English translation — תולדות ב

A.

On the verse¹

"And the Lord appeared to him and said: Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land which I will tell you,

sojourn in this land etc." it stands in the Midrash²

"Sojourn in this land,

said Rabbi Hoshaya: You are a perfect burnt-offering; just as a burnt-offering, if it goes outside the curtains it becomes invalid, so you, if you go outside the land you become invalid."

Rashi in his commentary on the words "Do not go down to Egypt" explains: that his intention was to go down to Egypt as his father went down in the days of famine; He said to him: Do not go down to Egypt, for you are a perfect burnt-offering, and the land outside the land is not fitting for you.

The Ra'am learns in Rashi's commentary,

that since it is a whole burnt-offering that is holy of holies, all the land is for it like the courtyard relative to the Holy of Holies,

and "the diaspora is considered for him like outside the courtyard, and the Holy of Holies does not go out to outside the courtyard, and if it goes out it becomes invalid and forbidden forever."

According to the explanation of the Ra'am it turns out,

that Rashi intends to explain in the same manner as the aforementioned midrash.

As one will carefully examine, however, one sees that between Rashi's commentary and the commentary of the midrash there are such differences that bring out a difference also in the content of the commentaries:

a)

According to this midrash, Yitzchak's going out to chutz la'aretz is connected to a disqualification — "If you go out of the Land you become disqualified" — exactly like a burnt-offering that goes out beyond the curtains; but Rashi in his commentary emphasizes only that "outside the Land is not worthy for you."

b)

In the midrash, the exposition is also on the words "Dwell in this land"³,

and Rashi also bases himself on the words "Do not go down to Egypt"⁴.

That from the two differences

(which are dependent on each other⁵)

it is understood that there is a difference in the content of the interpretations: according to the Midrash, by Yitzchak the prohibition of leaving for outside the land is a result of the fact that he dwells in the Land of Israel

("dwell in this land")

- from the aspect of the virtue of the Land of Israel - because the Land of Israel regarding Yitzchak is like within the curtains regarding an olah - and consequently it is "if you <b>go out</b> outside the land you are disqualified",

because he left the Land of Israel.

But according to Rashi,

the negation of leaving by Yitzchak is connected not with the special virtue of the Land of Israel,

but with the deficiency of outside the land - "outside the land is not worthy for you",

and therefore this is connected

(not with the obligation "dwell in this land" but)

with the negation "do not go down to Egypt".

2.

According to this, one can seemingly explain the <b>reason </b>for the aforementioned difference between Rashi and the Midrash:

<span>According to the Midrash, this is connected with the holiness of the land</span>⁶

- The land of Israel is more holy than all [other] lands,

and the departure of Yitzchak was compared to the departure of an olah outside the holiness of the azarah - "Just as an olah, if it goes outside the curtains, it becomes invalid, so too, if he goes outside the land, he becomes invalid"<b>*</b>⁶.

But not according to Rashi&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

<span> which is in the way of the plain meaning,</span>

then in the plain sense of Scripture one does not find that the Land of Israel &lt;b&gt;in the time of the Patriarchs&lt;/b&gt;,

when it was still the land of Canaan, had in itself a &lt;b&gt;holiness&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;,

therefore Rashi says that his not going out to the Diaspora is primarily

(- not the command "Dwell in this land",

due to the holiness of the land,

but)

due to the deficiency of "outside the land",

"Outside the land is not worthy for you"&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;.

In truth, however, one cannot learn thus - and with an introduction to the question: the matter,

that Isaac should not go out of the Land of Israel,

is found already earlier - when Abraham sent Eliezer to the Diaspora "to my land etc. and take a wife for my son Isaac",

then to Eliezer the question "Perhaps the woman will not consent etc. to this land, shall I indeed bring back your son etc.",

Abraham answered him "Beware lest you bring back my son there"&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

- and there one does not find&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

that one should explain&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;

<span><span> that this is because </span>Isaac was a perfect burnt offering</span>&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;.

Seemingly one could answer and explain this — at least according to the halachah:

The law¹⁴

is that "it is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for outside the Land forever, except to study Torah or to marry a woman ..

(and even then, afterwards)

he must return to the Land ..

But to dwell outside the Land is forbidden unless the famine there became so severe that a dinar of wheat became equal to two dinars."

And therefore: in Parshat Chayei Sarah where the question of Eliezer "Shall I bring back your son to the land from which you came" meant that Yitzchak should remain there permanently

(not in order to return,

since the woman will not consent)

- it is understandable why this was questioned and Avraham told him "Beware lest you bring my son back there".

