The Benefit of Sovereignty

The day the Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael in 1948 changed us as a nation, as a people, as a community, and as individuals. The benefits are endless, the prospects to strengthen our relationship with God and raise ourselves to higher levels are evident, and, as Rav Soloveitchik notes, we see Divine Providence opening up a door for the Jewish people once again. One of the more remarkable changes emerged with our renewed physical control over Eretz Yisrael. To some, being a powerful nation is the ultimate payoff. As we will see in an important Midrash, our control over the land offers an important opportunity in our overall perfection as a nation.

In an easily overlooked grammatical interplay, we see a word that is presented in both a male and female context take on a completely new meaning. The word for song in Hebrew is both “shir” and “shira”, and is presented in both formats. When we recite in the daily tefila the shevach (praise) and hodaa (gratitude) enunciated by Bnai Yisrael after kriyas yam suf, we recite the following:  “Az yashir Moshe u’vnei Yisrael es hashira hazos…”  Yet we find in other places the masculine reference. For example, we see in Tehilim (98:1): “Mizmor shiru la’Hashem shir chadash”. One could argue that each reference is germane to that area of Tanach, maybe a better fit into the flow of the verse. However, there is even an instance where this word is distinguished within one thematic environment. At the night of the seder, we recite the following in the paragraph of “Lefichach”: “…ve’nomar le’fanav shirah chadasha…” Just a few moments later, when reciting the bracha at the end of the magid, we switch it to the zachar: “…ve’nodeh lecha shir chadash”. What is even more intriguing is that both reference a “new” (chadash/chadasha) song, making them even more similar to one another. Rather than be a minor question of language, Chazal saw something far deeper in this differentiation.

There is a Midrash found in Shir HaShirim Rabba (1:3) that establishes a clear demarcation between these two uses of “song”. The Midrash, in the name of Rav Berechia, compares Bnei Yisrael to a woman. How so? A woman, upon marriage, is only entitled to a tenth of inheritance from her father when he passes away. This too applied to Bnei Yisrael when they “inherited” (yarshu) the land of Israel. At that time, they conquered the land that was occupied by the seven nations, which is one-tenth of the seventy nations of the world. As such, the female version of song, meaning “shira”, is used to reflect this idea. However, in the future redemption, Bnei Yisrael will be compared to a male. A son’s inheritance does not change based on his marital status – he is still entitled to 100%. The same then can be said for Bnei Yisrael at the time of the geula, as they will inherit the world, so to speak. Therefore, we see the conversion to “shir”, reflecting this change in the status of Bnei Yisrael.

It is difficult to take this Midrash literally. What idea are we supposed to learn from this? Furthermore, of all the things to focus on, why specifically yerushas Eretz Yisrael? And is this still relevant, as we know seventy nations is not really a practical reality today?

There is one other source that should be mentioned before trying to answer this question. The Ramban, in his discussion of the mitzvah of yerushas Eretz Yisrael, writes of a distinction one must have when understanding the commandment. He explains that one should not err in assuming the mitzvah of destroying the seven nations is the same as the mitzvah of yerushas Eretz Yisrael. The mitzvah to destroy the seven nations is limited to just that – their complete obliteration. However, the mitzvah of yerushas Eretz Yisrael is quite different, not simply the by-product of the disappearance of these seven nations. Within the mitzvah of yerushas Eretz Yisrael lies an important idea. If, for example, peace existed between Bnei Yisrael and the seven nations (assuming they did not fulfill the mitzvah of destroying them), Bnei Yisrael could not abandon the land of Israel. And if a utopian period of time would emerge, where everyone was at peace the Jewish people could not leave the land to lie fallow. This, according to the Ramban, is the flip side to the mitzvah.

There is a point the Ramban is emphasizing, an idea we can see as well in the Midrash. Let’s first take a look at the overall theme being presented in the Midrash. We see two types of redemption – the geula from Mitzrayim, and the final redemption of the future, the geula asida. They both are redemptive, sharing this transformative quality. At the same time, there is an obvious distinction that exists. Whereas on is (or was) temporal, the second is permanent. However, within this very discrepancy, there is a further elucidation by this Midrash.

The key here is in understanding how and why yerusha is such a necessary component of a redemptive process. As we noted, the Ramban writes that the deduction one must make from the mitzvah of yerushas haaretz is that Bnei Yisrael can never abandon the land. Why is this point so pivotal? We see one important concept emerge here, a concept that is integral to the perfection of the nation as a whole. Being a sovereign nation has a tremendous impact on the Jewish people, one that is instrumental in our ability to place our security in God. When we left Mitzrayim, we threw off the yoke of slavery. When we received the Torah, we became the ovdei Hashem. Yet without a land which we controlled, there was something lacking. When we conquered Eretz Yisrael, the refutation of being an enslaved people to others was complete.  We now controlled the land, and through this yerusha, we now reached a level of security that was monumental.  In this sense, then, the sovereign nation meant a more perfected nation – our ability to have dominion over the land gave us the ability to place our security in God. And we can then say that both redemptions partake of this feature, this idea of being sovereign and its ability to perfect us. If this were all, what then would the final geula bring that was not first realized by Bnei Yisrael after their intial conquest of the land? While it is true Bnei Yisrael controlled Eretz Yisrael, there were still external threats. Enemies were lurking beyond the borders, and the world as a whole viewed Bnei Yisrael as anything from a military threat to an ideological menace. Our ability to place our security as a nation in God was enhanced with the yerusha of the land, but it was not complete – thus the use of “shira”. The final redemption will bring a complete yerusha. This does not mean we will defeat all the people of the world, wiping out everyone so that the Jewish people reign supreme. Instead, there is another way the threats will be removed. The people of the world will recognize God as the melech elyon, the Jews will function as ohr le’goyim – and Bnei Yisrael will now be truly sovereign. Therefore, see a clear qualitative difference in being sovereign in the two redemptions. On one level, the fact that we now were sovereign had a tremendous impact on us. However, in the final redemption, our identity as an autonomous nation will take on a whole new dimension, as it will be the highest expression of sovereignty.

We see from this Midrash a development in one component of redemption, the importance of the Jewish people being in control of Eretz Yisrael. This theme of sovereignty, and its overall importance today, can be found in the writings of authors ranging from Rav Kook to Rav Soloveitchik. The idea of the nation being sovereign allows us to remove many of our insecurities and focus on God. And with the geula asida, a complete sovereignty will emerge, as all threats dissolve. May we merit this state of existence bimhera beyameinu.