Parshas Behar

PARSHAS BEHAR

There is no question that human life has close to absolute primacy in the view of the Torah. With the exception of unusual situations such as Shemad[1], there is almost no circumstance in our nowadays normal way of life in which a person would have to forfeit their life even in the most extreme of conditions.[2]

When the Torah writes “vo’chai bo’hem[3]” (Vayikro Perek 18/Posuk 5), and he shall live in them, Chazal said that the implications were clear. “Vo’chai bohem-v’lo she’yo’mus bohem” (Masseches Yoma 85 b)[4].

One does not give up his life for Shemiras Mitzvos. Rather one lives one’s life in order to fulfill the Mitzvos. That is the Will of Hashem Who

[1] Shemad is a situation of forced conversion from Judaism. Literally, its meaning is destruction.

[2] A person must also forfeit his life if he would need to undertake an action that would result in the violation of the three cardinal sins of Avoda Zarah, Gilui Arayos or Shifichus Domim. An act of idolatry, forbidden relationships or murder may not be done to save a life.

Of course, as with all instances in Halachah, there are details that define this obligation of yeihoreg v’al yaavor, forfeiting one’s life, in operative terms.

[3] The entire verse reads, “U’shmartem es chu’kosai v’es mishpotai asher ya’aseh o’som ho’odom vo’chai bohem Ani Hashem.” You should guard My statutes and my laws that Man should do them and live in them I am Hashem. Since the Posuk has reference to Mitzvos in general, Chazal interpreted vochai bohem to refer to all Mitzvos, unless there is a special teaching denying this allowance in special circumstances.

[4] There is a similar saying of Chazal in regard to desecration of Shabbos in order to save a life. “Chalel ‘olov Shabbos achas k’dei she’yishmor Shabbosos harbeh” (Masseches Yoma 85 b). Violate one Shabbos so this infirm person will live and will be able to observe many Shabbosos.

The commentators and Poskim note that this latter reason is not the Halachic definition that allows Shabbos to be overridden in a case of life-threatening situations. Thus, even a person who is gravely ill and will not even live to the end of the particular Shabbos when he is being treated, receives full medical care because of “Vochai bohem”. See Shulchan Aruch 328 for these Halachos. has presented us with a hierarchy of values when there are conflicts among Mitzvos.[5]

Thus, human life is one of the highest of values. It is with that background that we note a surprising choice of terminology in the Torah.

In our Parsha, we find the basis for the socio-economic life of the Jewish People in its land. From the laws of Shmitta (Perek 25/P’sukim 1-7; 20- 22) and Yovel (P’sukim 8-13; 23-24; 29-34) to the laws of fair commerce (14-17; 35-55) and to the obligations of interpersonal aid and assistance (P’sukim 25-28)[6], a picture of the ideal Jewish community, one that knows how to live when all is functioning according to our wishes and one that knows how to respond when our wishes are not fulfilled, is provided.

[5] There are many possibilities of when Mitzvos conflict. The Torah gives rules for all of them. Sometimes a Mitzvas Aseh is in conflict with a Mitzvas Lo Saaseh. One example has to do with the Mitzvah of Tzitzis. T’cheiles, the blue-colored string must be made of wool. What does one do when the four-cornered garment he is wearing is made out of linen? Linen and wool form Shaatnez, a Torah-forbidden mixture of cloth. On the other hand, the Torah requires Tcheiles.

The Torah provides a solution in Sefer D’vorim, as explained by Chazal in Masseches Shabbos (133 a). We learn Aseh do’choh Lo Saaseh. A Mitzvas Aseh takes precedence over a Lo Saaseh when there is no way of avoiding such a conflict.

[Not every Mitzvas Aseh overrides every Mitzvas Lo Saaseh. If the Mitzvas Lo Saaseh itself has a Mitzvas Aseh as part of its Mitzvah-repertoire, then the lone Mitzvas Aseh does not take precedence (Masseches Yevomos 5 a). if the Mitzvas Lo Saaseh brings with its intentional violation the punishment of Kores, then, too, the Mitzvas Aseh does not have precedence.)

Another type of conflict occurs when a baby boy becomes 8 days old on Shabbos and the Torah says that he must have a Bris Milah. A Bris Milah entails Melachah that is forbidden on Shabbos.

Also in Masseches Shabbos, Chazal learn that Milah hutra bShabbos. Bris Milah is allowed on Shabbos. [A full treatment of this subject would distinguish between dochoh – overriding and hutra-allowed.]

[6] These divisions are not perfect because the Torah integrates these subjects together. Thus the subject of Ona’as Momon, price-gouging, is expressed with examples of selling land until Yovel. As noted, this socio-economic welfare is predicated on property rights and fair trade relationships. When things function as they should, everyone reaches a reasonable level of comfort and stability in his home and his community.

However, not everything functions as we wish.

For various and sundry reasons, people become impoverished and have to seek the necessary means of financial survival. The Torah has already told us to expect such situations. “Ki lo sech’dal evyon mi’kerev ho’oretz” (D’vorim Perek 15/Posuk 11). There will never cease to be poor from the midst of the land.[7]

Sometimes the impoverished individual needs direct financial help. The Posuk instructs us what to do.

“ V’chi yo’much o’chicho u’mo’toh yo’do i’moch v’he’che’zak’to bo…” (Posuk 35). When your brother falters with you, hold him up. As Rashi points out, if you begin to help him when he begins to falter, it will be far easier to help him[8].

Another possibility, far more dire, is that a person is forced to sell himself into servitude.

“ V’chi yo’much o’chicho i’moch v’nim’kar loch lo sa’avod vo avodas ‘o’ved. K’sochir k’so’shov yi’h’yeh i’moch ….(P’sukim 39-40).

[7] Rashi has noted that there is a seemingly contradictory verse, “Efes ki lo yi’h’yeh b’cho evyon” (D’vorim Perek 15/Posuk 4). There will certainly be no poor among you! Rashi on this verse notes the inconsistency and comments, “E’lo bizman she’atem o’sim r’tzono shel Mokom evyonim b’acherim v’lo bo’chem. U’ch’she’ein atem o’sim r’tzono shel Mokom evyonim bochem.”

When you do G-d’s Will, the poor will be among others. When you do not do G-d’s Will, the poor will be among you.

Rashi’s emphasis is taken from the word “b’cho”-among you. There may always be poor, but they do not have to come from Israel.

[8] His moshol is easy to follow. If the donkey’s loaded pack moves, it is relatively easy for one person to straighten it. If it falls off the donkey, many, many people are required to put it back into place. When your brother with you becomes poor and he is sold to you, do not work him as a slave. He shall be to you like a [regular] hired worker….

Here, the Torah guarantees the rights of this person to whom circumstances dealt a harsh lot. The Jewish owner must treat this servant with respect and the Torah makes clear distinctions between his treatment and that of the Eved K’naani, the non-Jewish slave.

There is a more serious issue, when the Jewish community cannot be of help, it seems.

“ V’chi sa’sig yad ger v’soshov i’moch u’moch o’chi’cho i’mo v’nim’kar l’ger toshov o l’ei’ker mishpachas ger. Acharei nimkar, geula ti’h’yeh lo echod mei’echov yi’g’o’lenu.” (P’sukim 47-48).

When the hand of the ger toshav[9] becomes successful with you and your brother becomes impoverished and is sold to one of these non- Jewish families. After he is sold, he should be redeemed. One of his brothers should redeem him.

We are now introduced to a new concept. A person is in a situation that is not exactly under our control. The Torah did not forbid the non-Jew, living in the Jewishly-governed state, from purchasing the Jew as a slave. The Torah did put limitations on the amount of the enslavement.

One of those conditions is to force the non-Jewish owner to set this Jewish slave/servant free if he is paid an appropriate amount (P’sukim 50-53). This act of providing the funds for the forced – release of the servant/slave is called geula, redemption.

Certainly, the term Geula is familiar to us from contexts other than our Parshas Behar. In fact, besides having a specific meaning, it is an all- inclusive term referring to all aspects of salvation and redemption.

The most obvious and familiar proof of this idea is from the phrase “Arba’ l’shonos Geula”-the four expressions of Redemption. When Hashem tells Moshe Rabbenu that He Yisborach will save Israel, He

[9] These terms refer to non-Jews living in Eretz Yisroel who rejected idolatry and commit to observe the Sheva Mitzvos B’nei Noach, incumbent upon all. This case is when there is Jewish rule in Israel so that these laws can be enforced. expresses that deliverance with four expressions, at the very beginning of Parshas Vo’ero.

“ Lochen emor liV’nei Yisroel Ani Hashem v’ho’tzeisi eschem mi’tachas siv’los Mitzrayim v’hi’tzal’ti eschem mei’avodosom v’go’alti eschem bizro’a ne’tuyoh uvishfotim gedolim. V’lo’kachti eschem li l’om v’ho’yisi lochem lEi…lo’kim v’yi’datem ki Ani Hashem E…lo’keichem hamotzi eschem mi’tachas sivlos Mitzroyim” (Sh’mos Perek 6/ P’sukim 6-7).

Therefore [Moshe] say to B’nei Yisroel, ‘I am Hashem and I will take you out from beneath the burdens of Egypt and I will save you from their work and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great punishments [to Egypt]. And I will take you to Me as a Nation and I will be a G-d to you and you will know that I am Hashem your G-d Who takes you out from under the burdens of Egypt.

Thus, there are four phrases, each of which bearing its own distinctive meaning, that Hashem employed to discuss how the Exodus was to take place. “V’go’alti”-and I will redeem you, is the third of the phrases. Nevertheless, when the Torah wishes to refer to these promises they are called “Arba’ L’shonos Shel Geula” (Yalkut Shimoni Parshas Vayeshev 147). The four expressions of Redemption.

Furthermore, when we beseech Hashem to save us, we always use the expression of “Go’al Yisroel”. He Yisborach redeems Israel.

Geula, therefore, is a most special term. Even if it only meant “redemption”, one of a series of terms relating to G-d’s salvation, Geula would be a felicitous expression. Now that it is used as an overall inclusive term, it is all the more so the most proper form of expression.

This idea receives support from the commentary of Malbim (Posuk 25).

“U’vo go’alo ha’korov ei’lov”-me’vo’or etz’leinu she’im musog haGeulah musag ha’kurvoh. V’zeh hamavdil bein Goel u’vein Podeh. She’haGoel hu korov el ha’nig’ol. U’vifrat shem Goel bo stam al ha’korov tomid.” [The Posuk states that] his Goel (redeemer) who is related[10] to him. It is clear to me that accompanying the term Geula is the connection to relatives. This is what distinguishes the terms Goel and Podeh [each of which can be translated as ‘savior’ or ‘redeemer’. In particular, the term Goel refers to one who is particularly close[ly related].

It is clear that subsequent to learning this deeper meaning of Geula, when I next recited Boruch …Goel Yisroel I will have special intent and give special thanksgiving to Hashem for declaring Himself as being my close relation.

When I drink the four cups of wine at the Seder Shel Pesach in commemoration of the four phrases and I remember that they are called L’shonos Geula, the simcha that I have with the wine is enhanced.

All of these thoughts seem quite easy to comprehend. Man is special. G- d is his Redeemer as a sign of personal closeness. When one comes to redeem his fellow man he demonstrates that closeness-whether it is familial or one of friendship.

The problem begins with the first instance in which Geula is mentioned in our Parsha. “U’v’chol eretz achuzaschem geula tit’nu lo’oretz” (Posuk 25). And throughout the entire land of our possession, you shall give redemption to the land.

This verse is intelligible when we read on. The next 10 P’sukim discuss cases in which an individual sells his real estate, presumably because he is in desperate need of the cash.[11]

The person may sell his field or his house. In all of these cases, with their subsets, the Torah discusses how the field can be repurchased

[10] “Korov” means near. In familial contexts, such as this section, it refers to familial relationships. See Parshas Emor Perek 25/P’sukim 2-3, for example.

[11] The first of this series of P’sukim begins with the words “Ki yomuch o’chicho u’mochar”-When your brother becomes poor and sells. Rashi notes that this introduction that describes the circumstances in which a person sells his real estate, “M’lamed she’ein odom ra’shoi lim’kor so’dei’hu e’lo mei’chamas do’chak ‘oni.” This teaches us that a person is not allowed to sell his field unless there is a situation of the pressure of poverty. using the word Geula. How is Geula used with land and houses in the same fashion that it is used with people? How is Geula used with land when its specific denotation is that of an expression of bond and friendship?[12]

Now it is incorrect to say that land is equivalent in importance to people. The Midrash Eicha Rabba (Parshta 4/14) comments on the verse in Tehillim (Perek 79/Posuk 1). The Posuk reads, “Mizmor l’Osof E… lo’kim bo’u goyim b’nachalosecho.” It means, a song of Osof, “Hashem, the foreign nations have entered into your inheritance.[13]

The Midrash says, “Lo hava kro tzorich l’meimar e’lo ‘bechi lOsof’, ‘Ne’hi l’Osof’; ‘Kinoh l’Osof’, ma omer Mizmor l’Osof?

The verse should have written, ‘The weeping of Osof’, the cry of Osof, the ‘Elegy of Osof’. Why does it write the song of Osof?

“ E’lo moshol l’Melech she’osoh Beis Chuppa livno v’siyodoh, v’chi’yo’doh v’tziyoroh v’yotzo b’no l’tarbus ro’oh. Mi’yad oloh hamelech v’kora es ha’vi’los v’sheiber es ha’konim v’notol pedagog she’lo k’li i’vuv shel konim v’hoyoh m’zamer. Omru lo, ‘hamelech ho’fach chuposos shel b’no v’at yoshev um’zamer? O’mar lohem m’zamer ani she’hofach chuposo shel b’no v’lo sho’fach chamoso al b’no. kach omru l’Osof, ‘HaKodosh Boruch Hu he’cheriv heichol v’atoh yoshev u’mezamer? O’mar lohem mezamer ani she’shofach HaKodoshBoruch Hu chanmoso al hoeitzim v’al ho’avonim v’lo shofach chamosos al Yisroel. Hado hu dichsiv, Vaya’tzes eish b’TZiyon va’tochal y’so’do’se’ho” (Eicho Perek 4/Posuk 11).

[12] Rashi, commenting on Posuk 35, writes, that in the context of that verse, geula means “mechira”, a sale. Rashi’s second comment there understands Geula as meaning redemption.

Even according to the first explanation, Geula in the other contexts means redemption. Furthermore, if Geula in that particular context means mechira, why didn’t the Torah write mechira? That word is used numerous times in this section. See verses 23, 27-29, and more.

[13] Radak writes on this verse, “Zeh hamizmor neemar al chuban Yerushalayim. The theme of this Tehillim is the destruction of Jerusalem. This is a parable for the King who made marriage home for his son. He built it and beautified it. One day he heard that his son abandoned his Torah-way of life and he tore down the marriage house. The Kings officer began playing music. His colleagues said to him, ‘The King destroyed the music house and you are are playing music? He replied, I am playing music because the King broke the marriage-house and not his son.

So Osof sang because Hashem took out His anger on wood and stones and did not pour out His wrath on Israel. That is the meaning of the verse in Eicho, Hashem ignited a fire in Tzion and it destroyed its foundations.[14] Thus, it is clear that human life has a value far supreme of that of land and buildings.[15]

On the other hand, there are other sources that bear our attention. In Parshas Chaye Sarah we read that Avraham Ovinu purchased M’eoras HaMachpela from ‘Efron HaChitti.

The Posuk (Perek 23/Posuk 17) reads, “Vayokom s’dei Efron asher baMachpelah asher lifnei Mamre…” The field of Efron rose, that which was in Machpela, before Mamre…” Now, the field did not really rise. It was stationery. Why does the Torah express it in such a fashion?

Rashi explains, “Tekuma ho’y’soh loh she’yotzoh mi’yad hedyot l’yad melech”. The field was uplifted since it left the possession of a commoner and became the possession of the king.

Thus, there is vitality and life in Machpela. That vitality and life increased greatly when it entered the possession of Avraham Ovinu.[16]

[14] That is, Hashem destroyed the foundations of the buildings, but not the people.

[15] This is not the venue to discuss the Halachically disputed question of whether any land of Eretz Yisroel can be given to the enemy if such would insure peace. Those who forbid trading “land for peace” do not think that the land is more important than man. Their opinion is that since the Torah allows war, and sometimes insists upon it, the standard pikuach nefesh thought is overridden and other rules take precedence.

See recent editions of Tradition, published by the Rabbinical Council of America where the opinions of the late Rav Roshi LYisrael Rav Avraham Shapiro and Rav Aharon Lichtenstein Shlita are presented and debated. However there is a price to pay for the fact that the land that comes into the possession of Israel has increased life and vitality.

Twice, once in Parshas Acharei Mos (Vayikro Perek 18/Posuk 28) and once in Parshas Kedoshim (Perek 20/Posuk 22), the Torah warns against immorality that will result in Am Yisroel being spewed out of Eretz Yisroel.

“ V’lo so’ki ho’o’retz eschem b’ta’ma’a’chem o’soh ka’a’sher ko’oh es hagoy asher lifneichem.” And the Land should not retch you when you contaminate it, as it retched out the nation that [was there] before you.

“ U’shmartem es kol chukosai v’es kol mishpotai va’a’sisem o’som v’lo so’ki eschem ho’oretz asher ani meivi eschem shomoh losheves boh. Guard all of my rules and and My statutes and laws and do them and the Land to which I bring you there to live there will not retch you.

Why was this parable chosen to represent our being sent into exile?

Rashi (Parshas Acharei Mos) writes, “Moshol l’ven melech she’he’e’chi’luhu dovor mo’us she’ein o’med b’mei’ov e’lo m’ki’o. kach Eretz Yisroel eino m’kayemes ovrei aveira..

This [phrase] is symbolic of a prince who was fed in a rotten food that could not stay down and he vomited it. Such is [the nature of] Eretz Yisroel. It cannot withstand to give domicile to sinners.

[16] It would be incorrect to say that Machpela was not significant prior to being purchased by Avraham Ovinu.

Rashi comments in Parshas Shlach (B’midbar Perek 13/Posuk 22),

“U’vo l’ho’di’a’cho shivcho shel Eretz Yisroel she’ein l’cho trashin bEretz Yisroel yoser meiChevron l’fi’choch hik’tzu’ho l’Kivros Meisim. V’ein l’cho meuleh b’chol arotzos kMitzraim…v’Tzo’an he ha’meu’o she’bEretz Mitzrayim …

This verse comes to teach the greatness of Eretz Yisroel. There is no rockier place in Israel than Chevron (the location of the Machpela) and thus it was set aside for burial. Egypt is the best of all of the lands and the best place in Egypt is Tzoan. And the Torah says that Chevron is superior to Tzoan. Now the fact that Eretz Yisroel has life and vitality is not unique to that particular parcel of land. All that is created by Hashem, including that which we consider to be inanimate, without life, has a certain type of “life”, though far different from our definition of life and certainly imperceptible to us.

There are certainly enough passages from NaCh that we recite regularly that give expression to this idea. “Oz y’ra’ne’nu ‘atzei ha’yo’ar” (Tehillim Perek 96/Posuk 12). Then the trees of the forest will sing to Hashem. “Ha’yom ro’oh va’yo’nos…” (Perek 114/Posuk 6). The sea saw and fled.

Our inability to perceive such animation of the inanimate does not mean that they do not have active functions.

As the commentators say in one form or another, Eretz Yisroel has a unique disposition that makes it uniquely sensitive to sin. Thus, we have the moshol of the land spewing from it those who sin.

However, even if we show these unique attributes that are possessed by Eretz Yisroel, that does not explain why the expression of Geula is used in connection with it. Geula, as we have shown, is an expression of personal connection.

In Parshas Chaye Sarah, in the discussion of the purchase of Machpela by Avraham Ovinu, Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch explains the phrase “achuza”-holding, found there and in our Parsha as well.

“ V’yi’ten li es me’oras hamachpela asher lo asher bitzei so’dei’hu b’chesef mo’leh yit’nenoh li b’soch’chem la’achuzas kover” (B’reishis Perek 23/Posuk 9). He [Efron] should give me Meoras HaMachpela that he owns, that is at the end of his field, for the full amount he should give it to me among you, for a holding of the grave.

Rav Hirsh notes that the word achuza is written in the passive form. Its literal translation is held, that is achuza refers to that which is being held. What is being held? Rav Hirsch explains that man is attached to his land. He is held by it.

Now such a relationship can be understood on many levels. If a piece of land has been part of one’s family for generations then they certainly feel an attachment to it.[17] If they have invested money, time and energy (and prayer) in the development and cultivation of the land, their relationship to it is unique and perhaps disproportional.[18]

However, when it comes to the relationship of ‘Am Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel there is an additional factor which distinguishes our relationship to Eretz Yisroel from any potential relationship we could have with any other land.

When we are told (Zohar Parshas Truma 161 a), “…d’chad b’ro Kudsho Brich Hu alma istakel bo b’oraiso u’vro alma…” When Hashem created the world, He looked into the Torah and [then] created the world we have an insight into all of creation.

Since the Torah commands Am Yisroel to observe Mitzvos and avoid sin, the nature of Am Yisroel is in consonance with those Mitzvos.

We read (Pesikta DRav Kahana 12 ‘Bachodesh hashlish),

[17] This is an objective relationship and does not necessarily have to be positive. Thus, we read the criticism leveled at our ancestors about the rapidity in which they became attached to the Land of Egypt.

We read at the end of Parshas Vayigash (B’reishis Perek 47/Posuk 27), “Vayeshev Yisroel bEretz Mitzrayim bEretz Goshen va’ye’o’chazu vo va’yifru vayirbu m’od.” And Israel dwelled in the Land of Egypt in the Land of Goshen and they became attached to it and they were fruitful and multiplied plentifully. In his commentary on this Posuk, Kedushas Levi makes the point succinctly. “Hakosuv mo’di’a she’ochazu voh bmchashavtom v’lo do’chu.” This verse teaches us that they grasped it [the land] in their thoughts and attitudes and did not reject it.

[18] Chazal (Masseches Bava Metzia 38 a) say, “Rotzeh odom b’kav she’lo mi’tish’o shel cheiro.” A person will prefer one measure of his own grain over 9 from someone else. Rashi writes, “Chaviva ‘olov ‘al y’dei she’omal bo’hen…” He likes his produce because he toiled in it. Although, it is explained that this is not a precise figure, 1 measure vs. 9 measures, nonetheless it portrays the relationship that a person has with his work and production. “ … at b’Sinai nitztave taryag Mitzvos, mosa’yim v’arbo’im u’shmoneh Mitzvos Aseh u’shlosh Meios vshishim v’chamesh Mitzvos Lo Saaseh. Mosayim v’arboim u’shmoneh Mitzvos Aseh kneged mosayim v’arboim u’shmoneh ei’vorim sheyesh bo’odom. Kol ever v’ever omer lo’odom, ‘bvakoshoh a’seh bi es haMitzvah hazos. U’shlosh mei’os v’shishim vachamesh Mitzvos b’Lo Saaseh k’neged y’mos ha’chamoh. Kol yom voyom omer lo’odom, ‘bvakoshoh mi’m’cho al ta’as bi es ho’aveiroh hazos.”

You [Israel] at were commanded 613 Mitzvos at Sinai, 248 positive commands and 365 prohibitions. 248 positive commands are in consonance with the 248 limbs of the body. Each and every limb says to Man, ‘Please do for me this Mitzvah.

365 prohibitions are in consonance with the days of the year. Each and every day says to Man, ‘Please do not do this sin against me.’

This means that the Taryag Mitzvos are wholly and totally integrated into our lives, on the inside and externally.

Eretz Yisroel, too, is a unique part of Creation. It, too, is imbued with a special nature that makes it uniquely sensitive to sin and Mitzvos.

Man is undoubtedly more important than the land. On the other hand, it is the land which helps develop Am Yisroel to reach its calling. It is the land, uniquely imbued with many Mitzvos that cannot be fulfilled elsewhere, that is a necessary ingredient for the overall welfare of Am Yisroel.

If the land is taken away from a Jew, then his ability to reach his calling is limited. If the land is stolen or sold, then the Jew is at a deficit. The deficit does not stem from an emotional or psychological point alone. In those aspects, we are no different than anyone else.

The deficit uniquely stems from the limitation that is imposed upon the person, blocking the way to total fulfillment. The proof text is from Masseches Sotah (4 a). “ Mipnei mah nis’a’veh Moshe Rabbenu l’hi’kones lEretz Yisroel? V’chi le’echol mi’ir’yoh hu tzorich…” Elo kach omar Moshe. ‘Harbeh Mitzvos nitztavu lYisroel v’ein m’kai’mim e’lo bEretz Yisroel…”

Why did Moshe Rabbenu strongly desire to enter Eretz Yisroel? Do he need to eat its fruit? But, this is what Moshe said. ‘There are many Mitzvos that were commanded to Israel that can be fulfilled only in Israel.’[19]

Thus, when land is repurchased, it is not merely an opportunity for the individual to recover a possession that is especially meaningful to him. The repurchase of the land in Israel allows the person to have a personal redemption to approach the realization of his creation to fulfill the entire Torah with his whole being, every day of his life.

“Geula titnu lo’oretz”. Redeem Eretz Yisroel and you will be redeeming yourselves to serve G-d fully and realize your potential to your utmost ability.

Shabbat Shalom

Rabbi Pollock

[19] This is not to say that the Divine reward for Moshe Rabbenu was lessened because he did not fulfill those Mitzvos. If by Divine decree he was not able to enter Eretz Yisroel, he was exempt.