Beginning and End

And you shall drive out the inhabitants of the Land, and dwell therein; for I have given the Land to you to possess.                                              Numbers 33:53

Rabbi Yehuda Ḥayyim HaKohen Mesalton of Damascus (who lived a century ago) writes in his book “Yehuda Ya’aleh” that our verse essentially confirms the comment with which Rashi commenced his commentary on the Torah, that the Torah began with the creation of the world to teach that the Land was given by God to His people Israel (see Rashi Genesis 1:1). In the words of “Yehuda Ya’aleh”: “For I have given the Land to you” is exact, since the entire world is Mine and with My will, I took the Land from the nations and gave it to you.

We can add that our verse serves as Naḥmanides’ source in listing dwelling in the Land of Israel as a positive mitzva.

In a sense, Parashat Masei marks the end of the Torah, since the book of Deuteronomy is Moses’ review of the events of the Israelites’ forty years of wandering in the desert and the summary of the mitzvot. Seen as such, the completion of Torah returns us to its starting point.

More than a century before “Yehuda Ya’aleh,” Ḥatam Sofer connected Rabbi Yitzḥak’s comment with the verses which follow our verse:

If you do not drive out the land’s inhabitants before you, those who remain shall be barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides, causing you troubles in the land that you settle. I will then do to you what I originally planned to do to them. ibid. 55-56

Ḥatam Sofer explains the severity of the punishment for Israel’s failure to drive the nations out of the Land based upon Rashi’s comment. The Israelites were to take control of the Land in fulfillment of God’s imperative, and if they do, the nations cannot claim that they are thieves. However, if Israel fails to take control of the entire Land, it indicates that they acted in their own interest, not in fulfillment of God’s will, and thus, they are indeed thieves, who have no right to the Land.

With this comments, Ḥatam Sofer conveys the practical aspect and implication of Rashi’s comment.