Final Borders

Introduction

The Torah describes the land promised to B'nei Yisra'el in several places. These descriptions are not geographically identical, and it is important to try to understand the significance of each set of borders given. Furthermore, events in the times of Yehoshua, David HaMelech and Ezra and even events of the last century may have an effect on the halachic (and meta-halachic) status of certain areas.

Here we shall attempt to clarify the boundaries of the lands subject to special status, most specifically regarding halachos about where we are supposed to live and control. Is going to Eilat, the Golan or even Ashkelon considered leaving Eretz Yisrael? Was the relinquishing of Sinai to Egypt a Torah violation, and if so regarding how much of that territory?[1]

The Promised Land

Avraham Avinu is promised the land between the "River of Egypt" and the Euphrates, in his time territory occupied by ten listed nations.[2] There is some dispute regarding the location of the River of Egypt,[3] but according to all possibilities, the area is of considerable size, certainly far larger than the borders of the modern State of Israel (including Judea and Samaria).[4]

Subsequent assurances to Yitzchak[5] and Ya'akov[6] are vaguer in terms of territory, but as the promise to Avraham is referenced, it would seem safe to say that these assurances apply to the same land.

The first hint of a change appears the first time that Hashem speaks to Moshe Rabbeinu, at the burning bush. Here, Moshe is told that Hashem has 'descended' in order to bring B'nei Yisra'el out of Egypt to the land of just six nations, and that this message is to be transmitted to B'nei Yisra'el.[7]

The second time Hashem tells Moshe to speak to B'nei Yisra'el, He adds that they are to be told that Hashem will bring them to the land promised to Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov.[8] At the time of the Exodus, these two descriptions of the land are combined into one.[9] The land promised to the forefathers mysteriously becomes the land of just six nations. This remains the case throughout the Torah, with one exception when seven of the original ten nations are listed.[10]

Chazal explain that B'nei Yisra'el were actually given the land of seven nations, although one of these nations (the Girgashi) fled before B'nei Yisra'el arrived. The land of the three remaining nations was not yet given to us, and these areas will only become part of Israel in the Messianic era.[11]

Chazal also dispute the identity of these three nations. According to one view, they are synonymous with the peoples of Edom, Amon and Moav.[12] This would place them east of the Jordan River geographically, at least mostly in present day Jordan.[13] In other words, the 'shrinking' of the land is only to the east, with the north-south dimension remaining unchanged.

This understanding is further supported by the borders promised to Moshe around the time of Matan Torah, "from Yam Suf (the Red Sea) until Yam Plishtim (the Mediterranean) and from the desert until the River (Euphrates)."[14] Here we are also given a clear south-eastern limit, at Yam Suf.

Parashas Masei

The borders of the territory B'nei Yisra'el are told to conquer are described in detail later in the Torah.[15] This description confirms the Jordan River as the eastern border of Israel, but also indicates a further reduction to the land promised to Avraham (and to Moshe earlier). The northern and north-eastern border (until Kineret) is marked out by several towns, with no mention of the Euphrates. The omission of such a major landmark can only mean that the territory we were told to conquer simply does not extend that far.

In practice, the location of Hor HaHar, the north-western extremity of Eretz Yisra'el, is disputed.[16] The possibilities range from as far north as Turkey to as far south as Beirut, but it is certainly significantly further north than the current northern border of the State of Israel while also being significantly short of the Euphrates.[17]

There is also another clear difference between the two descriptions of the territory, to the south-east (unrelated to Edom, Ammon and Moav). The south-eastern corner of Eretz Yisra'el according to Parashat Masei is the south end of Yam HaMelach (the Dead Sea), about 120 miles north of Yam Suf.

A number of theories have been suggested to resolve these discrepancies. The most coherent I have seen is presented by R' Shaul Yisraeli,[18] based on the words of the Ramban. Ramban explains that Moshe's initial preference to pass peacefully through the land of Sichon rather than conquering the land, was despite the fact that he was an Amorite king whose land was promised to B'nei Yisra'el. Due to relatively small numbers, it was not yet the ideal time to occupy the entire Promised Land. It would have been more beneficial for the people to be concentrated on the west of the Jordan, as only this area fits the description of a 'land flowing with milk and honey' and only this area was fitting for the Beis HaMikdash and the Shechina.[19]

R' Yisraeli extrapolates that while we were promised the land between the River of Egypt[20] and the Euphrates, the command to conquer Eretz Yisrael[21] is limited to the borders of Parashas Masei.[22] Ramban himself understood that the northern border of Parashas Masei is synonymous with the Euphrates, but this was based on a mistaken belief that the Euphrates runs northwards through the Galilee and on to Babylon.[23]

We can now return to one of the questions we asked in the introduction, regarding the relinquishing of the Sinai desert. Assuming that the command to control Eretz Yisra'el applies nowadays, the relevant territory is the borders of Parashas Masei. The south-eastern end of this is the 'Brook of Egypt', which according to most views is indeed within the territory ceded to Egypt.[24]

Second Temple Settlement

So far, we have seen some details of two sets of borders – the Promised Land and the land we were commanded to conquer. In relation to the prohibition on the individual of leaving Eretz Yisrael, a third set of borders come into play. Chazal tell us that due to this prohibition, when the rabbis accompanied guests from Chutz La'aretz on the start of their journey home, they would go no further than Akko. [25]

Akko is significantly further south than Hor HaHar, according to all views. It is therefore clear that for these purposes, Eretz Yisra'el is smaller than even the boundaries of Parashas Masei. Many rishonim assume that this smaller territory is synonymous with the territory in which terumos and ma'asros apply,[26] a topic discussed in the gemara at length.

These mitzvos did not take effect until Eretz Yisra'el was 'sanctified' through conquest and settlement by B'nei Yisra'el in the times of Yehoshua bin Nun. The relevant questions are 1) whether this sanctity was everlasting, or dissipated when B'nei Yisra'el were exiled by the Babylonians, and 2) if the sanctity dissipated and was re-established by Ezra on return from exile, whether this second sanctity was everlasting. The consensus view is that the first sanctification by Yehoshua was not everlasting, but the second sanctification by Ezra was.[27]

If it is difficult to map the territory promised to Avraham and that of Parashas Masei accurately, figuring out where exactly was settled in the Second Temple period is far more complicated. Here I will not attempt to give a full map, but it is possible to point out some landmarks that are clearly on the border.

Along the west coast, Eretz Yisra'el ranges from Akko in the north to Ashkelon in the south. Akko is still within Eretz Yisra'el, whereas Ashkelon is not.[28] Assuming that these cities have not changed location significantly today, they give us quite a clear western border.

The south-eastern corner of the land inhabited at the times of Ezra is not specified by Chazal, but R' Eshtor HaParchi (1280, Provence – 1355, Eretz Yisra'el) writes that this is perhaps due to it being well known as (the southern end of) Yam HaMelach.[29] This is accepted almost unanimously, although whether the southern border is a straight line from Ashkelon to the tip of Yam HaMelach, or extends further south in the middle, is subject to much discussion that we will not enter into here.

The exact north-eastern extremity is unknown. Furthermore, the eastern border does not follow the course of the Jordan River exactly. For example, Beit She'an is explicitly exempt from terumos and ma'asros.[30]

New Annexations

The final question is whether the conquests of 1948 and 1967 had any effect on the status of those areas not inhabited at the time of Ezra. Is Jewish settlement enough to restore these areas to their proper sanctity? [31]

Chazal do not discuss what Yehoshua or Ezra did in order to 'sanctify' the land, or what leadership status they required in order to do so.[32] The Rambam writes that Eretz Yisra'el is the territory conquered by a Jewish king, judge (שופט) or prophet, with a mandate from most of (the people of) Israel.[33] I understand this to mean that a conquest led by any legitimate leader automatically creates the sanctity discussed.

I will leave it up to the readers to decide whether this has been accomplished by the State of Israel – my own view should be clear from previous writings.

---

[1] For the purposes of this post, we will assume that such actions did not cause overall harm to our non-religious interests.

[2] Bereishis 15:18-21

[3] This was historically most commonly understood to be the eastern fork of the Nile Delta – see Rashi, Shemos 10:19 and Kuzari 2:4 (we have assumed throughout that the "Brook of Egypt" first mentioned in Bamidbar 34:5 is synonymous with the "River of Egypt", as the Rambam writes almost explicitly in Hilchos Terumos 1:8, although some have questioned this). There are however several difficulties with this identification, not least the fact that this would make the journey through the desert a journey through the land promised to Avraham rather than just to it. Those who supported this idea were likely unfamiliar with the geography (R' Yehuda HaLevi only arrived in Egypt for a brief period at the end of his life, having completed the Kuzari in Spain).

R' Eshtor HaParchi writes in the name of R' Sa'adya Ga'on, a resident of the area, that the river mentioned is Wadi El-Arish, less than 50km southwest of today's Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza. This is geographically more plausible, but it is a mere seasonal stream fed by flash floods.

Some modern scholars have suggested that the river is Nachal HaBesor, which flows from Har Boker (near Sde Boker) to the Mediterranean south of Gaza City.