But not so in our parshah where it speaks about "And there was a famine in the land",

for then there is not the aforementioned prohibition of going out "&lt;b&gt;to dwell&lt;/b&gt;" in the diaspora&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

(as we also see from that which Avraham Avinu did so&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

in the days of the famine&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;),

therefore the Almighty had to warn "Do not go down to Egypt etc. Dwell in this land",

that Yitzchak may not go out into the diaspora due to a special reason - that which he is a perfect burnt offering&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;.

It is however difficult to thus incorporate-

: the Rambam rules in the aforementioned halacha "And although it is permitted to leave,

it is not the measure of piety,

for Machlon and Kilyon were two great ones of the generation and because of great distress they left and were liable to destruction by the Omnipresent",

so if one would say that the laws of the prohibition of leaving the Land of Israel applied also to the Patriarchs

(at least from the aspect that the Patriarchs fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given¹⁹

and even the eating of matzah²⁰

and even decrees and rabbinic restrictions²¹

and the like),

they would certainly have been careful also about leaving for outside the Land since this is not the measure of piety

(and is connected with such a punishment²²,

may it be spared).

And furthermore, the main point: we see that Avraham Avinu left Eretz Yisrael back to Charan after the Covenant Between the Parts,

even not in a time of famine.

From this it is forced that in the time of the Patriarchs the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael for outside the Land was not applicable,

and consequently it is also not applicable that the Patriarchs should be careful in this,

although they fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given,

because the definition of the sanctity of the Land

(regarding leaving the Land)

had not yet at that time

taken effect

"Until Eretz Yisrael was chosen, all lands were fit for Divine speech

(and specifically)

once Eretz Yisrael was chosen, all the lands went out"].

And the reason why Abraham commanded Eliezer: "Beware for yourself lest you bring my son back there,"

is understood

(also according to the simple explanation)

from Abraham's own words

(in the continuation of the verses after this)

: "And who swore to me saying, 'To your seed I will give this land'" — since this is the land that the Almighty will give to Isaac,

it has no place that Isaac should

(because of "to take a wife")

go away from it and settle outside the Land²⁸.

But not so in our portion where it is speaking about a time of famine in the land and there is no other choice but to leave the land,

it is simply logical that this should not be a hindrance from going temporarily to a place where there is food until the famine ends

(were it not for the reason that Isaac is "a perfect burnt-offering")²⁹.

Based on this, however, the question arises: since Eretz Yisrael was not yet divided in its holiness at that time,

what does the matter that Yitzchak is a "perfect burnt-offering" address,

and especially according to the emphasis of the Midrash,

that "just as a burnt-offering etc., so too you, if you go out etc."

3.

And it can be explained, with an introduction of another difference that is found between the language of Rashi and the language of the Midrash: on the verse

regarding the Covenant Between the Parts, "On that day the L-rd made a covenant with Avram, saying: To your seed I have given this land,"

it says in the Midrash

"The statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, is an <b>actual deed</b>, as it is said: To your seed I have given,

'I will give this land' is not written here, but rather 'I have given this land,'"

but Rashi in his commentary on "To your seed I have given" explains: "The statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, is <b>as if</b> it is done."

According to this, it turns out,

that according to the Midrash, at the Covenant Between the Parts there was already the "act" of the giving through the saying of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and it was then acquired for Abraham and his seed after him³⁴

the entire Land of Israel

that "To your seed I have given" is not a promise,

but rather "I have already given" — it belongs to the Jews even before they entered the Land of Israel; and so too — with what the Gemara³⁶

says as halacha that "the Land of Israel is in possession",

"it is an inheritance to you <b>from your fathers</b>"]³⁷.

But not so according to Rashi: the saying of the Holy One, blessed be He, did not effect the "act" of the giving in actual reality,

that the Land of Israel should from then on belong³⁸

to the Jews³⁹

; it is only that "

(His saying of the Holy One, blessed be He)

<b>is as if</b> it is done",

But also from this side it is fitting

(even according to the plain meaning of the verse)

to say the phrase "to your seed <b>I have given</b>"⁴⁰.

