לא. כי אתם, עוברים את-הירדן, לבוא לרשת את-הארץ, אשר-יהוה אלוהיכם נותן לכם; וירשתם אותה, וישבתם-בה. לב ושמרתם לעשות, את כל-החוקים ואת-המשפטים, אשר אנוכי נותן לפניכם, היום.
11:31 [You must do this] because you are crossing the Jordan to come to the land which God your Lord is giving you and occupy it. When you have occupied it and you live there,
11:32 you must carefully keep all the rules and laws that I am prescribing to you today.Nachmanides sees here an actual mitvah to settle the land of Israel, included as one of the 613, which he writes in a commentary to Maimonides' Book of Mitzvot called "The Mitzvot That Maimonides Forgot".
I included the Aryeh Kaplan translation because I think that Rabbi Kaplan did not agree with Nachmanides. The straight translation of the end of verse 31 is "And you shall inherit it, and settle it." Yet, Rabbi Kaplan formulates it as a first clause towards the exhortation to uphold the commandments which follows in the next verse, instead of a command on its own. This indicates he eschewed Nachmanides for other interpretations. Aryeh Kaplan, the anti-zionist? I don't know.
The mid-late 1800's was a tumultuous time for Jews in Europe, with many being swept up with a fervor for nationalism, and very often that translated to a type of pre-Zionist movement. One of the reactions of rabbis of the time was to oppose such change with a passion, for various reasons. Many people don't know that in Rabbi Teichtal's second preface of Em Habanim Semeicha, written during the Holocaust, he blames the greatest sages of his day of only opposing Zionism because they feared their loss of power and prestige in the community, a strong accusation.
Along with that, were defenders of this pre-Zioist movement, such as Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalisher, who used sources such as Nachmanides to support the idea of going back to Israel. It is only natural then, that opponents of the movement would also have to question Nachmanides, and I believe that happened particularly in the 1800's and early 1900's. One such attack on Nachmanides is reported by the Meshech Chochma at the beginning of Re'eh:
וירשתם אותה וישבתם בה. דעת הרמב״ן דישיבת ארץ ישראל בעשה. והרד״מ בחדושיו תמה ממה דדריש ר׳ שמלאי במסכת סוטה מ״מ נתאוה משה לכנוס לא״י כו׳ הרבה מצות כו׳ ואין מתקיים אלא בארץ כו׳. ומאי מקשה הלא ישיבת ארץ ישראל עשה היא בעצמה עיי״ש. ולק״מ׳ דלפי זה בני גד וב״ר לא קיימו מצות ישיבת ארץ ישראל׳ ובודאי אינו כן׳ דקימו גם בארץ סיחון ועוג מצוה זו׳ שזהו האמורי מה שאמר והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה׳ וא״כ מדוע היה משה מבקש לכנוס לארץ׳ ודאי כל זמן שלא היה כבוש וחלוק בארץ היו מקיימים בזה ישיבת ארץ ישראל. וזה פשיט:Apparently the "Radam", whose last name is perhaps "Meisels" (I have seen a version that says Meisels I believe), questioned how Nachmanides included the mitzva to settle Israel, if there is an agadata in Sotah 14a that might imply that it is not a mitzva. Let's see it inside:
דרש רבי שמלאי מפני מה נתאוה משה רבינו ליכנס לא"י וכי לאכול מפריה הוא צריך או לשבוע מטובה הוא צריך אלא כך אמר משה הרבה מצות נצטוו ישראל ואין מתקיימין אלא בא"י אכנס אני לארץ כדי שיתקיימו כולן על ידי אמר לו הקב"ה כלום אתה מבקש אלא לקבל שכר מעלה אני עליך כאילו עשיתם שנאמר
R. Simlai expounded: Why did Moses our teacher yearn to enter the land of Israel? Did he want to eat of its fruits or satisfy himself from its bounty? But thus spake Moses, 'Many precepts were commanded to Israel which can only be fulfilled in the land of Israel. I wish to enter the land so that they may all be fulfilled by me'. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'Is it only to receive the reward [for obeying the commandments] that thou seekest? I ascribe it to thee as if thou didst perform them'; as it is said...According to R. Simlai, the Radam asks, it is curious that Moses wanted to enter the land of Israel, and surely it was not just for the food. The Radam doesn't understand why this is even a question for R. Simlai if there is a mitzva on its own to live in Israel. That would be the obvious reason why Moses wanted to go to Israel!
But Meshech Chochma rejects this question on Nachmanides. Radam implies that the tribes of Gad and Reuben never fulfilled their own commandment to inherit the land of Sichon and Og as part of settling Israel, which is surely not true according to Numbers 33:53.
So, then, why didn't Moses want to go in to Israel specifically because of the mitzva of settling Israel, but because of the many other commandments to perform there? This is the straight translation of the Meshech Chochma's answer:
Certainly so long as they had not yet conquered and divided the land, they had fulfilled the settling of Israel through this. This is obvious.I wish I had the edition here that might have explained this line a little better, but my understanding is that all of Israel, including Moses, had fulfilled the mitzva of living in Israel while standing at the Jordan, about to go in, when they conquered the lands of Sichon and Og. Thus, Moses did not desire to go in for that commandment, but for the rest of the commandments.
This interpretation must be wrong, because then R. Simlai's derasha makes no sense. If they fulfilled the commandment of living in Israel on the other side of the Jordan, then why didn't Moses simply perform all the mitzvot he wanted right there? How could that part of land be enough to fulfill the mitzva of living in Israel, but not enough to have the rest of the mitzvot count while standing there? Perhaps the Meshech Chochma thinks that there was no mitzvot for Moses to do on that side of the Jordan, perhaps no food to do tithes on, etc? I don't know. If someone has an idea of how to understand that answer, please let me know. Certainly this author seems to understand it my way.
That said, I have three possible alternative answers that I believe are more obvious than the Meshech Chochma's answer.
Firstly, Moses wasn't commanded to enter Israel, only the people were. In fact, he was commanded not to enter. So he simply did not have the mitzva of settling Israel. The same God that told the people that there is a mitzva to live in Israel (according to Nachmanides), also told Moses not to enter. Not a contradiction. That's why he would never have wanted to go in for the mitzva.
Secondly, the question of R. Simlai is not why he wanted to go into Israel, but why he only wanted to go in for a short time. The line in Vaeschanan, Deuteronomy 3:25, says that Moses asked to go into the land just to "see" it. This indicates he pleaded only for a short viewing of it. Just a short time, to eat its fruits? Obviously not, it must be that he wanted just a bit of time to perform the mitzvot such as making a beracha and wearing sandals on Tisha B'Av (just kidding). But this answer seems to be in the Artscroll Gemara on this piece in Sotah, if I remember correctly.
Lastly, Moses says he pleaded with the Lord to enter into Israel. Just to perform one mitzva, he had a "taava" (as the Talmud put it) to enter Israel, asks R. Simlai? It seems more likely that he wanted more than just one mitzva to perform, he wanted all the mitzvot. That's something worth begging God for, enough so that God responds with "Enough!"
I think my first answer is most correct, but the last two seem possible as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment