The commandment to conquer the land – what do the first ones rely on?
To our dear Rabbi Michael, peace be upon you,
She asked me-
If there is a commandment to conquer the land, as the Ramban writes and others write about the Rambam, why is it not written in the Gemara? (Or does the rabbi know of a source where it is written in the Gemara?)
The verse “And you shall inherit the land and dwell in it, for I have given it to you to possess it” (Numbers 33:55) also speaks in plain terms of crossing the Jordan and of the land being allotted to the tribes – “For you are crossing the Jordan into the land of Canaan…” (verse 52).
Where does the Ramban and his ilk have the authority to rule like this?
Thank you and Happy Holidays,
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I don't understand how this answers my question.
A. The evidence he cites is almost all from the Bible. Are they ruling from the Bible without bringing evidence from the Talmud? The Talmud he cites speaks explicitly about the conquest of Joshua.
B. The verses he cites also refer to the conquest of Joshua. Maybe I should bring verses from the sin of the illegal immigrants? “(LT) And Moses spake these words unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly: (M) And they rose up early in the morning, and went up to the top of the mountain, saying, Behold, we go up unto the place which Jacob said, We have sinned: (MA) And Moses said, Why do ye speak against Jacob, that he shall not prosper: (MB) Go not up, for there is no Jacob with you. And you shall not be enraged before your enemies: (Numbers 14)
3. It is clear that there is a mitzvah to live in the land, and the Gemara greatly praises the splendor of the land and the desire to live in the land. I am asking about the occupation, and this also has implications for the necessity of the borders of the land, since it is possible to live in the land even without controlling all the borders.
In principle, yes. If there is a clear verse, that is enough to decide a law, even if there is an interpretation or sermon that takes it out of its simple form. I have a good article on "displaced verses", that is, verses that do not apply it in practice (like the Shebat Benu).
[Not that I understand why my words will be more useful to you than the words of the Ramban. He brought evidence from verses and apparently he thought that was enough. And if I were to say no, why are my words superior to his?]
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer