Halakhah su Deuteronomio 12:2

In their discussion of matters pertaining to the sanctity of the synagogue, rabbinic scholars view the laws and regulations pertaining to the Temple as the paradigm from which may be derived halakhot applicable to the "miniature Temple," i.e., the synagogue. Both are devoted to divine service: the Temple is consecrated to sacrificial service; the synagogue is dedicated to "service of the heart." Both the Temple and the synagogue derive their sanctity from the service for which they are utilized. Noteworthy is the opinion of Mordekhai, Megillah 28a, who equates the sanctity of the synagogue with that of the Temple and asserts that both are biblical in nature. It has been suggested that this is the position of Maimonides as well.¹Rabbi David Ochs, in a responsum included in The Sanctity of the Synagogue, ed. Baruch Litvin (New York, 1959), pp. 179–80. See also R. Raphael Silber, Marpe la-Nefesh, I, no. 45. Cf., however, R. Chaim Halberstam, Divrei Ḥayyim, I, no. 3. In his Sefer ha-Mizvot, negative precept 65, Maimonides states, "[We are commanded] not to destroy the Temple, synagogues, or houses of study … for it is stated, 'You shall surely destroy all the places wherein the nations … served their gods … you shall not do so unto the Lord, your God' (Deut. 12:2–4)." According to Maimonides, the Bible legislates against desecration of the synagogue. In doing so, the Bible itself ordains the sanctity of the synagogue.

However, return of liberated territories for considerations other than preservation of life raises an entirely different set of halakhic considerations. On the basis of Avodah Zarah 20b, Rambam, Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 10:3-4, rules that it is forbidden for a Jew to sell houses or fields in Erez Yisra'el to a non-Jew.³⁶It is generally accepted that the prohibitions flowing from lo teḥanem apply to all non-Jews and not only to the Seven Nations. This is stated explicitly by Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 20a; Sefer ha-Eshkol, III, 123; Maharam Schick al Taryag Miẓvot, no. 426; and Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:1 and Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 65:1. In this instance, Rambam departs from his usual practice of not supplying the underlying rationale upon which the halakhah is predicated. Rambam poses the question, "And why may one not sell [houses and fields] to them? For it is written, 'lo teḥanem'—Do not give them permanent encampment in real property, for if they will not possess real property, their residence is transient." If non-Jews are not given an opportunity to acquire real estate their presence in the Holy Land will be temporary and transient in nature. A person who does not own land, who does not own a home and who possesses neither fields nor orchards, is a person who has no roots. Such a person's domicile is inherently transitory. An individual acquires permanence and stability within a given geographic locale only when he requires property. Hence, the Torah forbids the sale of real estate in Erez Yisra'el to non-Jews lest through acquisition of land their domicile become permanent in nature.³⁷Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:1 and Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 65:1, opines that the ultimate rationale underlying the prohibition against sale of real property in Ereẓ Yisra’el to a non-Jew is identical with the reason for the prohibition against permitting idolaters to dwell in Ereẓ Yisra’el. In the latter case, the reason is explicitly stated in Scripture: “They shall not dwell in your land lest they cause you to sin against me” (Exodus 23:33). Both commandments, according to Ḥazon Ish, are akin to the commandment concerning eradication of paganism in the Land of Israel recorded in Deut. 7:5 and Deut. 12:2-3. This analysis was earlier advanced by Sefer Miẓvot Gadol, no. 48. Although Ḥazon Ish’s inference is from the terminology employed by Rambam in Hilkhot Avodat Kokhavim 10:3, it would seem that this thesis is more readily substantiated by Rambam’s comments in 10:4 in which he describes sale of real estate as leading to permanent residence and then, in the very same halakhah, proceeds to state, “Similarly it is forbidden to praise them … for this causes [Jews] to cleave to them and to learn from [their] evil deeds” (italics mine). Rambam appears to predicate both proscriptions upon the identical rationale. It is the divine plan that ultimately Erez Yisra'el in its entirety become the exclusive inheritance of the community of Israel.

Additonally, one cannot say that the Torah permitted [with the word "tashbisu" (Ex. 12:15)] *only* bitul but not searching [and destroying], because that would be completely illogical. Because in all instances where benefit is prohibited, for example, the Asheira tree, or [other items of] idolatry, the Torah instructs us only to search [and destroy] as it is written "you shall definitely destroy..." (Deut. 12:2). Rather, the Torah certainly is being lenient in the case of chometz, such that bitul [on its own] is sufficient, but obviously, searching [and destroying] are also included in "tashbisu". [Therefore,] one who does not wish to use bitul, or is unable to concentrate sufficiently, can search in all the places into which chometz was brought, and destroy it, either by burning it, or by one of the other methods which will, with Heaven's help, be explained. And after he searched all those places, even if chometz was subsequently found, he has not transgressed a Torah prohibition, because the Torah relies on presumptions. And since he did all that was required, he is simply a victim of circumstances. Thus, on the Torah level, one may use either of two approaches, either searching [and destroying] or bitul, and he will have fulfilled his obligation.