Lesson 23

Jerusalem During the Period of Conquest and Settlement (III)

Rav Yitzchak Levy

Tanakh

03.02.2016

Text file

22yeru.rtf

<a
/">The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash</a>

Jerusalem in the Bible 
Yeshivat Har Etzion

Shiur
#22:

Jerusalem
During the Period of Conquest and Settlement (part III)

By Rav Yitzchak Levi

<o:p> </o:p>

In the previous shiur we examined the
tribal affiliation of Jerusalem and the textual descriptions of its
borders.  In this shiur
we shall aim to complete the description of the border between Binyamin and Yehuda according to Chazal,
and to understand its significance. 
Thereafter we shall address the question of why Bnei
Yisrael did not conquer Jerusalem until the time of
King David.

<o:p> </o:p>

A.        The border between Yehuda
and Binyamin according to Chazal

<o:p> </o:p>

The sources
[1]

The Gemara (Yoma
12a) records a debate among the Tannaim concerning
the division of Jerusalem among the tribes:

"Your inheritance may contract the
ritual impurity of plague, while Jerusalem does not contract the ritual
impurity of the plague" (Rashi: For they have no possession there; he held
that it was not divided between the tribes of Yehuda
and Binyamin; rather, all the tribes had an equal share in it.] Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard this said only of the site of the
Temple (Rashi: That when David purchased the threshing floor from Aravna the Jebusite, he raised
the money from all the tribes]...  What,
then, is their argument? The Tanna concerned
maintained that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes, while Rabbi Yehuda maintained that Jerusalem was divided among the
tribes.

And it is like this [other] dispute
amongst the Tannaim. 
What fell to the portion of Yehuda? The Temple
Mount, the chambers, and the courtyards. 
And what fell to the portion of Binyamin? The vestibule (ulam) and the main hall (heikhal)
and the area of the Holy of Holies.  And
a strip protruded from the portion of Yehuda into the
portion of Binyamin, and there the altar was built.  And the righteous Binyamin was distressed
over it and longed every day to annex it, as it is written, "He shall
dwell between his shoulders" (Ibid.).

So this Tanna
maintained that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes, as we learn: Houses
are not rented out in Jerusalem, because it [the city] is not theirs."

- Sifri
Devarim piska 352:

What is meant by,
"The scepter shall not depart from Yehuda"
(Bereishit 49:10)? This refers to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, which was
located in the portion of Yehuda, as it is written:
"And He forsook the tent of Yosef, and did not
choose the tribe of Ephraim; but He chose the Tribe of Yehuda,
Mount Zion which He loved" (Tehillim
78:67) but the Temple was built in the portion of Binyamin.

- Zevachim
53b: The south-eastern corner (of the altar) had no base.  What was the reason for this? Rabbi Elazar said: [It was] because it was not located within the
portion of the "carnivore" [Rashi: This refers to Binyamin, as it is
written "a ravenous (or 'carnivorous') wolf (Bereishit 49:27), as
Rav Shemuel, son of Rav Yitzchak taught: The altar consumes within the portion
of Yehuda one ama.

The literal text (Yehoshua 15:18)
clearly supports Rabbi Yehuda's view that Jerusalem
was divided among the tribes.  But
nowhere in the text is there even a hint of the detailed description of the
division of Mount Moriah between Yehuda
and Binyamin [2].  In light of this, we
propose that Chazal are not presuming to
describe the physical, practical division of the border, but rather its
qualitative boundary between the two tribes [3].

Yehuda's portion includes the Temple Mount,
the chambers and the courtyards in fact, all of the Temple Mount with the
exception of the Sanctuary itself.  The
chambers include, inter alia, the Chamber of Hewn Stone the seat of
the Sanhedrin and, as the Sifri explains, this is a
function of Yehuda's role of leadership and royalty,
one of the most prominent expressions of which is the law.  The strip that protrudes from the portion of Yehuda also housed the south-eastern corner of the copper
altar, and this corner had no base.

Binyamin's portion housed the Sanctuary itself the vestibule, the
main Sanctuary hall, and the Holy of Holies in fact, all of the sanctified
areas within the Temple Mount bounds (except for the south-eastern corner of
the altar), for this was the portion of the Divine Presence.

<o:p> </o:p>

2.  Significance of the different opinions

<o:p> </o:p>

As stated, the opinion that Jerusalem was divided between the tribes
matches the literal sources in Sefer Yehoshua.  On the basis of our conclusions from the
previous shiur, it is possible either that the
entire city fell within the portion of Binyamin (as we attempted to prove
there), or that it was divided between Yehuda and
Binyamin.

In contrast, the view that maintains that Jerusalem was not divided
between the tribes has no support in the verses describing the borders of Yehuda and Binyamin. 
Indeed, some of the early commentators explain that this view refers to
the period of David, who conquered the city and turned it into a city for all
of Israel.  In other words, during the
periods of Yehoshua and the Judges, the city was
indeed divided between the tribes, but once it was established as the capital
and as the place of the Temple, it was "nationalized," as it were; Yehuda and Binyamin lost their "ownership" of it
in favor of all of Israel.  It is
interesting that according to this view, Jerusalem was never actually divided
[4]. As we have explained previously, it was a Jebusite
city up until the time of David, and from that time onwards it was the royal
capital of all of Israel, with no tribal affiliation at all.

The spiritual significance of this conclusion is that there is no room
for the concept of private ownership in Jerusalem, for it belongs to all of
Israel.  This idea is in fact set down in
halakha, and it has widespread ramifications [5], all
related to the idea that no private acquisition exists in relation to
Jerusalem, on either the individual or the tribal level.  Jerusalem lies outside of the usual halakhic framework of inheritance and possession; it exists
above such considerations and belongs to all of Israel, not to parts of the
nation.

The spiritual significance of the internal division, in the area of the
Temple Mount as detailed in the Beraita in Yoma is that Mount Moriah
belongs both to Yehuda representing national
sovereignty, and to Binyamin representing the Divine Presence.  As stated, we regard this source not as an
explanation of the description of the border between Yehuda
and Binyamin in Sefer Yehoshua, but rather as an
attempt to explain the significance of this border in Jerusalem and on Mount Moriah in a manner that reflects the qualities of each of
these two tribes.

It would seem that the main idea that Chazal
are expressing in this description is that the earthly royalty the national
sovereignty cannot be cut off from the Temple.  The strip that protrudes from the portion of Yehuda symbolizes the fact that his royalty emerges from
his connection with the Sanctuary; it dare not become an independent reign
severed from the sanctity that gives it life and power.

This fundamental theme manifests itself in a great many phenomena
during the course of David's life. 
David's first act as king in Jerusalem, following the conquest of the
city and his victory over the Philistines, is to bring up the Ark from Kiryat Ye'arim to Jerusalem (II Shemuel 6; I Divrei
Ha-yamim 13:6-15).  The Ark remains in Jerusalem even during Avshalom's rebellion:

"And behold Tzadok,
too, came and all the Levites with him, carrying the Ark of God's Covenant, and
the set down the Ark And the King said to Tzadok,
'Take God's Ark back to the city.  If I
find favor in God's eyes then He will bring me back and show me it and its
habitation.  But if He says: I have no
delight in you then here I am; let Him do as He sees fit.'" (II Shemuel 15:24-26)

In other words, the city of royalty is connected to the place of the
Sanctuary, and they may not be parted. 
The person who merits the status of king will remain in Jerusalem, along
with the Ark [6].

The same trend continues to manifest itself during the period of Shelomo.  The site of
the royal palace, at the foot of God's Temple, conveys, on the simplest level,
the idea that the kingship of Israel receives its authority and validity from
its role as representing and revealing God's Kingship in the world.  Indeed, we are told, concerning Shelomo, that he "sat upon GOD'S THRONE AS KING"
(I Divrei Ha-yamim
29:23).

One interesting expression of the above is the law that "No-one is
permitted to sit in the azara except for the
kings of the House of David" (Yoma
25a).  The early commentators explain
that the reason for this is that the kings of the House of David and only
they represent the Kingship of God.

Another aspect of the significance of the division between Yehuda and Binyamin arises from the distribution of the
sanctified areas of the mountain between them. 
As stated, aside from Yehuda's claim to the
altar, the entire Sanctuary is located within the portion of Binyamin.  The altar represents man's service of God; Yehuda's connection to the altar is related to his human
essence as a ba'al teshuva
 a penitent.  Binyamin, on the other
hand, represents the Divine Presence the imbuing of the material world with
Godly reality and it is therefore appropriate that the Sanctuary the place
where the Divine Presence rests is located in his portion [7].

In conclusion, we may point out that the division of Mount Moriah between Yehuda and
Binyamin also represents the cooperation of all the tribes of Israel in the
Temple endeavor.  In this context, the
Tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin represent not only
themselves with their respective unique qualities, but also, more generally,
the children of Leah (Yehuda) and the children of
Rachel (Binyamin) [8].

<o:p> </o:p>

B.        Why did Bnei Yisrael not conquer Jerusalem from the time of Yehoshua up until the time of David? [9]

<o:p> </o:p>

As we explained in the two previous shiurim,
it is difficult to find any satisfying answer to this question in the literal
text.  We suggested two possible reasons
for this:

1.            The
city was well fortified and difficult to attack.  This possibility seems unlikely, in light of Shoftim 1:8 with its account of the Tribe of Yehuda capturing the city, smiting it with the sword and
setting it on fire.

2.            Since
it was a border (i.e., relatively remote) city, it was convenient for the Tribe
of Binyamin to ignore it and to refrain from conquering it.  This possibility seems even weaker, since the
Torah commands that the land be conquered and settled.

It
should also be noted that, on the basis of the information that we glean from
the letters of El-Amarna, Jerusalem was an important
city at the time.

We
also quoted the opinion of the Radak, who explains
that tradition had it that the city would be conquered by virtue and power of
the person who would rule over all of Israel. 
We analyzed the significance of this explanation at length, but it has
no direct support in the literal text.  Chazal propose other reasons likewise not based on
the literal text for refraining to conquer the city and the spiritual
significance of this situation; we shall discuss two of them here.

<o:p> </o:p>

1.  Avraham's oath to Avimelekh

<o:p> </o:p>

In Bereishit 21:22-32 the Torah narrates the meeting between Avraham and Avimelekh and the
covenant that was forged between them. 
The story begins as follows: "And it was, at that time, that Avimelekh and Pikhol, commander
of his army, said to Avraham, saying: God is with you
in all that you do.  Now, promise me by
God behold, lest you lie to me or to my sons or grandsons.  Like the kindness that I have shown to you,
so shall you show to me and to the land in which you have dwelt.  And Avraham said, I
swear."

The Radak, in his commentary on Yehoshua 15:63 "But the Jebusites,
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Yehuda were
not able [the text actually reads, "Will not be able," but it is
read, "Were not able"] to drive out, and the Jebusites
lived with the children of Yehuda in Jerusalem to
this day" refers to the question of the tenses (were able/will be able]
and its connection to the oath made to Avimelekh:

It is written, "Will not be
able," for even in the future they would not be able to, until the advent
of David.  And it is read, "They
could not" - because then they were unable to drive them out, at the time
of the conquest of the land.  And our
Sages, of blessed memory, said: They were able, but they were not permitted 
because of the oath that Avraham made to Avimelekh.  And this
"Jebusite" was not the Jebusites
of the seven [Canaanite] nations, but rather a single person whose name was Yevus, and he was of the Philistines from the seed of Avimelekh.  And the
place was named after him, Yevus.  And the people of that family, who dwelled in
Jerusalem, were called Yevusi i.e., related to Yevus.  Thus, Aravna the Yevusi who was king
of that place.  And the fortress of that
place was Zion, which is in Jerusalem. 
Until [the time of] David that place was not conquered.  To the view of the Sages, it was not
conquered because of the oath.  David
removed the "blind and the lame" which were bronze forms, with the
words of the oath inscribed on them, and then he conquered that fortress.  Thereafter David purchased the city of the Yevusi for Israel in a transaction of gold, with a
document, as an eternal purchase, as it is written, "And David gave Aravna for the place."  Further, [our Sages] taught that the oath was
"to me and my son and my grandson," and when the children of Yehuda conquered Jerusalem, the grandson of Avimelekh was still alive. 
So they could not yet conquer the fortress because of the oath.  But in the days of David, the grandson was no
longer alive.  More is written about this
in Sefer Shemuel.

But according to the literal text, the
fortress was strong and the children of Yehuda were
not able to drive them out.  Perhaps
there was some Divine reason that this fortress would not be conquered until
the reign of David, King of Israel in order that it would be named after him,
since he was the head of the Kingdom of Israel.

And concerning that which is written,
"Until this day" this is what Yehoshua
wrote, for he wrote his book according to the tradition that he had
received.  In his days they were not
driven out from Jerusalem, and in the days of David we still find them
there.  [10]"

Several aspects of the Radak's commentary are
innovative:

- The very idea that the children of Yehuda were not permitted to conquer Jerusalem because of Avraham's oath to Avimelekh.

- The "Yevusim"
who dwelled in Jerusalem were not the Jebusites known
to us as one of the seven Canaanite tribes (as the literal text would seem to
suggest), but rather people descended from Yevus, a
Philistine descendant of Avimelekh and therefore
the oath made to Avimelekh applied to them.

- At the time when the area was
conquered by Yehuda, the grandson of Avimelekh was still alive [11], and the oath, which was
"to me and my son and my grandson," was still valid.  Only in the days of David was the grandson
already dead, such that it was possible to conquer the city.

Finally, the Radak adds other reasons, which
we have already discussed, for the failure to conquer the place.

But the Gemara in Chullin
60b [12] would seem to present a difficulty with this view:

"And the blind, who lived in Chatzerim, as far as Aza; Kaftorim, who came from Kaftor,
annihilated them and dwelled in their place" (Devarim 2:23).  What do we learn from this? Because Avimelekh made Avraham swear,
"Lest you deal falsely with me or my son or my grandson" (Bereishit
21:23).  [Rashi: these generations were
not yet over], therefore the Holy One said: Let the Kaftorim
come and conquer [the land] from the Avim, who are
Philistines, and let Israel come and conquer it from the Kaftorim.

In other words, the oath to Avimelekh expired
by virtue of the fact that the Kaftorim, who were not
of Philistine descent, took the land from the Avim 
who themselves were Philistines; now Israel could take the land from the Kaftorim, towards whom they had no commitment [13].  Our conclusion seems to be that the Kaftorim annihilated only the Avim
who dwelled in Chatzerim as far as Aza, but the descendants of Avimelekh
who lived in other places including Yevus were
not killed, and concerning them the oath was still valid.

A different view of the time when the oath was nullified appears in Massekhet Sota
(9b-10a) in relation to Shimshon:

"He shall begin (yachel) to deliver Israel from the hand of the
Philistines" (Shoftim 13:5) Rabbi Chama
said in the name of Rabbi Chanina: [This terminology
is used to hint that] the oath of Avimelekh was broken
(huchal) [Rashi: it was nullified; as in
"he shall not break [yachel] his
word" Devarim 30:3], because they violated the oath first, as it
is written, "Lest you deal falsely with me or my son or my grandson"
"And Shimshon went and caught three hundred
foxes" (Shoftim 15:4) Why specifically
foxes? Rabbi Ibu bar Negdi
said in the name of Rabbi Hiya bar Abba: Shimshon said: Let the one who looks back take vengeance on
the Philistines, who violated their oath."

According to this Midrash, the oath to Avimelekh
was nullified already in the days of Shimshon (who
lived some eighty years before David); not because Avimelekh's
grandson had died (as Rashi and the Radak propose),
but because of the violation of the oath by the Philistines.  But from that time until the time of David, Bnei Yisrael did not try to
conquer Jerusalem from the hands of the Yevusi.  [14]

<o:p> </o:p>

2.  Avraham's oath to
the children of Chet

<o:p> </o:p>

A different understanding of the delay in conquering Jerusalem
throughout the period of Yehoshua and the Judges is
based on Avraham's oath to the children of Chet, as
recounted in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 36):

"[Avraham]
ran to bring a calf, but the calf ran away from him and entered the Cave of Makhpela.  He entered
after it, and found Adam and Chava lying their upon
their beds, sleeping, with lit candles over them, and a good fragrance around
them.  Therefore he desired the Cave of Makhpela as a burial possession.  He told the children of Yevusi
that he wanted to purchase the Cave of Makhpela from them
in a good transaction, for gold and a binding document, as a burial
possession.  But were these Yevusim? Were they not Chitim?!
[Yes, but] they were called Yevusim after the city, Yevus.  The people
did not accept his offer.  He began to
bow and prostrate himself before them, as it is written, 'Avraham
bowed himself before the people of the land' (Bereishit 23:12).  They said to him, 'We know that the Holy One
is destined to give you and your descendants all of this land.  Make an oath to us that Israel will not
inherit the city Yevus except by the will of the
children of Yevus.' Thereafter he purchased the Cave
of Makhpela in a transaction of gold and a permanent
document, as a permanent possession.

What did the people of Yevus do? They made images of bronze and placed them in the
city square, and inscribed Avraham's oath upon
them.  When Israel came to the land they
wished to enter the city of the Yevusi, but were
unable to enter because of the sign of the covenant of Avraham's
oath, as it is written: 'But the Yevusi, inhabitants
of Jerusalem, [the children of Yehuda were unable to
drive out].'  When David reigned and he
wanted to enter the city, they would not let him, as it is written, 'They said
to David, saying: You shall not come in here' (II Shemuel
5:6).  Were Israel then not as numerous
as the sand of the sea?! But because of the covenant of Avraham's
oath And thereafter [David] purchased the city of the Yevusi
for <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Israel</u1:metricconverter>,
in a binding document for an eternal possession.' [15]

According to this Midrash, when Avraham
sought to purchase the Cave of Makhpela, the Chittim made the sale conditional on him swearing, in
return for this transaction, that his descendants would not conquer the city of
Yevus except with the approval of the Yevusim.  When David
came to conquer the city, the Yevusim placed in the
city square some bronze images upon which Avraham's
oath was inscribed, and they did not allow him to enter.  Ultimately David solved the problem by
purchasing the city from the Yevusim [16].

We may explain Avraham's readiness to
relinquish the conquest of the city in terms of his desire to be buried
alongside Adam, and to succeed him.  To
realize this goal to start connecting himself to the beginning of the world,
to the entrance to the Garden of Eden [17] Avraham
was even prepared to relinquish the future hold of his descendants on <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>.  The solution that David found was to purchase
the city: This purchase was based on the agreement of the other party to the
sale, and the problem of entry to the city was therefore solved only by virtue
of the agreement of its inhabitants i.e., through the fulfillment of the
conditions of the oath.

<o:p> </o:p>

Appendix:
How could Avraham swear to Avimelekh?

<o:p> </o:p>

In conclusion, let us briefly consider the question of how Avraham could have sworn to Avimelekh
as he did.  We find two approaches to
this question:

The Chizkuni (commenting on Bereishit
21:22) explains that Avraham could swear to Avimelekh for three generations "To me, to my son
and to my grandson" because in the Covenant Between the Parts he himself
had been promised that only "the fourth generation will return here"
(Bereishit 15:16):

"And it
was at that time" when Sara gave birth, and the kings of the land said:
The Holy One will surely fulfill His oath, as He said to Avraham,
"To your seed I have given this land, from the river of Egypt" (Bereishit
15:18).  Therefore Avimelekh
asked of him: "Lest you deal falsely with me and my son and my
grandson" (Ibid. 21:23): but Avimelekh
could ask no more, for the Holy One had told Avraham,
"The fourth generation shall return here" (Ibid. 15:16).  In other words, after the fourth generation
of Emorites, your children will return and conquer
this land.  And therefore when Avimelekh II arose, in the days of Yitzchak, he said:
"Let us make a covenant between us, between us and you" (Ibid.
26:28), but did not ask him "and my son and my grandson," because it
had already been said, "The fourth generation shall return here."

In contrast, several other opinions among Chazal
and the Rishonim view the oath as a very serious
mistake with far-reaching ramifications. 
Thus, for example, we read in Bereishit Rabba
(54,4):

"Avraham
took sheep and cattle and gave them to Avimelekh And
Avimelekh said to Avraham,
What are these seven sheep?" The Holy One said to Avraham:
Since you gave seven sheep against My will, by your life I shall postpone the
joy of your children for seven generations.

You gave him seven sheep against My will
 by your life, seven righteous men of your descendants shall correspondingly
be put to death.  These are they: Chofni and Pinchas, Shimshon, Shaul and his three
sons.

You gave him seven sheep against My will
 correspondingly, his descendants will destroy seven of your descendants'
Sanctuaries.  These are they: the Tent of
Meeting, and Gilgal, and Nov, and Giv'on,
and Shilo, and both <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Temples</u1:metricconverter>.

You gave him seven sheep against My will
 correspondingly, My Ark shall remain in Philistine hands for seven
months.  As it is written, "He
delivered His strength into captivity" (Tehillim
78:61) this refers to the Ark of the Covenant; and it is written, "And
the Ark of God was in the fields of the Philistines for seven months (I Shemuel 6:1)."

The Midrash Tanna De-Vei Eliyahu Rabba,
and the Rashbam, discern a direct connection between
the act of the Akeida and the forging of the covenant
with Avimelekh:

A person should take care not to go into
partnership with idolaters, nor to forge a covenant with them.  For we find, concerning Avraham
our patriarch, that he made a partnership with Avimelekh
and ended up forging a covenant with him and when he forged the covenant with
him, the ministering angels gathered before the Holy One, blessed be He, and
said: "Why is Avraham forging a covenant with an
idolater?" The Holy One told them: "His only son, whom I granted to
him at the age of 100 I shall tell him to offer him up as a burnt
offering.  If he offers him well and
good; then you will know that his intentions were good he wanted peaceful
relations [with Avimelekh].  If not, then your claim is correct." As
it is written, "And it was after these things that God tested Avraham and Avraham put forth
his hand and took the knife, to slaughter his son" (Bereishit
22:10).  From here they said: There is no
nation in the world that does not subjugate and afflict <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Israel</u1:metricconverter>
for longer than a few hundred years only because Avraham
forged a covenant with an idolater." 
(Tanna De-Vei
Eliyahu Rabba,
chapter 7).

"And it was after these
things" (Bereishit 22:1) Every place where it is written,
"After these things," the text is referring back to the preceding
account Here too: "After these things" that Avraham
forged a covenant with Avimelekh, him and his son and
his grandson of Avraham.  And he gave him seven sheep, and God was
angry with him for this because the land of the Philistines was included
within the boundaries of Israel, and the Holy One commanded, "You shall
not leave any of them alive" (Devarim 20:16).  Also in Yehoshua,
lots were cast for the five lords of the Philistines (Yehoshua
13:3; 16:45-47).  Therefore "God
tested Avraham" He vexed him and brought him
sorrow, as it is written, "If one ventures a word to you, will you be
grieved?" (Iyov 4:2), "For their
testing of God" (Shemot 17:7), "Masa
and Meriva" (Ibid.), "Examine me,
Lord, and prove me" (Tehillim 26:2).  In other words: You were so proud of the son
whom I gave you that you forged a covenant between your sons and their
sons.  Now go and offer him up as a burnt
offering, and let us see what your oath is worth" (Rashbam
on Bereishit 22:1).

We have now
completed our study of <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
during the period of the conquest and settlement.  We shall now move on to the period of David,
when for the first time the city was chosen to serve as the site of
Israelite sovereignty for all generations.

<o:p> </o:p>

Notes:

[1] Several parallel
sources address this issue; we shall not be able to cover all of them and all
of their ramifications within the framework of this shiur.

[2] It is likewise altogether
unrelated to the two opinions that were examined in the previous shiur concerning the route of the boundary.

