Jewish Dominion over the Land of Israel “From the beginning.” noted a modern rabbinic thinker, “Judaism included both the possibility of exile as well as the certainty of redemption.”154 It is a uniquely Jewish concept. No other nation entertained the view that it may be vanquished, and that its people may be taken into exile and scattered throughout the four corners of the globe. Certainly, no other people made a national commitment that in such an eventuality they will surely return to their ancestral territory and reestablished their kingdom.155 This concept rests on two concerns. First, the awareness that in a world ruled by Pharaohs and Caesars, a nation based on Law, espousing the ideals of limited sovereignty and individual freedom, is vulnerable to both psychological and military warfare. Second, confidence that the Jewish people will not acquiesce to be ruled by absolute sovereigns and that they will return home to reestablish their own government. Since a state such as the Jewish nation will never find acceptance in a world of Pharaohs and Caesars, its stands to reason that it would not find permanent security until the Messianic Age (Pax Hebraica, in contradistinction to Pax Romana, see below Chapter 34). God is the Supreme Sovereign of Israel’s territory (see above Chapter 17). In agreement with the exclusionary principle, it postulates that the land cannot pass to another sovereign, no matter what. Hence the fundamental principle establishing that military conquest, banishment of the people, etc. does not extinguish Jewish rights over the land of Israel. A fundamental aspect of Galut is that the Jewish people did not forfeit their rights over their homeland, and that they intend to return and establish there their government, again and again. This doctrine rests on six principles. First, real state forcibly seized belongs to the original owners and legal heirs, never those who robbed the land, nor squatters and the like. This principle is applicable to the land of Israel as well as the real estate owned by gentiles outside the land of Israel.156 Second, the people of Israel alone are the legitimate proprietors of the land of Israel. Third, the families of nations gave international recognition to Israel’s right over its territory by the fact that they continuously designate their territory “the land of Israel” – even after banishment of the people from the land. This is particularly true after the spread of Christianity and the Hebrew Scripture.157

154 Eliezer Berkovitz. Essential Essays on Judaism (Jerusalem: Shalem Press, 2002), p. 184. 155 Some of the Biblical sources were cited in Yehudah Elitzur, Israel and the Bible (Heb.) (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1999), pp. 280-293. 156 See Sukka 30a-b and Tosafot on Sukka 30b s. v. ve-qara‘. 157 ‘Palestine’ is an anti-Semitic designation designed to “extinguish” Jewish title from their homeland. It was introduced by Imperial Rome in late antiquity to extinguish Jewish rights. Concerning this fact, Yehoshafat Harkabi, The Bar Kokhba Syndrome (Chappaqua, N.Y.: Russel Books, 1983), p. 48 writes:

The suppression of the rebellion was even given verbal symbolism: the name of the country was changed from ‘Judea’ to “The Syrian province of Palestine’ (derived from the earlier inhabitants of it by the Philistines), a move tended to obliterate the last traces of the Jewish settlement from memory.

With the same purpose in mind, it was reintroduced by Imperial England in the 19th century. The parroting of this name by illustrious Jewish leaders is another example of the mental alertness and political sophistication of the ‘enlightened Jewry.’ For an informative overview of the history and connotations of this designation, see Israel and the Bible, pp. 415-417.

Fourth, Scripture explicit prohibits the transfer of real estate in perpetuity. Accordingly, the land of Israel could not be transferred to non-Jewish ownership even with the explicit consent of the people. Fifth, the Biblical principle, the “earth is the Lord’s” (Ps 24:1) rejects the pagan ideology, whereby territorial ownership is established by military conquest. (See above Introductory Remarks and n. 8). Sixth, the Jewish people never relinquished their claim to their land, and they intend to return and take possession of it. These principles were brought together in a responsum issues by R. Nah shon Gaon (who served as head of the Academy at Sura, 871-879). It was issued in connection with a special kind of transaction known as ‘conjointly’ ( אגב). According to Jewish law one may transfer movables and other valuables ‘cojointly’ with real estate property. It would appear that such a transaction should be restricted to a seller owning land. However, the practice of the Court had been to avail this form of transaction to all Jews, regardless of weather they were landowners or not. The legal basis for such a transaction is the principle that every Jew owns “four cubits of real estate in the land of Israel.” Here is the responsum issued by the Gaon:

Rabbinic authorities maintain that there is no Jew who does not own four cubits [of land] in Israel’s territory. Were you to object: [but] the Gentiles have taken possession of it and we are in Exile! [1] It is a well-established rabbinic doctrine that real state property cannot be tortuously possessed, [2] and therefore it [the land of Israel] remains under Israel’s tenure. [3] Moreover, the land of Israel is called by the name of [the people of] Israel. [4] Furthermore, even at the time when [the people of] Israel possessed their land, they had no authority to sell their fields in perpetuity, as it is written: “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity [because mine is the land]” (Lev 23:25). [5] In addition, it is written, “To God belongs the earth and what is contained therein” (Ps 24:1). [6] And lastly, we intend to return to it and take possession of it.158

The doctrine of Galut determined the standing of Jews in the Diaspora. Central to Galut is the principle that a nation is constituted by the people, not by its territory. Hence the supreme political authority of the Jews needs not necessarily reside in the land of Israel. After the destruction of the second Temple, and following Roman genocide of the Jewish people and subsequent Christian hounding intended to extinguish the rights from their homeland, the majority of Jews took up residence in Babylonia. In accordance with the principle that authority is of the people, the supreme political authority of the Jews was the Exilarch in Babylonia, where the majority of Jews resided, not the Patriarch in the land of Israel.159 Since a people in exile cannot establish permanent residence in the host country, the status of the Jewish nation outside Israel was that of a ‘tribe’ ( שבט) – a nation without territorial claims over its place of residence.160 A further consideration 158 In ed. B.M. Lewin, Os ar ha-Geonim, vol. 9, Qiddushin (Jerusalem, 1939), #146, pp. 59-60. See Teshubot ha-Ge‘onim (Harkavi), #199, p. 90; R. Judah al-Barseloni, Sefer ha-Shetarot, ed. S.J. Halberstam (Berlin: Mekize Nirdamim, 1898), p. 43. For an analysis of the dissenting opinion, see “The Legal Status of the Jewish Real Estate outside Israel’s Territory,” p. 779 n. 150 159 A judge appointed by the Exilarch in Babylonia had judicial authority in the land of Israel, but not the other way around; see Sanhedrin 5a-b and MT Sanhedrin 4:14. Cf. MT Melakhim 5:12. 160 This explains why, although Jews were well established in many areas throughout Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, they never laid territorial claim over the territory in which they lived. Hence, Jewish real estate outside territorial Israel has the status of movable property. See following note.

concerning the status of real estate owned by Jews outside Israel will clarify this point. Jews recognized only limited sovereignty. However, outside Israel, land acquisition implied the recognition of a hierarchic system at the top of which stands an absolute sovereign (see below). To avert this problem, a Talmudic decision issued between the years 259 and 279 declared that Jewish landed property outside Israel’s territory has the status of chattel – not real estate.161 A major problem regarding Galut was the fact that Judaism recognizes only limited sovereignty (see above Chapter 18). Pagan rulers, however, claim unlimited sovereignty (see below Chapter 23). Jews in the Diaspora insisted that the ruler of the host country could exercise only limited sovereignty over them. The issue is clearly exposed in the Book of Daniel, Chapter 3. There are matters, especially those regarding cult and worship, which lay beyond the authority of a monarch. Jews fully recognized limited sovereignty in the realm of taxation and the like, but did not concede subjection to a Rex. Therefore, they refused to obey a direct order of Nebuchadnezzar to bow down to an idol. According to the rabbis, they explained their position as follows: “Whichever taxation you may want to impose on us, we shall obey. But what you are demanding of us, to insubordinate against God’s [sovereignty] – we shall not obey!162 Another source offers a slightly different version: You are our sovereign (in matters of taxation), but to us, in the matter that you are ordering us to do (to worship the idol), you and a dog are one and the same!163 – Faur, José. The Horizontal Society: Understanding the Covenant and Alphabetic Judaism, Vol. 1 (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008), pp. 143-146.

161 See ‘Arakhin 29a; MT ‘Arakhin 8:11. For a comprehensive treatment of the subject, see “The Status of Jewish Real Estate Property outside Israel’s Territory,” pp. 743-791. 162 Midrash Tanh uma, ed. S. Buber, 2 vols. (Vilna, 5645/1885) Noah XV, p. 20. 163 Vayyiqra Rabba, XXXIII, 6, vol. 4, pp. 769-770. See Salomon Schechter, Aspects of Jewish Theology (New York: Schocken, 1961), p. 106; Israel Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, p. 62; In the Shadow of History, p. 185. Popular wisdom notwithstanding, the principle, “a law of the civil government is binding,” applies only outside Israel’s territory, and it is restricted to taxation and nothing else; see MT Gezela 5:8-18. It is interesting to note that a Christian Greek martyr addressed his judge as ‘dog’; see Ernst Robert Curtis, European Literature and the Middle Ages (Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 427.