Halakhah su Numeri 34:30

On the basis of Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 21a, Rabbi Soloveichik argues that, in defining what constitutes a "private " rather than a "communal" conquest, Tosafot, in actuality, distinguishes between two geographic areas. There is an apparent discrepancy with regard to the boundaries of the Land of Israel as they are described in the Bible. Numbers 34:1-12 gives the borders in great detail, and includes the names of cities along the borders. Deuteronomy 11:24, employing much broader language, states that the boundaries shall extend "from the wilderness, and the Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the hinder sea." The latter description quite obviously encompasses much more territory than is included in the boundaries described in Numbers. Rabbi Soloveichik indicates that the enhanced territories referred to in Deuteronomy were merely promised to Abraham, whereas the more limited area described in Numbers was actually "given as a gift" to Abraham. It was only the latter territory which was actually conquered by "those who ascended from Egypt." Nevertheless, Ramban, in his commentary on Deuteronomy 11:24, writes that the people of Israel were commanded to conquer even the additional territory lying outside the borders described in Numbers but encompassed within the boundaries indicated in Deuteronomy. Syria—the area captured by King David—clearly lies within those boundaries. However, since Tosafot considers Syria to be a "private" conquest, because it was conquered before the conquest of the Land of Israel in its entirety, a new conclusion emerges. According to this reasoning it would appear that the mizvah of conquering Erez Yisra'el requires that the territory described in Numbers be conquered before any attempt is made to take areas within the larger boundaries described in Deuteronomy.

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.

One final comment: The events of the summer of 1982, even though fraught with much pain, are nevertheless not without a redeeming feature. Song of Songs 4:8 declares, "Come with me from Lebanon, my bride, with me from Lebanon you shall come. You shall look me-rosh amanah…." Rashi explains the import of the opening words of this passage by stating that God declares to the children of Israel, "You will come with Me into exile from Lebanon and with Me from Lebanon you will return." The verse alludes to the route traveled by our ancestors as they departed from the Land of Israel. When sent into exile some were driven north through Lebanon.⁵⁸Indeed, portions of Lebanon are within the biblically designated boundaries of the Land of Israel and, moreover, are part of the territories conquered by the generation of the Exodus. The fourteenth-century traveler and rabbinic authority, R. Estori ha-Farḥi, Kaftor va-Feraḥ, chapter 11, identifies Hor ha-Har specified in Numbers 34:7 as the northern boundary of Ereẓ Yisra’el with a particular mountain in the north of Lebanon and specifically enumerates Tyre, Sidon and Beirut as cities within the consecrated territory of Ereẓ Yisra’el. Scripture testifies that God will go into exile with Israel and together with Israel He will return from the exile. The verse continues, "You shall look me-rosh amanah." Rashi interprets this phrase as meaning "You shall perceive me-rosh—because from the beginning you exhibited emunah." Thus Rashi understands the verse as meaning, "You may anticipate the redemption because from the beginning of exile you manifested belief, faith and trust in God." From the very beginning of galut Israel marched into exile with emunah, with faith and trust that the exile would end. With this faith a priori, we are able to declare with certainty, "Me-levanon tavoi—From Lebanon you shall come."