[3] Some of the sources
convey the impression that the division in the region of <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Mount</u1:metricconverter>
<u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Moriah</u1:metricconverter>
is independent of the debate between the Tannaim as
to whether <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
was divided between the tribes; we shall not elaborate further here.

[4] This, indeed, is the
opinion of Rabbi M.D. Gross, "Luach Yerushalayim' 5703, p. 125.

[5] This is a very broad
subject; we shall illustrate with just one example: The Gemara
in Bava Kama 82b (as later codified by
the Rambam in his Laws of the Temple, chapter 7, law
14) teaches that "ten things are said of Jerusalem," and the reason
that is common to several of them is that "Jerusalem was not divided
between the tribes": A house in it is not absolute, as it is written, 
the house that is in the walled city shall become the permanent property of its
buyer, throughout his generations (Vayikra
25:30), and the reason is that <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
was not divided among the tribes.  And
the law of the heifer whose neck is broken [in the case of an unsolved murder
committed outside of the city] is not practiced there, as it is written,
"If a corpse be found upon the land which the Lord your God gives you to
inherit" (Devarim 21:1) for <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
was not divided among the tribes.  Nor
does <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
ever become a "destroyed city," as it is written, "your
cities" (Devarim 13:13) while <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
was not divided among the tribes.  And it
does not contract the ritual impurity of the plague, as it is written, "I
shall place the plague of tzara'at upon a
house in the land of your possession" (Vayikra
14:34) but <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
was not divided among the tribes. Likewise the Tosefta
(Ma'aser Sheni chapter 1, law 12)
writes that "Houses are not rented out in <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
because they are of [all] the tribes." 
Rabbi S. Lieberman explains: "In other words, the houses belong to
all of <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Israel</u1:metricconverter>,
since <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
is not divided among the tribes."

[6] We shall hopefully
elaborate on each of these matters when we discuss the period of David and Shelomo.

[7] Rav
Moshe Odes takes this direction in his article, "The Human and Divine
Aspects of the Copper Altar," Ma'alin ba-Kodesh 13, pp. 112-113 [Heb.].

[8] The reader is
encouraged to refer back to shiur no. 17,
where we discussed the joint connection of these two tribes to the Divine
Presence.

[9] We have mentioned in
the past that this assertion is not universally accepted among the early
commentators; according to some, there was a partial Israelite presence in the
city, some held, in the period of Yehoshua and others
during the period of the Judges.

[10] Rashi offers a
similar explanation in his commentary on Yehoshua
15:63, and on Shoftim 1:21.

[11] This relies on the
assumption that Avimelekh and his descendants lived
to a tremendous old age

[12] These sources are
quoted at length in Hadar Olam, by Rabbi Eitan Shendorfi,
<u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
5758, p. 128 onwards.

[13] A similar situation
exists in relation to the lands of Amon and Moav.  The command
not to conquer their lands (Devarim 2:9,19) was nullified with their
conquest by Sichon, King of the Emorites.  As Rav Papa puts
it: "Amon and Moav
were purified by Sichon" (Gittin
38a).

[14] The debate between
the midrashim turns on a more fundamental
issue: the exact identity of the Philistines (the connection between the
Philistines in the days of Avraham and the
Philistines in the days of the Judges).

[15] We quoted this
Midrash in shiur no. <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">2,
in</u1:metricconverter> relation to the mention of Hebron before <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
in the process of entering the land.

[16] This Midrash does not
sit well with the literal text, which teaches that the city of <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Jerusalem</u1:metricconverter>
was conquered, and only <u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in"><u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Mount</u1:metricconverter>
<u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">Moriah</u1:metricconverter></u1:metricconverter>
was purchased with money from Aravna.

[17] See Torah Sheleima, comments on Parashat Vayishlach, chapter 33 ot
<u1:metricconverter u2:st="on" ProductID="64, in">64, in</u1:metricconverter>
the name of Rabbeinu Sa'adya;
see also the Alshikh on Bereishit 23:2.

<o:p> </o:p>

Translated by Kaeren Fish

, full_html

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!