites flouted the Divine Order to “go up” to Eretz Yisrael due to (1)—the (false) report of the potency of the inhabitants, (2)—the desire to return to Egypt, and (3)—the defamation of G-d [1:26-27]. Nevertheless, Moses carried them “as a man carries a son” [1:31].

Thus, only Caleb and Joshua (not Moses) were to enter the Promised Land [1:36-38]; the Israelites failed to enter Eretz Yisrael prematurely (violating G-d’s command) [1:42-44] and were then to wander for 40 years as a new generation of children matured [1:39-49]. Specifically excluded from the Promised Land was the land of the Ammonites [2:19]. After having detailed the Transjordan land that had been conquered, its apportionment among two-and-a-half tribes (Reuben, Gad and some of Manasseh) was noted [3:12-17]. The Israelites were then charged (finally!) to possess the land militarily [3:18-22]. And the dimensions thereof [vide supra, page 19] are defined somewhat expansively [1:7].

Moses again asked G-d to let him enter Eretz Yisrael [3:25], but failed [3:25, 4:21,22], although he was permitted to view it [3:27], knowing that Joshua would enter it [3:28]. Moses then exhorted the Israelites to observe G-d’s “laws and rules…so that you may live to enter the land that the L-rd, the G-d of your fathers, is giving you” [4:1,22,40]. This was repeated in various ways, linking upright-behavior to land-possession [4:5,14] after the exodus from Egypt [4:20], and warning of exile if sinning occurred [4:26-27]. And, through it all, the desire to give Israelites the Land was repetitively pledged [4:38]; again, delineation of laws was prefaced by a mandate they be honored in the Land that they were to possess [5:28, 6:1,10,17-18], the Land flowing with Milk and Honey [6:3].

Through restatement of the Ten Commandments, it was again noted that celebration of the Sabbath was tethered to recollection of slavery in Egypt, and honoring one’s parents was tethered to the necessity to “long endure…in the Land” given by G-d [5:15-16]. Finally, lest there be any ambiguity, the Israelites were reminded they had emerged from Egypt [6:21-23, 7:8] and were to decimate all current inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael [7:1-2].

The Israelites are again reminded that honoring the Commandments will enable them to possess the Land [8:1, 11:8-9,13-15] and take it from its current occupants [11:22-25]. They would then flourish [7:12-13, 8:10. 11:21] and, thus, are prompted to do so [10:11], fully recognizing that they had not abided by this type of request previously [9:23].

Characteristics of the Promised Land are contrasted with those of Egypt in a fashion that is consistent with its being a Land “flowing with milk and honey” [11:10-12]:

For the land, whither thou goest in to possess it, is not as the land of Egypt, from whence ye came out, where thou didst sow thy seed, and didst water it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs; but the land, whither ye go over to possess it, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinketh water as the rain of heaven cometh down; a land which HaShem thy G-d careth for; the eyes of HaShem thy G-d are always upon it, from the beginning of the year even unto the end of the year.

Ominously, in juxtaposition, they are reminded also that sinning will provoke the L-rd inter alia to ensure that they “quickly perish from the good Land that the L-rd gives you” [11:16-17]. It is recognized prophylactically, however, that controversial behavioral issues will arise in the future, for one might say that G-d knows his “customers” [9:1-6]:

Hear, O Israel: thou art to pass over the Jordan this day, to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and fortified up to heaven, a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say: 'Who can stand before the sons of Anak?'

Know therefore this day, that HaShem thy G-d is He who goeth over before thee as a devouring fire; He will destroy them, and He will bring them down before thee; so shalt thou drive them out, and make them to perish quickly, as HaShem hath spoken unto thee.

Speak not thou in thy heart, after that HaShem thy G-d hath thrust them out from before thee, saying: 'For my righteousness HaShem hath brought me in to possess this land'; whereas for the wickedness of these nations HaShem doth drive them out from before thee.

