Q&A: Your Attitude Toward the Land of Israel
Your Attitude Toward the Land of Israel
Question
What is your attitude toward the Land of Israel?
Why do you think the Jewish people were formed outside the Land / in the desert?
Answer
I don’t understand the question. There are many commandments that depend on the Land, and there is value in living in it. Metaphysical notions don’t say much to me. There are plenty of explanations for why the Jewish people were formed outside the Land, and I don’t see any need to add my own little homilies on the matter. In any case, nobody can know why that is so (if there is even a reason, rather than it simply having turned out that way).
Beyond that, I have the sentimental feeling that most human beings have toward their land, as is normal in the world. But sentiments have no evaluative significance. We are simply built that way, and that’s it.
Discussion on Answer
As I wrote, I don’t know. By the way, I also don’t exactly understand how Rabbi Kook knows. The commandments dependent on the Land do not necessarily point to a special bond or to some unique quality of the Land. They could also stem from the Torah’s desire that we observe those commandments only when we are in our land, and our land is the Land of Israel (but it could have been Uganda too).
I’d be happy to hear what practical implication this has (out of the “many” you mentioned).
1. Territories for peace — no student of the Kav yeshivot would sign on to that, because the Land of Israel is holy and an integral part of the nation, etc.; while someone who understands it differently will weigh the reward of the commandment against its loss, and may very well prefer the agreement (as Rabbi Ovadia did in his time).
2. Educationally — do you emphasize the holy trinity (Torah, people, and land), and as a result you produce youth for whom the Land of Israel is their highest concern, apparently more than Sabbath observance — I don’t recall any hilltop youth movement over Sabbath desecration, etc., just as there aren’t many Haredim who make an uproar over the Land of Israel.
3. Attitude toward settlement, especially in situations of danger to life. A student of the Kav yeshivot will tell you that since this is a national commandment, an individual’s danger to life does not override it, as Rabbi Kook explained regarding the commandment of war. A student of the other school will likely prefer to live in the center of the country (not everyone, but statistically there will still be a significant difference between the schools).
And more.
And again, thank you for your quick and direct answers
Hello Yochai.
I don’t see any practical difference here. For me, a practical difference is a substantive implication: if one adopts position X, conclusion Y follows from it. Psychological implications (someone who adopts position X will tend to do Y) are not a practical difference. Psychology is not a subject for discussion and not a result of discussion. It is simply there because it is there. In other words, psychology is a fact, not a norm. From this my attitude toward the practical differences you mentioned is already clear:
1. This is a question unrelated to the intrinsic value of the Land of Israel. If halakhically this is permitted, then someone who is unwilling to give up territory because of its intrinsic value is a criminal (because he causes loss of life in wars). Maybe there are such people, but that is not a practical difference in my eyes. That is a psychological influence, not a substantive one.
2. Again, psychology. Not interesting.
3. See section 1. The question whether there is national danger to life or not is unrelated to the question of intrinsic value.
I disagree.
1. At the end of the day, X causes Y even if the mechanism is not substantive but psychological, and therefore this is a real practical difference (perhaps not a practical difference in the sense of absolute cause and effect). Maybe we simply disagree on definitions, but it seems to me (forgive me) that my definition is more correct (the intellect is not the only player in our world and is not the whole picture).
2. I think this is also a substantive practical difference. I do agree that one can argue whether the above implications are unavoidable once the view is accepted, but there is certainly some substantive connection, and in my opinion a significant one. (For me, a substantive practical difference is a substantive practical difference even if it is not a necessary implication; perhaps here too we are simply defining things differently.) A view like the one you presented necessarily leads to relating to the Land of Israel as one commandment among many, and accordingly one will weigh the reward of the commandment, etc., whereas Rabbi Kook’s approach places it in a “different league,” and from that, in my opinion, many implications follow, as above.
Thank you
Just semantics. What I meant to say is that psychological practical differences do not interest me.
What I meant was: beyond the halakhic obligations, is there a connection between Israel and its land (as Rabbi Kook explains in Orot Eretz Yisrael 1) — doesn’t Israel’s return to the Land after a long exile, etc., indicate such a connection? Don’t the commandments dependent on the Land teach that there is a special bond there, and not just technical commandment-observance? Just as the Sabbath is not only a sequence of laws but a Jewish “concept” with meaningful content (- at least according to the usual explanation — do you agree with that regarding the Sabbath?).
Of course this issue has many practical implications; I’m asking, naturally, because I’m familiar with the position of the “Kav yeshivot” on this topic, in line with the view of Rabbi Kook mentioned above.
Thank you