One must understand: Since it is said according to the midrash

(and the halachah)

that the saying of the Holy One, blessed be He, acts upon the body of the land,

that it was <b>acquired</b> to Abraham and his seed after him,

why should one not say that this also effected the <b>holiness</b> in the land

(and moreover — since one finds that immediately "when He created the world,

He "<b>chose</b> the land of Israel"⁴¹

there is indeed room to say that from then on it became a holy land,

and consequently all those matters that the holiness of the land obligates apply⁴²

(including also the prohibition of leaving it even when one is not a perfect oleh).

4.

And one can say the reasoning in this:

Already spoken many times<b>*</b>⁴²

<span> Regarding the difference between the commandments that the Patriarchs fulfilled before the Giving of the Torah and the commandments that Jews fulfill after the Giving of the Torah,</span>

That since the fulfillment of the commandments before the Giving of the Torah was in the manner of "one who is not commanded

(<b>by the Holy One, blessed be He</b>)⁴³

and does",

the commandments did not have the power to change the <b>essence</b>

A thing created by the Holy One, blessed be He,

changes the essence of the thing with which one performed the mitzvah so that it becomes an object of mitzvah,

and the effect of fulfilling the mitzvot was only in relation to the person⁴⁴,

the one who fulfills the mitzvah.

After the giving of the Torah and the commandment of the Holy One, blessed be He, however, through the fulfillment of mitzvot a change occurs in the object,

that the object becomes an object of mitzvah and holiness etc.

- And the reason for this is,

as it is stated in the Midrash⁴⁵,

that before the giving of the Torah there was a decree that the upper ones should not descend to the lower ones and the lower ones should not ascend to the upper ones,

and at the giving of the Torah the Most High annulled the decree,

so that there could be the connection of the upper with the lower -

D.

E.

The command at the Giving of the Torah<b>*</b>⁴⁵

established the <b>definition</b> of the object of the commandment

(and transgression)

in the matters of the world

(even before the person fulfills the commandment with them),

that they become a <b>vessel</b><span> prepared to fulfill a commandment with them and through them; and through the fact that the person fulfills the commandment </span><b>in action</b><span>,</span>

holiness is actually fixed

(supernal)

in the object below

(lower)

and it becomes an object of commandment or holiness etc.

Similarly, it is understood also regarding Eretz Yisrael: Although the acquisition <b>and ownership</b> of Eretz Yisrael was established even before the Giving of the Torah

(through the speech of the Holy One, blessed be He),

nevertheless, then the application of <b>holiness</b>

(also the holiness that is not connected with the obligation of commandments)

could not be <b>fixed</b>⁴⁶

in the "object" of the land⁴⁷.

After the Giving of the Torah, however,

(also before the conquest)

there was renewed in it the <b>definition</b> and possibility of holiness

(by virtue of the command that one should conquer it)

; and when the Jews took possession of Eretz Yisrael⁴⁸

in actuality⁴⁹

(through conquest)⁵⁰

there was fixed in it⁵¹

the holiness of the land.

5.

Just as this is according to the midrash regarding the holiness of the Land,

so too is it according to Rashi's plain meaning of the verse regarding the acquisition of ownership of the Land:

Since the manner &lt;b&gt;and definition&lt;/b&gt; of the giving &lt;b&gt;of the Land&lt;/b&gt; by the Most High to the Jews is not like when an item is given from a mere giver to a mere receiver

- that this giving is only a change of domain which does not change the essence of the thing given

(and therefore the ownership of the item can be nullified and voided through a kinyan,

or conquest and the like,

and pass from one domain to the other)

- only the Most High gave

(also)

her <b>essence</b> to Jews

(taking from her any connection to other nations),

given in a manner that there was a change in her <b>essence</b> - the object of <b>the</b> land became through the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>the Land of Israel</b>,

So from then on she cannot belong to another nation

(Change of authority through a kinyan and the like,

cannot change the essence of the thing)⁵²

Consequently

(Analogous to the general definition of holiness which can be actualized specifically after the giving of the Torah)

was

(also)

this could be actualized specifically through the fact that Jews conquered in actuality - "you have conquered the lands of seven nations" - which then became in actuality⁵³

the "by His will etc. He gave us",

the giving of the essence of the land

(because of the fact that "the entire earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it")⁵⁴.

6.