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.

A boundaries-related issue again arises, one that can be rectified by noting a distinction between the Promised Land and territory that might also become conquered [11:24]:

Every place whereon the sole of your foot shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness, and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the hinder sea shall be your border.

This is reminiscent of the “expansive” depiction thereof [1:7] analyzed supra [page 19].

The Israelites are again exhorted to drive the infidels from Eretz Yisrael [12:29] and, after displacing them and possessing the Land [12:1-3], to dwell therein [12:10] and in its cities [13:13], while honoring the Levites [12:19] and abiding by G-d’s law [11:31-32], including the need to fight poverty [15:4-11]. That they may conquer more than the Promised Land is supported by the prediction that G-d “will widen your border” [12:20].

Two verses relate to the linkage of Israelites’ behavior with geography. First, although it is customarily preferable to delimit quotations so as to identify the key-concept therein, here, it is desirable to provide context, to explain why two mountains were to inspire provision of a blessing and a curse, upon entry into the Promised Land [11:26-32]:

Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if ye shall hearken unto the commandments of HaShem your G-d, which I command you this day; and the curse, if ye shall not hearken unto the commandments of HaShem your G-d, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known.

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.

Are they not beyond the Jordan, behind the way of the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites that dwell in the Arabah, over against Gilgal, beside the terebinths of Moreh?

For ye are to pass over the Jordan to go in to possess the land which HaShem your G-d giveth you, and ye shall possess it, and dwell therein.

And ye shall observe to do all the statutes and the ordinances which I set before you this day.

Mounts Gerizim and Ebal, respectively, were unassociated with particular praiseworthy or heretical events; rather the two represented a pair of considerations, mirroring verses that conveyed “reward/punishment” concepts linking behavior of humans and the Land. This [http://www.jafi.org.il/education/torani/nehardeah/reeh.html] provides context:

The objective of the blessing and curse is to goad Israel into keeping “all the laws and judgments which I give before you today” (verse 32), and this parallels what is written at the beginning: “in order that you hear the commandments of Hashem your G-d that I command you this day” (verse 27). The blessings are meant to encourage Israel to uphold their part of the covenant with G-d, and the curse - to frighten those who try to transgress it: “blessing if you listen, curse of you do not listen” (Devarim Rabbah [Liberman Edition], page 93). Blessings and curses also appear in the Bible in Vayikra (Leviticus) 26 and Devarim 28 and they are in line with the common practice of ancient eastern cultures to declare, at the conclusion of covenants and contracts, blessings for those who uphold the covenant and curses for those who transgress them.

This locale (proximate to Nablus, one of the three key regions in Eretz Yisrael, supra) therefore represents both a key burial site (Joseph) and the entry-point for the Israelites, where they celebrated arrival at the Promised Land (recognizing their responsibilities).

The second geographical reference relates to Jerusalem, and also to Shiloh [12:5,9]:

Unto the place which HaShem your G-d shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, even unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come….for ye are not as yet come to the rest [tranquility] and to the inheritance, which HaShem your G-d giveth thee.

This indirect reference to Jerusalem (Mount Moriah) appears repeatedly in Deuteronomy, [12:11,14,18,21,26, 14:23,24,25, 15:20, 16:2,6,7,11,15,16] because of realistic concerns that beset the Israelites (per Lichtman, quoting Rambam’s Moreh Nevuchim 3:45):

I have three reasons for this: First, so that the nations would not take hold of it [the site of the Temple] and fight a great war over it. Second, so that the nations would not damage and destroy it as much as they could. Third—and this is the strongest of all—to prevent each of the twelve tribes from requesting that this [special[ place fall in their territory, so that they can rule over it.

Rashi is quoted as defining “tranquility” as Shiloh and “inheritance” as Jerusalem,” and these are explained thusly [with Lichtman quoting Gur Aryeh by the Maharal of Prague]:

Jerusalem is called “inheritance” because an inheritance has no end, as opposed to “tranquility” which can be annulled.

