Sermon: Shabbat Mattot (Rabbi Maurice Michaels)

Written by Writings & Sermons by others — 21 March 2015

There are a whole variety of topics in the section of this week’s sidrah of Mas’ei.  In fact the traditional reading for this week is a double sidrah, including also Matot, so there are even more themes to be considered.  The context of the story is the conclusion of the wanderings of the ancient Israelites through the wilderness, arriving at the shore of the River Jordan.  There they camp waiting for the instruction to cross over and take possession of the land promised to their ancestors.

This is, of course, the same land that has been fought over for the past three millennia; the land that has been the subject of more United Nations resolutions than any other; the land that both Israelis and Palestinians want as their own; the land that has seen constant war since the establishment there of the State of Israel sixty-four years ago. And the latest round of that battle came to Europe this week, with the terrorist attack on a group of Israeli tourists in a bus at Burgas Airport in Bulgaria.  As a long-time proponent of a two-State solution, I find myself frustrated  that those who are not prepared to contemplate anything but the whole of the land – on either side – seem to be calling the tune.  Yet I shouldn’t be surprised, firstly because moderates – by definition – are not as passionate for their cause and secondly because history tells us that partitioned land solutions rarely – if ever – work for long: Cyprus, Yemen, Korea, Vietnam, – and Israel/Palestine – are just timebombs waiting to explode.

It seems as though God understood this fact in the commandment he gave to Moses earlier in our sidrah.  God doesn’t just say this is the land in which the Israelites will live, but instructs Moses: והורשתם את כל יושבי הארץ, and you shall clear out all the inhabitants of the land.  This is a no-share option.  Of course, most of the traditional commentators explain that this was so that the Israelites should not come into close contact with the customs and religious beliefs of the Canaanites, in case they were tempted to forsake God.  Rashi, the 11th century French commentator, perhaps the most famous of them all, goes further, ‘only if you clear the land of its former inhabitants will you be able to maintain yourself in the land, but not otherwise.’  Rashi’s concern is the act of taking possession of the land so as to clearly demonstrate ownership.  That is very much the viewpoint of those who, in our own time – 900 years later, use this as a proof text for Jewish rights to the whole of the land of Israel.

But actually Rashi, who lived in a totally different historical and political context, had a very different objective?  The next chapter sets out the boundaries of the land and there Rashi comments on the verses setting out in great detail the borders of the land, from east to west, from north to south, that this is purely for religious reasons.  He states that the importance of mentioning the borders is not to create territorial rights, but because it was necessary to delineate the area in which those Mitzvot only capable of being fulfilled inside the land of Israel would be applicable.

The Palestinian case for controlling the whole of the land is not based on Biblical or Koranic proof texts.  Indeed it is not based on religion at all, rather it is wholly political. The very presence of a non-Arab State in the region is anathema to most Arabs.  The fact that it is also Jewish is an extra reason, but not the primary one.  By the way, I know that there is a question over the origins of some of the other peoples in the area but they are accepted as quasi-Arabs.

But let’s come back to the text.  The command that I quoted earlier is soon followed by a repetition of the first word used: והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה , and you shall clear the land and dwell in it.  According to this, the primary purpose is not to dispossess the former inhabitants, but to live in the land.  Nachmanides, born in Spain almost a century after Rashi died, comments that this is a divine positive commandment.  The people of Israel must live in the land of Israel, because God has given it to them as an inheritance.  Indeed, the Ramban travelled from Spain in the middle of the 13th century, to live in Israel, in fulfilment of God’s command.

These two explanations of the verses are not just semantics.  They are at the core of the current conflict in Israel over the peace process.  One side of the political divide asserts Israeli sovereignty over the whole of Greater Israel, whatever that is, and I’m not being facetious.  Over the millennia, the boundaries of the land of Israel have varied extensively, quite different to those listed in our sidrah.  And, of course, the further right politically the greater the boundaries, so there are still some who would claim substantial parts of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.  This approach follows Rashi’s interpretation: unless all the former inhabitants are cleared from the land and it is all under direct ownership, then Israelite possession cannot be maintained; the title to the land just cannot be contested by the possessions of other inhabitants.  The second current view is that held by the more liberal wing of Israeli politics.  So long as the Israelites are dwelling in the land, irrespective of who else may live there, they are there in response to God’s positive commandment.  They have good title as a result of receiving their  inheritance.  This accords with Ramban’s interpretation.

And so we find that the Israeli political scene is split between these two approaches: medieval interpretations of a biblical text.  And yet our own historical understanding is such as to enable us to, if not associate ourselves with the process, at least be sympathetic towards those who do.  However, I believe that one little piece is still missing.  The whole basis of ownership of the land is predicated on God’s covenant with Abraham, reiterated to Isaac and Jacob, ‘to your descendants will I give this land.’ But how can God just willy-nilly transfer the land from one people to another?  The Israelites, like the the Canaanites and the other peoples before them, only have a leasehold.  The freehold belongs to God and there it remains.  As the Psalmist put it,לה“ הארץ ומלואה , the earth is God’s and its fullness.

May those who seek peace for the land of Israel and its neighbours, remember that while we may have a right to our inheritance in the land, we can only dwell in it at God’s indulgence and who are we to say that our inheritance is exclusive and may not be shared with those who, after all, are also Abraham’s descendants.