Israel, The Gift.
Read the Torah in Spanish, or German, or Japanese and you will find the words “promised land” translated exactly as “promised land”. The rest of the world has acknowledged our right to Israel by way of the word “promised”.
But in this Parashat another word stands out that actually means much more than just a promise:
“nah-tati” or literally: “I gave…”
As in: Ki La-chem Nah-tati Eht Ha-Aretz La-reshet Oh-tah.
Or: For unto you have I given the land to possess it.
That’s the gift of Israel.
All through the Torah, HaShem alludes to the gesture of Israel belonging to the Israelites in different ways and with different words.
From “granted”, to “shall dwell in”, to “posses it”, to “brought you…” the promise of Israel is clear. And, what’s more, the word “promise” is repeated every time we switch forefathers.
It’s Nachmanides who is convinced that the promise of Israel is more than that. He thinks it’s a command to “go and posses” the Land.
Twice the phrase “Ve-Horashtem” – “and thou shalt posses them” occurs in Massei. Some, including Rashi translate the first mentioning as:
“Thou shalt dispossess the inhabitants of the land”.
And they translate the second mentioning of “Ve-Horashtem” as: “You shall possess the land and dwell therein…”
Rashi therefore sees the second mentioning of the same word, as a pre-condition of the first settlement. With other words, if you first re-possess, that you will possess next.
Even translating the same word twice in a row, and giving it different values can lead to dramatic results. Can you imagine if Nachmanides, Maimonides, Rashi and the like would have translated their discussions and opinions in their own languages? The chance of us having had various other mitzvot would have been great.
Even staying within the Hebrew of the Torah itself, the interpretations of our Sages have been fascinatingly different.
Back to the rest of the world. Why is it that the common acceptance of our status in the non-Jewish world is that we were “promised” the land of Canaan and not “given”?
Is it the oversight of the Sages not to make more of the word: Nah-tati (I gave you)? Nachmanides goes beyond the word “promise”. He thinks that the inhabitance of Israel is a command. Even more than just a mitvah. He sets the stage for the thought that only in Israel can one truly observe all the precepts of the Torah.
When King David was expelled by Saul he complained: …”since whoever resides in Eretz Israel is like to him who has a god, whilst whoever resides outside it, is like him who has no god…
We were “given” the land in Leviticus 25,38 before: “To give you the land of Canaan, to be your God.” Which makes me wonder, what would have happened if the Sages had made much more of the word: “given” or gift? What would have happened if first the Monks in Latin and Greek and later in printed Christian Bible versions the “Promised Land” would instead have been “the Gift of the Land of Israel to the Jews?”
Could it have stopped Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade from brutally slaughtering us in every city or town he stopped on the way to free the Promised Land? Would it have made a difference in our history at all? Of course we’ll never know. But in my personal opinion, a gift has a greater value than a promise.
News:
