[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
After his twin sons, Jacob and Esau were born and grew up, Isaac took his family to Gerar (the land of the Phillistines, but still part of Israel proper) because there was a famine in the land of Israel. At that point, G-d appeared to him and said; Ӆdon’t go down to Egypt, dwell in the land that I will tell you about…Settle in this land and I will be with you and bless youŔ (Gen. 26:2-3). Apparently, unlike his father Abraham, there was something about Isaac that prevented him from leaving Israel and dwelling elsewhere. The Midrash (Rabah 64:3) says that Isaac was a “pure offering, and just as an offering becomes unfit for sacrifice if it leaves its area, so would Isaac become unfit if he would leave the land of Israel.”
Rashi (on the words, “don’t descend to Egypt”) explains somewhat differently; “It was Isaac’s intention to descend to Egypt as his father did in the days of famine, and G-d told him not to go down to Egypt since you he was a pure offering, and chutz la’aretz (outside of Israel) was inappropriate for him.”
We see two main differences:
1) The Midrash says that leaving Israel will make Isaac “unfit,” like a sacrifice that becomes unfit if it leaves its designated physical area (every offering has its designated physical area, and it becomes ineligible for sacrifice if it leaves that area). However, Rashi says only that it would be ‘innapropriate’ for Isaac to leave Israel – he doesn’t say that leaving Israel would make Isaac unfit to convey holiness.
2) The Midrash is stated on the words, “Dwell in this land,” while Rashi states his commentary on the words, “Do not descend to Egypt.”
We might explain the differences according to emphasis; the Midrash chose to emphasize the positive quality of holiness of the land of Israel, saying that if Isaac forsook exited the land, he would forfeit the holiness as well. Rashi emphasized the negative; he said that by leaving Israel, Isaac was going somewhere that was simply inappropriate for him. It’s tempting to suggest that the difference between them was the following; according to the Midrash, the land was holy and that’s why Isaac shouldn’t leave, while according to Rashi, the land was not yet holy because in the time of the forefathers, the Jews had yet to receive the Torah. That’s why Rashi said only that outside of Israel is “inappropriate” for Isaac, but not that exiting the land would make him formally “unfit” for sacrifice. However, we cannot make this distinction, because we find already earlier that Abraham would not let Isaac leave Israel, even to find his soul-mate. When asked by his servant Eliezer what to do if the girl he found for Isaac would not come to Israel, Abraham replied, “Be sure not to take my son there [outside of Israel]Ŕ (Gen. 24:4-6). In this case, there are no indications that it was because Isaac was a “pure sacrifice” that he couldn’t leave Israel. So, we’re back to the beginning; why couldn’t Isaac leave Israel, and what is the difference between the two explanations of the Midrash and Rashi?
Possibly we can answer according to halacha; we know that it is forbidden to leave Israel except to make a living, marry or study Torah outside of Israel (and for some reason it is impossible to do so within Israel). Therefore, when Abraham’s servant asked if he should bring Isaac outside of Israel to marry (if the girl did not agree to come to Israel), Abraham answered negatively, since by so doing, Isaac was likely to end up living permanently in chutz la’aretz. However, in our parsha and also in the time of Abraham, it was permitted to leave Israel because of famine, on the presumption that they would return at the end of the famine. And that’s why G-d issued a special command to Isaac not to leave Israel – because he was a “pure offering” – and inappropriate to be outside of Israel, even during time of famine.
However, this explanation is also problematic, because we find that Abraham left Israel even when there was no famine. After the “covenant of the pieces,” wherein G-d promised the land of Israel to Abraham, he went back to the land of Haran, even though there was no famine at the time. So, it is evident that in the time of the forefathers, the injunction against leaving the land of Israel was not in effect. Even though the forefathers fulfilled the entire Torah even before it was given, the land had not yet taken on the holiness associated with mitzvoth, and that’s why the forefathers were able to enter and leave the land of Israel at will (aside from Isaac, who received a specific command to remain). Quite simply, the reason that Abraham did not permit his son Isaac to travel out of Israel was because he wished him to remain in the land that G-d promised to him and to his descendents. Abraham was not willing for his son Isaac to get married in a foreign land and remain there. On the other hand, when there was no choice but to leave the land temporarily in order to survive, because there was a famine in Israel, this was permitted.
Nevertheless, if there was no special holiness associated with the land of Israel in the time of the forefathers, then why was Isaac called a “pure offering,” who would become spoiled if taken out of the land?
This we can understand by looking at how the Midrash understood the holiness of Israel as opposed to how Rashi understood it. When expounding upon G-d’s promise to Abraham during the covenant of the pieces, Ӆto your descendents have I given this land,” the Midrash says, “the word of G-d is like deed…it is as if already accomplished – it doesn’t state here ‘I will give this land,’ but I [already] gaveŔ However, Rashi says merely, “as if it were done already.” The difference between them is that according to the Midrash, the land of Israel was fully acquired by the Jews during the covenant of the pieces, while according to Rashi, the promise only made it “as if” the land were acquired now (in any case it would be fully acquired by Abraham’s descendents). What accounts for such a distinction?
We know that the forefathers kept the entire Torah even before it was given. However, there was a difference between the mitzvoth that they kept and those that we keep now, after the giving of the Torah. Before the Torah was given, the mitzvoth did not have a lasting effect upon the world. At the time that the forefathers did the mitzvah, it brought kedusha into the object of the mitzvah (the tefillin or kosher food, etc), but as soon as the forefathers ceased doing it, the kedusha disappeared. This was because before the Torah was given, there was a gulf between the upper (spiritual) and lower (physical) realms. Only after the Torah was given was it possible to bridge this gulf. Once the Torah was given, with its 613 mitzvoth, our fulfillment of the commandments produces permanent change in the creation. The kedusha that we bring into the world remains. It permeates and uplifts the world. The holiness of the mitzvah permeates the physical object and spreads to the entire world in a way that changes it fundamentally and permanently, raising it to a higher level of holiness and connection with G-d.
According to the Midrash, this distinction applied to the land of Israel as well. Before the Torah was given, the verses promising the land to the forefathers and to their descendents established Jewish ownership of the land. Those promises indicated only that the land belonged to the Jews, but not that it was holy. That only came later, after the Torah was given (even before Israel was conquered by Joshua). The giving of the Torah established the possibility of holiness in the land of Israel, and when the Jews entered and conquered Israel, and fulfilled the mitzvoth, the that became holy in reality.
But according to Rashi, the verses promising the land of Israel to the forefathers and their descendents imply nothing about holiness. They only apply to Jewish ownership, which was different before the Torah was given than it was afterward. Before the Torah was given, the Jews were the rightful owners of Israel, but that could change by any number of means, such as acquisition or conquest. The land was originally given to the descendents of Shem (son of Noah), but in the time of Abraham, it was overrun by the seven Canaanite nations (as Rashi explains in Lech Lecha). Thus, the ownership went from the descendents of Shem to the Canaanites. However, when Joshua conquered the land after the giving of the Torah, the entry of the Jews transformed Israel into a land that could only be owned by the Jews. Other nations might enter and conquer (witness the Romans, the Turks, the British), but only the Jews could make the land flower and prosper. Only the Jews, by fulfillment of Torah and mitzvoth could truly own the land of Israel. According to Rashi, this was the difference that the giving of the Torah had upon Jewish ownership of the land of Israel; it changed the possession of the land into something that was essential and uncontestable – no other nation could claim the land. The bond between the Jews and G-d, as expressed in the Torah, ensured that no nation could establish ownership of the land of Israel. Other nations might conquer, divide and live in the land, but in essence, it always remains under Jewish ownership.
Therefore, Rashi and the Midrash explain Isaac’s inability to leave Israel in different ways, corresponding to their concepts of Jewish ownership of the land of Israel. According to the Midrash, Isaac could not leave the country, not because he was holy (that came about later, after the Torah was given), but because every kind of offering has its own boundaries. This is a law that is derived from a verse in the Torah, that teaches us that various categories of meat (mostly varieties of sacrifices) must be eaten in their respective places, and if not, they are forbidden. The forefathers kept the Torah even before it was given, but they could not invoke the holiness of the land as the reason for Isaac not to leave, because that only occurred later, after the giving of the Torah. Instead, the reason he couldn’t leave was simply because as the Torah dictates, every offering has its own physical boundaries from which it cannot exit.
However, according to Rashi, the issue is not offerings and their boundaries, since in any case G-d’s promise to Abraham at the covenant of the pieces did not establish the boundaries of Israel through Jewish ownership. For Rashi, the issue was awareness of G-d. As Rashi explained in parshat Vayera (Gen. 24:7), when Eliezer asked if he could take Isaac outside of Israel to get married, Abraham replied that outside of Israel, G-d was known only as the “G-d of the heavens,” and not of the earth. That meant that awareness of G-d had not yet permeated the physical creation outside of Israel. However, in Israel, Abraham’s efforts had resulted in awareness of G-d on a conscious physical level, which is why G-d was called the “G-d of the earth” as well as of the heavens, in Israel. (Still this was only superficial, as a verbal expression alone. True knowledge, fear and love of Him occurred only after the Torah was given and the Jews entered Israel). For that reason, according to Rashi, it was inappropriate for Isaac to leave Israel, where He was known as the “G-d of heavens and of earth,” and go to a land where people recognized G-d only as “G-d of the heavens” and not of their everyday mundane activities.
Underlying the distinction between the Midrash and Rashi is a fundamental difference in their approaches. The Midrash, which transcends the simple meaning of the text and contains most of the secrets of the Torah, approaches ownership of Israel from a more spiritual perspective. Therefore, the Midrash holds that ownership of the Land began even in the era of the forefathers, and that is why Isaac, as a “pure offering,” couldn’t leave the land of Israel for another land. Rashi, however places emphasis on the simple meaning of the text, according to which we don’t see true Jewish ownership of the land of Israel until the Jews conquered the land under Joshua. Therefore, according to Rashi, the only reason Isaac couldn’t leave Israel was because chuz la’aretz (the diaspora) was “inappropriate” for him. It was simply unfitting for one who recognized G-d in his everyday life to go to a land where G-d was not recognized.
Rashi was interested in the simple meaning of the verse, according to which only the entry and conquest of the Jews established Israel as the land of the Jews. However, once that entry took place, it changed the entire nature of the land, transforming it into a land that couldn’t belong to any other people, since it was given by G-d to the Jews as eretz Yisrael, essential and immutable.
From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 15, pp. 200-210 Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the Old City of Jerusalem