[4] See this map for an approximate idea (the map assumes that the River of Egypt is the Nile). Note that "Ammonites" is presumably a mistake and should read "Amorites." Although some of the territory marked was indeed Ammonite territory, the land of the Amorites and not of the Ammonites was promised to Avraham (unless the Ammonites are synonymous with the Kadmonites, a possibility we will discuss shortly). These two nations fought and their respective territories overlapped and changed at times – see Bamidbar 21:21-30, Shoftim 11:12-28.

[5] Bereishis 26:4

[6] Ibid. 28:13-4 & 35:12

[7] Shemos 3:8, 17. Although this passage is preceded by Hashem 'remembering' his covenant with the forefathers (ibid. 2:24), the earlier promise is not mentioned to Moshe here.

[8] Ibid. 6:8

[9] Ibid. 13:5

[10] Devarim 7:1

[11] Bereishis Rabba 44:23; Yerushalmi Shevi'is 6:1. It is worth pointing out that this interpretation is not consistent with the simple meaning of the Torah, where there is no hint that the promise to Avraham will be fulfilled in two stages, thousands of years apart. Ibn Ezra to Bereishis 15:20 indeed explains differently, that the nations mentioned in Bereishis are just offshoots of the Canaanites, and elsewhere are included in the generic name 'Canaani.'

[12] Ibid. This is consistent with the command not to attempt to conquer the land of these three nations on the way to Eretz Yisra'el, in Devarim 2.

[13] See this map.

[14] Shemos 23:31

[15] Bamidbar 34:1-15

[16] The Hor HaHar mentioned regarding Aharon's death in Bamidbar 20:23 is a different mountain, commonly identified as Jabal Harun in Petra.

[17] See a summary of the views here. If Hor HaHar is in Turkey, the north-eastern extremity must be significantly further south (although for the sake of transparency, some academics do insist that the borders of Parashat Masei are identical with the land promised to Avraham. See וזה גבול הארץ by Chaim Bar-Daroma). If truth be told, the very idea of placing Hor HaHar so far north seems extremely improbable. See Eretz Chemda (R' Shaul Yisraeli), volume 1, 4:5.

[18] Eretz Chemda, volume 1, 4:1-4.

[19] Ramban al HaTorah, Bamidbar 21:21.

[20] He sides with the view that this is Wadi El-Arish.

[21] The nature of this command and when it applies is disputed (see War and Peace), but at the very least there was such a command to those who left Egypt.

[22] He goes on to question whether the land of Sichon and Og is also excluded from this command, or whether its omission from the borders of Parashas Masei is only due to the fact that this land had already been conquered.

[23] Ramban in his explanation of the fourth positive mitzvah that the Rambam 'forgot' writes that Devarim 1:7, where the Euphrates again appears as the northern extreme, describes the territory that we are commanded to conquer. His description of the Euphrates appears in his commentary to Gittin 7b.

[24] May Hashem help us regain this territory speedily and without the need for war, along with the rest of the borders of Parashas Masei and the rest of the Promised Land.

[25] Gittin 76b

[26] See Tosfos Gittin 2a (ד"ה ואשקלון) and Chidushei HaRan there, Ramban Gittin 76b, Rambam Hilchos Terumos 1:2 (although the Rambam writes that this same definition of Eretz Yisra'el applies everywhere, it is important to note that according to the Rambam, the relevant communal mitzvah is to remove the seven nations, rather than being territory based. See War and Peace). See also Eretz Chemda, volume 1, 1:9.

[27] See for example Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 331:2. For reasons for this distinction, see Rambam, Hilchos Beis HaBechira 6:16 and commentaries thereon. Some of these mitzvos apply also outside of these areas on a Rabbinical level, due to specific enactments (see for example Chagiga 3b). However, these enactments do not affect the inherent status of the land in relation to the prohibition of leaving it and similar halachos.

[28] Mishna, Gittin 2a (see Tosfos there and Rambam Hilchos Terumos 1:7)

[29] Kaftor vaFerach, chapter 11.

[30] Chulin 6b-7a. However, see also Eruvin 19a.

[31] According to Tosfos (Gittin 8a, ד"ה כיבוש יחיד), based on the Sifri in Parsha Eikev (Piska 51), areas outside of the borders of Parashas Masei cannot be annexed while the areas within them have not all been conquered. However, the Rambam quoted shortly does not state this limitation and seemingly disagrees.

[32] There is a dispute regarding Syria, territory conquered by David Hamelech but 'individually' (כיבוש יחיד). The halacha is that this territory does not have the status of Eretz Yisra'el on a Biblical level, but Chazal do not explain what exactly the issue was. Although Rashi and Tosfos do discuss this in various places, one cannot prove from their words what does constitute a valid annexation (as כיבוש יחיד may not be the only issue).

[33] Hilchos Terumos 1:2