this land is MY land

Don't miss an episode! Subscribe to the Madlik podcast: Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts

and Join Madlik on Clubhouse every Thursday at 8:00pm Eastern so you can participate in our weekly live discussion of the Parsha

Baruch A. Levine writes in his commentary to Leviticus:

The God of Israel, to whom all land ultimately belongs, has granted the Land of Israel to His people, Israel, as an everlasting ‘ahuzzah, “holding.” In so doing, he has imposed on them certain conditions of tenure. Foremost among these is denial of the right to alienate land through its permanent conveyance to a purchaser – a right that is usually considered an intrinsic element of ownership. (page 270)

The word used in Leviticus 25:23 for “perpetuity” tsĕmiythuth is rare. It only appears in one other place… verse 30, and also in reference to holding property.

According to Levine, we now know from Akkadian contracts that the term tsamit is very ancient and means “finally handed over [to his generations]”. Writes Levine: “The repeated emphasis in our [Torah] legislation on computing the price of the land in terms of crop years also relates to the fact that in the Akkadian contract from Ugarit, property “finally handed over” is at the full price. Not so ‘ahuzah land.” (p.174). Unlike Forever Land (tsamit), Ahuzah land is living land, land that is valued for what it produces, grows and nurtures. Forever Land (tsamit) is valued as property.

Forever Land (tsamit) also has a negative connotation associated with eternal death, not eternal life. (Strongs Concordance H6783)

amaic translation of tsĕmiythuth is לחלוטין (Lechalutin) which is also a great word used in modern Hebrew to mean “absolutely” as in “Is he meshuga? Lechalutin – absolutely! but it also can refer to absolute destruction as in:

הפצצה מקיפה מעל אזור ספציפי במטרה לכתוש את האזור לחלוטין

The morbid nature of this sense of finality in tsamit-lechalutin comes out in Rabbinic literature as well. See Kohelet Rabba on Ecclesiastes 5:15:

“Just as man enters this world by final decision (bechalutin), so he leaves the this world by final decision.”

הא היך מה דאתא בחליטין, כן ייזיל בחליטין

So, what do we know about Pharoah according to the Sefer HaYashar? Well, apparently he took the throne at the age of twenty. His father, Melol, was sick for the last ten years of his life, but had reigned for 94 years. His name was Adikam Ahuz. In Egyptian, according to the Sefer HaYashar, Ahuz means short, and short he was. He was an Ammah and one half, exceedingly ugly, and had a beard down to his feet. [One perhaps could best picture him as one of the seven dwarfs a la Snow White, but with a crown instead of a nightcap]. The Sefer HaYashar states that his reign started in the 206th year of Israel’s going down to Mitzrayim, so he reigned for four years.

It seems, by the way, from the Sefer HaYashar, that only his advisors and confidants appended the pejorative Ahuz apelation to his name [the modern equivalent of shorty]. His subjects called him Adikam. see: https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/headlines-breaking-stories/226127/in-search-of-the-historical-pharoah.html

From B'Ikvot HaYir'a, Mosad HaRav Kook, 1956. Reprinted in 1988 in an expanded edition, for full sefer see: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/http://www.aishdas.org/raek/yirah.pdf for more on HaRav Avrohom Eliyahu (Elya) Kaplan and his derech HaLimud see: http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/raek.htm

The Heter Mechira, a fascinating piece of halachic trivia – In the modern era, as Jews started to return to the land of Israel, the struggling farmers trying against all odds to eke out a marginal existence were confronted with the biblical law of shemita.. the requirement to let the land lie fallow every 7 years. In 1888 a bunch of the most esteemed European rabbis (and the Chief Rabbi of Jaffa) came up with an innovative idea which has become known as the heter mechira (literally: permission to sell). They proposed, that just as on Passover we sell our Hametz to a non-Jew, for the Sabattical year of rest, the entire land of Israel may be sold to a gentile, so that the Jews could work the land. …By the time the next shmita cycle came around in 1895-1896, the rabbinic authorities had joined a united front permitting the sale of the land for that sabbatical year. The rabbis concluded that reality dictated a need for such action because the people could not observe the laws of shmita. In the years of 1910 and 1911, Rav Kook allowed for the sale of the land as well, reaffirming that although it was not ideal, it served an important purpose. …In the years that followed, the decision to sell the land was reevaluated before the arrival of each shmita cycle. Once the State of Israel was established, the Rabbanut (Chief Rabbinate) accepted the sale of the land every year until as recently as 2007-2008. (See Whose Land is it Anyway? By: Nava Billet published in the Yeshiva University Student Newspaper). I’d love to know which gentile “owned” the land of Israel during these years… and what would have happened if he had decided not to sell it back! But all kidding aside, the heter mechira is intriguing because it creates a precedent in which the land of Israel is “temporarily” transferred to a non-Jew…… It is a legal fiction which achieves a goal of compromise with the requirements of reality while still adhering to the Torah.

The concept of “hudna” is one in which the time factor is diluted. The meaning of the word “hudna” is a ceasefire, a break, or a rest. In Arab-Islamic tradition, the hudna is permissible for the sake of conducting negotiations between rivals (Reut Institute, http://reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=287 ). It follows that the hudna is temporary in essence and, as been pointed out by supporters of Israel, can even serve the purpose of reinforcing fighting positions and re-arming. Furthermore, the word hudna does not suggest any preparedness to solve the problem or any commitment not to violate the ceasefire…. The understanding of hudna draws from the precedent of the Treaty of Hudeibiya signed between the Prophet Mohamed and members of the Tribe of Quraish in the year 628 (see Barriers to Peace in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Editor: Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov p.279)

It may come as a surprise, that in signing the peace agreement with Israel in 1978, Anwar Sadat, the Egyptian president quoted a religious order based on the Treaty of Hudaybiya (see Guy Bechor, Ha’aretz, 5/24/94 see not 8 in Reut Institute – Hudna)…

A dispute for the sake of Heaven will endure

Rav Amital also suggested an intriguing reading of the sages’ statement, “Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will in the end endure,” to address the dissension and division that plague the Jewish people. What, he asks, is a dispute that is for the sake of Heaven? It can be contrasted to a purely human dispute, which concerns personal opinions and which is therefore given to being solved through flexibility and compromise. But when each side in a dispute believes that they are contending purely for the sake of Heaven, and that holiness — rather than ego — is driving them, peaceful accommodation becomes impossible. Ultimately, such a dispute will endure, in the sense that it can never be resolved. This is clearly a creative reading of the text, as Maimonides explains that “for the sake of Heaven” means, “for the sake of seeking truth.” It means we open our minds, attempt to honestly listen, and pursue truth. But we can integrate the traditional understanding of “for the sake of Heaven” with Rav Amital’s interpretation: when each of us is certain that we are the only ones who are expressing divine truth, genuine listening, and the pursuit of truth can easily fall by the wayside.

See: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-problem-is-not-baseless-hatred/