Halakhah su I Re 9:31

Insofar as the Negev and the southern territories are concerned, the Mishnah, Gittin 2a, indicates that Ashkelon was the southern boundary of Erez Yisra'el. Rambam maintains that those who ascended from Egypt conquered no territory south of Ashkelon and that Ashkelon was always the southern boundary. However, most other authorities maintain that in the time of Joshua territories south of Ashkelon were also captured and that the Mishnah, in speaking of Ashkelon as the southern border, refers only to areas regained in the time of Ezra and gives the boundary which existed in the time of the Second Commonwealth. According to these authorities, at least some of the areas south of Ashkelon fall into the category of territory captured by those who ascended from Egypt but not retaken by the returnees from Babylonia. There is considerable evidence in support of this view. I Kings 8:65 speaks of the south of Israel as being populated by Jews "until the river of Egypt." Targum Yonatan (Genesis 15:18) translates the words "nahar mizrayim" as the "Nile of Egypt." Radbaz, Hilkhot Terumot 1:7, dismisses this view and declares the river to be Wa'ad al Arish. This is also the opinion of Sa'adia Ga'on.¹⁴See Tevu’ot ha-Areẓ, chap. 1, p. 27. Sa'adia Ga'on states that Ma'aleh Akrabim of Numbers 34:4 is identical with the area known as Aqaba. I Kings 9:26 speaks of Solomon's dominion as extending to Eilat; II Kings 14:22 and II Chronicles 26:2 speak of the rebuilding of Eilat by Uzziah. It is, however, generally assumed that these territories were not resettled by those who returned with Ezra.

Yet, over the years, a number of rabbinic authorities have sanctioned the sale of real estate to non-Jews, at least in certain limited circumstances. Mizbeaḥ Adamah, an important nineteenth-century Sephardic source, reports that noted rabbinic authorities had themselves done so in the past and cites several by name. Indeed, earlier scholars were perplexed by the narrative in I Kings 9:11 which reports that King Solomon bestowed twenty cities in the Galilee upon Hiram, king of Tyre, in appreciation of the latter's assistance in providing materials needed for use in the construction of the Temple. There is no record of Solomon having been censured for this action.¹⁰See, however, the commentary of Abarbanel on I Kings 9:10. Mizbeaḥ Adamah explains that the prohibition against the sale of real estate to a non-Jew is applicable only to idol worshippers but not to other gentiles. Indeed, idolaters are specifically denied the right of domicile in the Land of Israel lest they cause the Jewish populace to become enmeshed in pagan practices. "They shall not dwell in your land lest they cause you to sin against Me, for you will serve their gods" (Exod. 23:33). Many authorities (with the notable exception of Rambam, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 10:6) rule that since specific reference is made to idolatrous influences, only pagans are excluded from the right of domicile. Mizbeaḥ Adamah views the prohibition against the sale of property as being simply an extension of the prohibition against domicile in the land of Israel, and hence similarly limited in its application solely to idolaters.¹¹This prohibition is also cited by R. Abraham I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, nos. 58, 61, and 63, and by R. Zevi Pesach Frank, Kerem Ẓion, III, no. 13, as well as by R. Eliyahu Klatzkin, Teshuvot Imrei Shefer, no. 92, but is rejected by R. Ya‘akov David Wilofsky (see Mishpat Kohen, no. 61), R. Naftali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Kuntres Dvar ha-Shmittah and Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:3. In accordance with the above distinction, Mizbeaḥ Adamah rules that there is no restriction against the sale of real estate to Moslems, who profess a monotheistic belief. This thesis also serves to explain Solomon's gift to Hiram. Since Hiram was not an idol worshipper, there existed no halakhic obstacle to the transfer of land to him by King Solomon. Rabbi Yosef notes that, quite obviously, this line of reasoning is cogent only with regard to the prohibition of lo teḥanem, but fails to satisfy objections which might be raised on the basis of Ramban's position that the sale of land to a non-Jew also entails transgression of the commandment "And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity." He notes that there is, however, the possibility that Solomon expressly stipulated as a condition of his gift to Hiram that the cities were to revert to their original owners upon the advent of the jubilee year. Rabbi Yosef opines that consideration of Ramban's position would not preclude sale of land "in our day" since observance of the jubilee year lapsed with the destruction of the Temple. This contention may, however, be challenged, since even under contemporary conditions, all lands which are sold are subject to reversion to their original owners in the messianic era, which is to be accompanied by reinstitution of the observance of the jubilee year.

Yet, over the years, a number of rabbinic authorities have sanctioned the sale of real estate to non-Jews, at least in certain limited circumstances. Mizbeaḥ Adamah, an important nineteenth-century Sephardic source, reports that noted rabbinic authorities had themselves done so in the past and cites several by name. Indeed, earlier scholars were perplexed by the narrative in I Kings 9:11 which reports that King Solomon bestowed twenty cities in the Galilee upon Hiram, king of Tyre, in appreciation of the latter's assistance in providing materials needed for use in the construction of the Temple. There is no record of Solomon having been censured for this action.¹⁰See, however, the commentary of Abarbanel on I Kings 9:10. Mizbeaḥ Adamah explains that the prohibition against the sale of real estate to a non-Jew is applicable only to idol worshippers but not to other gentiles. Indeed, idolaters are specifically denied the right of domicile in the Land of Israel lest they cause the Jewish populace to become enmeshed in pagan practices. "They shall not dwell in your land lest they cause you to sin against Me, for you will serve their gods" (Exod. 23:33). Many authorities (with the notable exception of Rambam, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 10:6) rule that since specific reference is made to idolatrous influences, only pagans are excluded from the right of domicile. Mizbeaḥ Adamah views the prohibition against the sale of property as being simply an extension of the prohibition against domicile in the land of Israel, and hence similarly limited in its application solely to idolaters.¹¹This prohibition is also cited by R. Abraham I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, nos. 58, 61, and 63, and by R. Zevi Pesach Frank, Kerem Ẓion, III, no. 13, as well as by R. Eliyahu Klatzkin, Teshuvot Imrei Shefer, no. 92, but is rejected by R. Ya‘akov David Wilofsky (see Mishpat Kohen, no. 61), R. Naftali Zevi Yehudah Berlin, Kuntres Dvar ha-Shmittah and Ḥazon Ish, Shevi‘it 24:3. In accordance with the above distinction, Mizbeaḥ Adamah rules that there is no restriction against the sale of real estate to Moslems, who profess a monotheistic belief. This thesis also serves to explain Solomon's gift to Hiram. Since Hiram was not an idol worshipper, there existed no halakhic obstacle to the transfer of land to him by King Solomon. Rabbi Yosef notes that, quite obviously, this line of reasoning is cogent only with regard to the prohibition of lo teḥanem, but fails to satisfy objections which might be raised on the basis of Ramban's position that the sale of land to a non-Jew also entails transgression of the commandment "And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity." He notes that there is, however, the possibility that Solomon expressly stipulated as a condition of his gift to Hiram that the cities were to revert to their original owners upon the advent of the jubilee year. Rabbi Yosef opines that consideration of Ramban's position would not preclude sale of land "in our day" since observance of the jubilee year lapsed with the destruction of the Temple. This contention may, however, be challenged, since even under contemporary conditions, all lands which are sold are subject to reversion to their original owners in the messianic era, which is to be accompanied by reinstitution of the observance of the jubilee year.