Thus is identified a fourth region (Shiloh), which served as a transient repository for the Ark of the Covenant (prior to its being situated in the Temple, in Jerusalem). [The degree to which modern-day territorial priorities may be directed towards this area is unclear but, because it is recognized Biblically, it is necessary to include this consideration herein.]

Prior themes reappear. The Israelites will thrive as long as they pursue justice [16:20]. After they possess the land, they are not to emulate the practices of its inhabitants [18:9], who are to be destroyed, lest the Israelites experience recidivism [19:1, 20:16-18]. Yet, while besieging a city, they were to preserve fruit-bearing trees [20:19-20], drawing a distinction that might be perceived as presaging the emergence of environmentalism.

Those who perpetrated major sins in Eretz Yisrael were to be stoned to death [17:2-5], but those who unwittingly committed manslaughter could go to sanctuary cities [19:2-7]. Reference was again made to the prospect of enlarged territory [19:8], but it was noted that a native-born individual could become king over the Promised Land [17:14-15]. Both Lichtman and the JPS Commentary note that discovery of a corpse besmirched the Land [21:1]. Lichtman also emphasizes the fact that property boundaries are to be respected in Eretz Yisrael [19:14], metaphorically reflecting respect for Land, in general.

Escaped slaves were to be afforded the rights of resident aliens [23:16], and the impact of another law (not collecting interest from a fellow-Jew) was tethered to the Land [23:21]: (“…so that the L-rd your G-d will bless you in all that you do, in the Land to which you come, to possess it”). Just as finding a corpse besmirched the land, so too was the body of a person (punished by hanging) to be removed promptly therefrom [21:22-23]. Also, remarrying a defiled woman would defile “the Land that the L-rd your G-d gives you as an inheritance” [24:1-4]. Even ethical business (“honest weights and measures”) was to occur “if you are to endure long on the soil that the L-rd your G-d is giving you” [25:15].

Again, the Parashot opens with prefaces to statements of law that mandate it be practiced “when you enter the Land that the L-rd your G-d gives you as an inheritance and you possess it and dwell in it” [26:1-2, 27:2, 28:8,11]. Again, the Parashot concludes with a warning that sinful behavior will prompt G-d to “make the plague cleave to you until it consumes you from upon the Land to which you come to possess it” [28:21] and, ultimately, to scatter the Israelites to other lands around the world [28:21,52,63-64]. Again, the Parashot refers to a land flowing with milk and honey [26:9,15, 27:3]. Also, it is mandated that the first fruit be given to the priests [26:3], to convey due gratitude. Finally, the Israelites were reminded they had taken lands from Heshbon/Bashan [29:6].

Again linking the Israelites’ conduct with the Land upon which it would have occurred, personal ethics are portrayed as providing “secondary gain” to the Israelites [30:15-20]:

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil, in that I command thee this day to love HaShem thy G-d, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments and His statutes and His ordinances; then thou shalt live and multiply, and HaShem thy G-d shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest in to possess it.

But if thy heart turn away, and thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I declare unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish; ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over the Jordan to go in to possess it.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed; to love HaShem thy G-d, to hearken to His voice, and to cleave unto Him; for that is thy life, and the length of thy days; that thou mayest dwell in the land which HaShem swore unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them.

The alternative (devastation/exile) was laced with Land-related references [29:21-27]:

And the generation to come, your children that shall rise up after you, and the foreigner that shall come from a far land, shall say, when they see the plagues of that land, and the sicknesses wherewith HaShem hath made it sick; and that the whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and a burning, that it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which HaShem overthrew in His anger, and in His wrath; even all the nations shall say “Wherefore hath HaShem done thus unto this land? what meaneth the heat of this great anger?” Then men shall say: “Because they forsook the covenant of HaShem, the G-d of their fathers, which He made with them when He brought them forth out of the land of Egypt; and went and served other gods, and worshipped them, gods that they knew not, and that He had not allotted unto them; therefore the anger of HaShem was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curse that is written in this book; and HaShem rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.”

