It's All in the Timing

            Hassidic master, the Rebbi of Skolin noted that Parashat Masei is always read during the Three Weeks, the period of national mourning from the 17^th of Tammuz until the 9^th of Av, and explained that there is a valuable lesson to be learnt from this timing.

          All the journeys of the Children of Israel and all their travail in the desert were for the purpose of reaching the Promised Land. So too we must be aware that all of Israel's journeys through the long and bitter exile are for the purpose of purifying us until we reach the final redemption which will bring Israel's return to its Land.

Israel's Greatest Guide Book

This Dvar Torah is an applied example of the use of the greatest guide book ever written for Israel.

And the western border you shall have the Great Sea for a border, and this shall be your west border.                 Numbers 34:6

The Torah presents the obvious geographical fact that the Great Sea, the Mediterranean, constitutes the western boundary of the Holy Land.

Our classical commentaries explain that the greatness of the Mediterranean lies not in the fact that it is the largest body of water connected to the Land, but in the fact that it constitutes the Land’s boundary.

The question arises: halachically, how far do Israel’s territorial waters extend?  The Talmud [Gittin 8a] presents a difference of opinion on this matter: The Rabbis say that we draw a line connecting the northwestern (the Mountains of Amnon) and southwestern (the Brook of Egypt) land borders of Israel, whatever is east of that line is part of the Holy Land, west of the line is outside Israel. Rabbi Yehuda (who consistently takes a stronger pro- Land of Israel approach than the Rabbis) says we draw two parallel lines west from the land borders to the ocean , whatever is between those lines  is part of the Land.

Interestingly, if we apply Rabbi Yehuda’s approach to the maximalist opinion as to the location of the northwestern border of the Land, the conclusion will be that the island of Cyprus is part of the Land of Israel. Thus, when the British brought ma’apilim (“illegal” immigrants) to detention camps in Cyprus, they brought them to Israel!

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.

Who May Be Called to the Torah?

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

This verse is Naḥmanides’ source that there is an active mitzva to settle the Land of Israel, as he writes [Criticism of Maimonides’ Sefer haMitzvot, positive commandments, number 4]:

We are commanded to inherit the Land which the exalted God gave to our fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and not leave it in the hands of any other nation, nor leave it in desolation.

Similarly, Naḥmanides writes in his commentary on our verse:

In my opinion, this is a positive mitzva, wherein He has commanded them to dwell in the Land and inherit it, for He has given it to them, and they may not despise the inheritance of God.

Ḥatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer [1762-1839]) writes that we do not call to the Torah a Jew who violates a mitzva which appears in that aliya. For example, one does not call a Shabbat desecrator to the Torah to read “Remember the Shabbat day, to keep it holy.”

Combining Naḥmanides’ and Ḥatam Sofer’s comments, we can conclude that the only Jew outside Israel who may be called to the Torah when our verse is read  is one who lives in Israel and is visiting abroad) or perhaps one who has a firm date for aliya).

The Forty Year Journey

The forty year journey of the Children of Israel to the Land of Israel was punishment for the people’s rejection of the Land by accepting the majority report of Moses’ spies. [Numbers 14:22-23]

The Torah teaches us that only free people can build a free society. Those who were born into slavery, though they longed for freedom, did not necessarily know nor fully appreciate freedom. The people were freed physically, but in order to be build freedom, it is necessary to be psychologically free.

Freedom must be a positive attitude. The absence of slavery does not necessarily make one free. It is not sufficient to rid oneself of the shackles of slavery, one has to know and appreciate the meaning of freedom.

The Children of Israel who left Egypt failed to appreciate that it is worth sacrificing in order to achieve freedom. Had the Israelites realized that the quest for freedom justifies, and perhaps necessitates, sacrifices, they would not have responded to the spies’ report “it is better for us to return to Egypt.” Rather, the people would have understood that it is better to fight on behalf of freedom in their own land. Because the adult generation failed to appreciate the value of freedom, they had to die before entering the Land.

It was the younger generation, which had grown up in freedom, which was qualified to create a free society in the Land of Israel.

Journeys From, Journeys To

And they journeyed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the day after the Passover the Children of Israel went out with a high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.       Numbers 33:3

Our verse states “they journeyed,” while verse five states “And the Children of Israel journeyed from Ramses, and encamped in Sukkot.” Initially, they journeyed in disarray, accompanied by the mixed multitude [Exodus 12:38], while in later journeys the verse consistently mentions the Children of Israel, because they removed the mixed multitude from their midst.                                                     Ba’al haTurim

My father commented that distinction between the journey of the mixed multitude and that of the Children of Israel was in the fact that former was interested primarily in escaping from Egypt, hence their journey was in disarray, while the latter journeyed to Mount Sinai and receiving the Torah/ Thus, the Torah states that the Children of Israel encamped in Sukkot, perhaps symbolizing the “Sukkot” with which God made for them, that is, Israel encamped, as it were, in the Divine shade.

Perhaps Ba’al haTurim’s comment can also be understood to mean that as Israel began its journey, it was in disarray, and hence not worthy of being called “the Children of Israel,” however, when the people left “with a high hand,” without fear and realizing that it is God’s hand which took them out of Egypt, they merited being called the Children of Israel. Israel left Egypt in disarray, each concerned only with his/her personal welfare, but the realization that the nation was saved through divine intervention united the Israelites on their journey towards Sinai.

Twin Destinations

These (eileh) are the journeys of the Children of Israel, who went out of the land of Egypt with their hosts under the hand of Moses and Aaron. [Numbers 33:1]

Rabbi Abahu says: whenever the verse says “eileh,” it invalidates that which preceded. [Shmot Rabba 1:2]

Rabbi Abahu teaches that the word “eileh” (these) is to be understood as emphatic. Our verse is to be read thus: these are the journeys of the Children of Israel, to the exclusion of previous journeys, which are not to be considered as “journeys of the Children of Israel.”

My father suggested that the Torah’s choice of the word “eileh” in our verse is intended specifically to negate Israel’s journey of four hundred years earlier, when Jacob and his family descended to Egypt. Israel’s journey into servitude is not to be considered its true journey. It is the Israelites’ march out of Egypt, towards Mount Sinai and the freedom derived from accepting the Torah and the subsequent journey into the Promised Land which mark the “journeys of the Children of Israel.”

Ultimately, Israel’s true journey is defined by the twin destinations of Torah and the Land of Israel.