Based on this, one can explain the novelty of Rashi's commentary and the Midrash: That a burnt-offering may not be taken out beyond the curtains, and "if it went out, etc., it becomes invalid" is not because of the category of holiness

(that it went out to a place of a lower level of holiness),

but because this is "outside its boundary" — and this is a general law⁵⁵

regarding any meat that "went out beyond its boundary"; and on the contrary,

this law is derived⁵⁶

<translation> from the verse</translation>⁵⁷

"And meat in the field, a torn animal, you shall not eat"

(which does not speak about sacred meat)

: "Since the meat went out beyond its boundary, it is forbidden",

because that type of meat has its boundary,

which defines the fixed place where it belongs,

therefore "meat of the holiest of holies that went out beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard, and meat of the lesser holies that went out beyond the wall of Jerusalem"⁵⁸,

or "meat of the Passover-offering that went out beyond its group"⁵⁹,

or a "fetus that extended its limb"⁶⁰,

they become "invalid and forbidden forever"⁶¹,

because "since the meat went out beyond its boundary⁶²

it becomes like a torn animal"⁶³.

And since according to this Midrash, the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, is an action, and the Land of Israel already then

(from the time of the Covenant Between the Parts)

belonged to the Patriarchs,

therefore it follows that through that which the Most High commanded him

(Isaac)

to sacrifice himself as a perfect burnt-offering,

it was automatically established that the Land of Israel is his place⁶⁴

and his boundary

(similar to how through the offering of the burnt-offering, the Temple courtyard becomes its fixed place and boundary⁶⁵),

and consequently, outside the Land is, relative to him, "outside his boundary".

But not according to Rashi's view,

as above,

then the entity of Eretz Yisrael does not have the giving at the Covenant Between the Parts accomplished.

Rashi, however, had already explained in Parshat Chayei Sarah⁶⁶

(in Avraham's response to Eliezer: "Beware lest you bring my son back there")

also the words: "Hashem, God of the heavens, Who took me from my father's house — now He is God of the heavens and God of the earth, for I have accustomed Him in the mouths of creatures; but when He took me from my father's house, He was God of the heavens and not God of the earth, for the people of the world did not recognize Him and His name was not accustomed in the land,"

What

(as discussed at length previously⁶⁷)

With this Abraham explained to Eliezer,

that outside the Land,

"my father's house",

the Most High is only "God of the heavens",

not "God of the earth" — since there they have no recognition of the Most High and His holy name is not accustomed in the mouths of the creatures — and therefore "you shall not take my son there"; but in the Land of Israel He is

(not only)

"God of the heavens

(but also)

<b>and God of the earth</b> for I have accustomed Him in the mouths of the creatures"⁶⁸,

but on the other hand, there it is only in a manner of "<b>I have accustomed Him in the mouths of the</b> creatures" — not a change of essence in the creatures,

in their conduct and deeds

(therefore "do not take a wife for my son <b>from the daughters of the Canaanite</b> among whom I dwell")

From this it is understandable that regarding the superiority of Isaac who was a "perfect burnt offering"

(so much)

relevant to the importance of the land — because in the land itself there was

(still)

no special superiority⁶⁹

and also not in the essence of the <b>people of the</b> land —]

was

(mainly)

the prevention of departure because "outside the Land <b>is not worthy for you</b>",

because there is no "God of the <b>earth</b>",

even <b>His name</b> is not accustomed outside the Land.

7.

And we must explain the difference between these two opinions in the inner aspect of the matters:

According to the midrash

(and halachah)

the ownership of the Jews over Eretz Yisrael was also during the time of the Patriarchs, and because of this Yitzchak was not permitted to leave

(being an olah temimah)

; according to Rashi's commentary there was no actual ownership,

this only came about through Bnei Yisrael at their entry into the land,

and the lack of leaving the land is only because "outside the land is not worthy for you":

From the side of midrash,

which is higher than peshat

(- including <b>the simple meanings </b>of the matters)

only more connected with spiritual matters

(but <b>this </b>affects and acts also in the physical world),

the ownership of Jews over Eretz Yisrael is also effected through "<b>the statement </b>of the Holy One, blessed be He, deed" which pertains to the ownership of Jews over Eretz Yisrael,

According to Rashi - the simple meaning of the verse - one counts only

(as this is in the world of peshat - the world of action)

with the actual deed,

as this is in this world,

and therefore also the ownership of Jews over Eretz Yisrael became specifically through their entry and conquest in deed.

But on the other hand,

through the actual deed of Jews, the <b>essence</b> of the heart is changed and the Holy One, blessed be He's giving of the very essence of the heart is revealed,

in a manner that it has become a <b>Land of Israel</b>,

and a Holy Land and in a permanent manner,

as above.

(From the talks of 20 Menachem Av and Motzaei Shabbat Re'eh 5738)