Lichtman emphasizes that anticipated ingathering of Jewry to Eretz Yisrael is supportive of his thematic call for universal aliyah. The text, however, is not all-inclusive [30:5]:

The L-rd will bring you to the Land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will make you more prosperous and more numerous than your fathers.

Indeed, the JPS Commentary interprets this projected outcome as simply a promise that is “perhaps designed to encourage a future generation to return to G-d, assuring it that the nation’s sinful past will not be held against it in anyway.” Affording “encouragement” is not akin to mandating immediate aliyah, and it therefore tacitly assumes a Diaspora.

The narrative proceeds—primarily related to the upcoming death of Moses—along with references to the Land that invokes familiar phraseology. Moses informs the Israelites that G-d (and not he)—along with Joshua—will lead them into Eretz Yisrael [31:2-3]:

HaShem thy G-d, He will go over before thee; He will destroy these nations from before thee, and thou shalt dispossess them; and Joshua, he shall go over before thee

By emphasizing the Deity (cited first), he shows he has “learned his lesson” regarding why he was not allowed to cross the Jordan (personalizing the miracle, Numbers 20:10). Again, the sin/redemption motif is played-out by employing the “currency” of Land.

Moses then publicly encourages Joshua to lead the Israelites into “the Land that the L-rd swore to their forefathers to give them, and you shall cause them to inherit it” [31:7]. Later, Moses privately encourages Joshua to be “strong and courageous” when leading the Israelites to the Land “I have sworn to them,” adding “I will be with you” [31:23].

Then, G-d predicts (correctly) that the Israelites will “stray after the gods that are foreign to the Land, in whose midst they are coming” [31:16], again punctuating the gravity of committing sin by noting that it would be occurring while residing in the Promised Land. Nevertheless, he plans to bring the Israelites “to the Land that I swore to their forefathers, flowing with milk and honey,” despite “their inclination [to sin], what they will do now, before I bring them to the Land that I have sworn” [31:20-21]. And Moses exhorts the Israelites to study Torah during Succoth, again linking this task to the Land [31:10-13]:

At the end of every seven years, in the set time of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before HaShem thy G-d in the place which He shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing.

Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear HaShem your G-d, and observe to do all the words of this law; and that their children, who have not known, may hear, and learn to fear HaShem your G-d, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.

Familiar themes are included both in the Song of Moses and the depiction of his death. He recalls that Eretz Yisrael has boundaries [32:8], that the Land was rich [32:13-14], and that the current inhabitants thereof would soon be subject to G-d’s wrath [32:43]. Then, the Israelites are reminded to adhere to Torah, specifically, in Eretz Yisrael [32:46-47]:

For it is no vain thing for you; because it is your life, and through this thing ye shall prolong your days upon the land, whither ye go over the Jordan to possess it.

Moses was allowed to see Eretz Yisrael from afar, as per G-d’s command [32:49-52]:

Prior to his death, Moses did view the Promised Land [34:1] but—prior thereto—he gave final blessings to the Israelites that were directly/indirectly replete with Land-references. They entered “a Land of grain and wine, even its heavens shall drip with dew” [33:28]. Joseph’s (Ephraim’s and Manasseh’s) land was repetitively characterized as “sweet” [33:13-16], Naftali’s was fertile [33:23], and Asher’s was replete with olive oil [33:24].

In DEVARIM, the borders of Eretz Yisrael were defined expansively, albeit excluding Transjordan. More importantly, the “reward/punishment” model was invoked to justify excluding those who had come from Egypt from entering the Promised Land (except for Joseph and Caleb), therefore (behaviorally) again demonstrating the existence of a high “threshold” that had to be met before being permitted to tread on this sacred territory.

