Halakhah zu Bereschit 13:20

Rabbi Ishmael the son of Rabbi Yosi asked those who lived in Babylonia, by what did they earn the right to call their living there “life.”²⁹²I.e., a successful life, since a life of sorrow cannot really be called “life.” They replied, “by right of the Torah.” And for those in the land of Israel, by right of the tithes. And those outside of the Land, by what right? Because they honor the Sabbaths and the holidays. Rabbi Yohanan in the name of Rabbi Yosi b. Halafta said, “Abraham our father, about whom is not written that he observed the Sabbath, inherited the world within measurable limits, as it is said, ‘Up, walk about the land through its length and breadth.’²⁹³Gen 13:17. But Jacob, about whom it iswritten that he observed Shabbat, as it is said, ‘and he encamped in the city,’ he entered at morning twilight, and fixed boundaries while it was still day,²⁹⁴Gen 33:18. In other words, according to the midrash, Jacob made an eruv that allowed him to carry things in the city on Shabbat. inherited the world without measurable limits, as it is said, ‘You shall spread out to the west and to the east, etc.’²⁹⁵Gen 28:14. Another interpretation: “God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy,”²⁹⁶Gen 2:3.He blessed it by exempting it from being postponed. R. Samuel b. Nahmani said, ‘A festival is postponed; Shabbat is not postponed.²⁹⁷That is, unlike other holidays, which occasionally may be postponed a day, such as the first day of Rosh Hashanah so that it won’t fall on a Sunday, Wednesday, or Friday, which would create problems later on in the calendar. Shabbat always falls on the seventh day of the week (Chavel). Another interpretation: He blessed it with a partner.

4. Rashi, I Chronicles 27:24, seemingly ignoring the sources cited in both Berakhot 62b and Yoma 22b, posits two entirely different verses as sources for this prohibition. The passages "If a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall your seed also be numbered" (Genesis 13:16) and " 'Look now toward heaven and count the stars if you are able to count them'; and he said unto him, 'So shall your seed be' " (Genesis 15:5) are interpreted by Rashi, not simply as blessings, but as prohibitions against counting the progency of Abraham. In his commentary on I Samuel 15:4, Rashi cites yet a third verse, "I will surely do you good and make your seed as the sand of the sea which cannot be numbered for multitude" (Genesis 32:13) which he renders as "which shall not be numbered for multitide.⁹Cf., Meshekh Ḥokhmah, Parshat Naso, s.v. be-haftorah.

It should, however, not be inferred from Rambam's failure to classify settlement in the Land of Israel as a mizvah that it was his position that residence in Israel is not preferable to residence in the Diaspora.¹¹This seems to be inherent in the position of Mahari Asad, no. 88; cf., however, Pe’at ha-Shulḥan, Bet Yisra’el, 1:15. See also R. Abraham I. Kook, Shabbat ha-Areẓ, Introduction, ch. 15, as well as the comments of Kli Yakar, Genesis 13:17. Even in the absence of a specific binding obligation concerning residence in the Land of Israel in all generations, Erez Yisra'el remains unique for all Jews. Despite the absense of the imperative engendered by a mizvah, domicile in Erez Yisra'el carries with it great zekhut or merit.

Similarly, it would appear that commandments predicated upon the sanctity of Erez Yisra'el, e.g., the offering of first fruits and tithes, could not be fulfilled prior to sanctification of the land. By the same token, the mizvah of dwelling in the Land of Israel may well be contingent upon the land having become Erez Yisra'el in actuality. "You shall inherit the land" is a logical antecedent of the mizvah "and you shall dwell therein."¹⁷See Tosafot, Gittin 2a and Teshuvot Maharit, I, no. 47, who declare that the miẓvah of settlement in Ereẓ Yisra’el is limited to those areas settled by returnees from the Babylonian exile. Territory conquered by Joshua but not resettled by Ezra remains unsanctified and hence settlement in those areas does not constitute fulfillment of this precept. It is thus evident that fulfillment of the miẓvah of settlement is contingent upon antecedent sanctification. See also Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 454, sec. 32, who notes the seemingly contradictory position reflected in the midrashic statement quoted; nevertheless, Avnei Nezer, secs. 33 and 62, affirms the thesis advanced by Maharit. A differing opinion is advanced by Radbaz, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 4:6, in the name of Kaftor va-Feraḥ 10:38 who maintains that for all purposes other than the obligations concerning terumah and ma’asrot the entire territory conquered by Joshua, including those areas not resettled by Ezra, is to be regarded as sanctified territory. This is also the view of Ramban as expressed in an addendum to his novellae on the Talmud, Gittin 2a, and of Ba‘al ha-Terumot (cited in R. Yechiel Michal Tucatzinsky, Sefer Ereẓ Yisra’el, I, 26:7b). This view is accepted by Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 3:17 and Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 65:1, and by Rabbi Abraham I. Kook, Shabbat ha-Areẓ, Introduction, ch. 12. Nevertheless, even according to this view, the basic principle, viz., that sanctification is a necessary condition for fulfillment of the miẓvah concerning settlement retains its cogency; the only point which is disputed is whether or not the sanctification of Joshua satisfies this condition. It is the accepted position in rabbinic scholarship that sanctification of the land did not occur until our ancestors crossed the river Jordan and conquered the Promised Land.¹⁸Sanctification of the land and fulfillment of the miẓvah of settlement should not be confused with acquisition and proprietorship. Baba Batra 100a and 119a, Avodah Zarah 53b, as well as the Palestinian Talmud, Ḥalah 2:1, clearly ascribe proprietorship, and the halakhic ramifications which flow therefrom, to Abraham. Baba Batra 100a even discusses the kinyan, or mode of acquisition, by which Abraham acquired title. Bereshit Rabbah 41:6, cited by Rashi in his commentary on Genesis 13:7, ostensibly differs and maintains that Abraham enjoyed no rights of proprietorship so long as “the Canaanite and the Perizzite abode … in the land,” i.e., title became vested in Abraham only upon conquest of the land and displacement of the Seven Nations. See R. Shlomoh Goren, Torat ha-Mo‘adim, pp. 605-607. This apparent contradiction is readily resolved on the basis of Tosafot, Rosh ha-Shanah 13a, who declares that title to the land was immediately vested in Abraham, but that the right to usufruct (peirot) was reserved to the indigenous people until conquest of the land by Abraham’s progeny. This fully explains the controversy between the shepherds of Abraham and the shepherds of Lot and Abraham’s refusal to allow his flocks to graze freely. Tosafot, Yevamot 82b, cites the opinion of Rabbenu Ḥananel who asserts that sanctification did indeed occur simultaneously with acquisition of the land by Abraham. The latter position is, however, refuted by Tosafot.