창세기 13:7의 Halakhah

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.