In VA’ETCHANAN, again, delineation of laws was prefaced by a mandate they be honored in the Land that they were to possess, the Land flowing with Milk and Honey.

In EKEV, the reward/punishment model was articulated to the extreme [although curses, such as the cannibalistic 28:53, are subsequently expressed in phraseology that is beyond the extreme], even as borders of Eretz Yisrael were depicted in an expansive fashion.

In RE’EH, the import of Nablus, Jerusalem (and perhaps Shiloh) is illustrated by review of key-events that had transpired (or would transpire) at these particular locales.

In SHOFETIM, the “living” nature of Eretz Yisrael (lest it be besmirched) was illustrated by metaphors citing “flora” (preserving fruit-bearing trees while besieging a city), “fauna” (removing corpses promptly), territory (respecting property rights), and humanity (purging felons by establishing sanctuary cities). The Land was vital when manifesting environmentalism, optimizing public health, implementing justice and fighting crime.

In KI TETZE, furthering the theme of tethering human behavior to the Land upon which it was occurring were the articulation of laws related to resident aliens, loan-interest, removal of the body of a person who had been punished by hanging, remarrying a defiled woman, and business practices. In each instance, specific phraseology was included.

In KI TAVO, the reward/punishment concept was dramatized (in both dimensions) and the first fruit was to be given to the priests (expressing gratitude to G-d for the Land).

In NITZAVIM, the reward/punishment concept was again dramatized, but the Diaspora was behaviorally accepted when the “ingathering” process was encouraged (not forced).

In VAYELECH, Moses demonstrated to G-d that he had “learned his lesson” against personalizing G-d’s miracles (recalling the “water-from-rock episode) via a Land-related statement; again, sinning while in Eretz Yisrael would predictably provoke exile.

In HA’AZINU, the mandate to follow Torah in Eretz Yisrael was portrayed by Moses as being so profound as to be required-teaching for future generations of Israelites.

OVERALL, in Deuteronomy, Moral Ecology was manifest through multiple stated-linkages among the Land, the Israelites living therein, and the laws to be followed in the process. The Land was vital when manifesting rules related to such disparate concerns as environmentalism, optimizing public health, implementing justice and fighting crime. The reward/punishment model was pervasive, as was recognition of borders and contents.

OVERALL, in Exodus, laws that were to be honored in Eretz Yisrael were elucidated.

OVERALL, in Leviticus, evidence of Moral Ecology was manifest; the Land was alive!

OVERALL, in the Torah, the emergence of Moral Ecology was manifest within borders —which were expansile and which encompassed three key holy-sites—that enclosed Eretz Yisrael, the Promised Land that remained “on loan from G-d.” Recognized, also, was the presence of the Diaspora. Reward/Punishment was tethered to Eretz Yisrael, and rules-of-conduct were articulated specifically and respected Moral Ecologic principles. The Abrahamic Covenant was to be manifest by Israelites who had been “chosen” to live as a model for humanity by knowing of their Creation, Revelation and Redemption…and by ensuring awareness thereof was faithfully taught to the generations following Moses. Ultimately, the Deity linked the Land, its inhabitants, and the laws to be followed therein.

[1] Lichtman’s format is to reproduce brief essays and then to cite “additional references.” The former may be provided a bit of “license,” because he often does not predicate his views on a particular verse; rather, he discusses the import of a point he perceives therein. The latter is a bit more difficult to rationalize-away, when he tries to adopt-by-reference exegesis composed by scholars of yesteryear; in those instances, his points will be noted, with the reader encouraged to draw independent conclusions as to their relevance/import.

[2] Whenever external information might prove helpful, hyperlinks to Wikipedia are given.

[3] The Torah specifically records that the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews purchased them legally.

[4] The Torah specifically records that the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews purchased them legally.

[5] This distinction was prominently discussed by Uzi Adini, Ph.D. in “Bible” Class.