Zevachim 60b discusses whether the original sanctification of Jerusalem still obtains without a Mikdash (temple). This parallels another debate among the rabbis as to whether the entire land of Israel is still considered sanctified even after two exiles. These discussions reveal what the source of the kedusha (sanctity) of Jerusalem and the land of Israel are – an important theological question!
Zevachim 60b
Questions? Comments? Email dinanddaf@gmail.com
- זבחים ס:
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל יַעֲלֶה אָדָם מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְיֹאכְלֶנּוּ בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה? וְדִין הוּא – בְּכוֹר טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם, וּמַעֲשֵׂר טָעוּן הֲבָאַת מָקוֹם; מָה בְּכוֹר – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אַף מַעֲשֵׂר – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת.
three elders, and this is one of them: Rabbi Yishmael says: One might have thought that a person would bring second-tithe produce up to Jerusalem in the present, after the destruction of the Temple, and eat it. And ostensibly, it could be derived by means of a logical inference that one may not do so: A firstborn offering requires bringing it to the place, to Jerusalem, and eating it there, and second-tithe produce requires bringing it to the place (see Deuteronomy 12:17–18); just as the firstborn offering may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple, so too, second-tithe produce may be eaten there only in the presence of the Temple.
…
מַאי קָסָבַר? אִי קָסָבַר קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּכוֹר נָמֵי! וְאִי קָסָבַר לֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּכוֹר נָמֵי תִּיבְעֵי!
What does Rabbi Yishmael hold? If he holds that the initial consecration of the Temple sanctified it for its time and sanctified it forever, then it should be permitted to build an altar and sacrifice offerings even nowadays, and therefore even a firstborn animal may be eaten. And if he holds that the initial consecration of the Temple area did not sanctify it forever, let the dilemma be raised with regard to a firstborn as well.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר לֹא קִידְּשָׁה; וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּבְכוֹר שֶׁנִּזְרַק דָּמוֹ קוֹדֶם חוּרְבַּן הַבַּיִת, וְחָרַב הַבַּיִת, וַעֲדַיִין בְּשָׂרוֹ קַיָּים.
Ravina said: Actually, Rabbi Yishmael holds that that the initial consecration of the Temple did not sanctify it forever. And although one cannot slaughter the firstborn to begin with, here we are dealing with a firstborn that was slaughtered and whose blood was sprinkled on the altar before the destruction of the Temple, and then the Temple was destroyed, and the meat of the firstborn still exists.
- משנה עדויות ח:ו
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, שָׁמַעְתִּי, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בוֹנִים בַּהֵיכָל, עוֹשִׂים קְלָעִים לַהֵיכָל וּקְלָעִים לָעֲזָרוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל בּוֹנִים מִבַּחוּץ, וּבָעֲזָרָה בּוֹנִים מִבִּפְנִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי, שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת, וְאוֹכְלִים קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קְלָעִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חוֹמָה, שֶׁקְּדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִדְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא:
Rabbi Eliezer said: I have heard that when they were building the Temple [complex] they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the Temple-courts; but in the case of the Temple they built from the outside, and in the case of the Temple-court they built from the inside. Rabbi Joshua said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered even though there is no Temple, and that the most holy sacrifices may be eaten even though there are no curtains, and the less holy sacrifices and second tithes even though there is no wall [around Jerusalem]; because the first sanctification sanctified both for its own time and for the time to come.
- ר’ עובדיה ברטנורא
שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת. לְפִי שֶׁקְּדֻשָּׁה שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת הַבַּיִת, קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִדְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. וְכֵן קְדֻשַּׁת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קִדְשָׁה לְעוֹלָם. אֲבָל קְדֻשַּׁת שְׁאָר אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא קִדְּשָׁה בְּכִבּוּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא לִשְׁעָתָהּ, עַד שֶׁחָזְרוּ עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל וְקִדְּשׁוּהָ קְדֻשָּׁה שְׁנִיָּה, וְאוֹתָהּ קְדֻשָּׁה קִדְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא:
שמעתי שמקריבים אף על פי שאין בית – [since] the holiness that Solomon sanctified the Temple, he sanctified for its time and he sanctified it for the future. And similarly, the holiness of Jerusalem was sanctified forever. But the sanctification of the rest of the Land of Israel, he did not sanctify during the first conquest other than for its time [alone] until those who came up from Babylonia returned and they sanctified it a second time, and that sanctification was sanctified for the future.
- חגיגה ג:
דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹרְמַסְקִית שֶׁהָלַךְ לְהַקְבִּיל פְּנֵי רַבִּי (אֶלְעָזָר) [אֱלִיעֶזֶר] בְּלוֹד, אָמַר לוֹ: מָה חִידּוּשׁ הָיָה בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַיּוֹם?
The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma should have told Rabbi Yehoshua these statements of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya directly, without delay. Why did they hesitate at first? The Gemara answers: They were hesitant due to an incident that occurred. As it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit, who went to greet Rabbi Eliezer in Lod. Rabbi Elazar said to him: What novel idea was taught today in the study hall?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית.
Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit said to him: The Sages assembled, counted the votes, and concluded that although the lands of Ammon and Moab on the eastern side of the Jordan River are not part of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year and tithes should not apply to them, as these lands are adjacent to Eretz Yisrael, one separates the poor man’s tithe there in the Sabbatical Year. Since the Sages debated which tithes should be separated, they had to take a vote to determine the halakha in this regard.
אָמַר לוֹ: יוֹסֵי, פְּשׁוֹט יָדֶיךָ וְקַבֵּל עֵינֶיךָ. פָּשַׁט יָדָיו וְקִבֵּל עֵינָיו. בָּכָה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְאָמַר: ״סוֹד ה׳ לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם״.
Rabbi Elazar said to him in anger: Yosei, extend your hands and catch your eyes, which are about to come out of their sockets. He extended his hands and caught his eyes. Rabbi Elazar wept and said the verse: “The counsel of the Lord is with them who fear Him; and His covenant, to make them know it” (Psalms 25:14), i.e., the Sages arrived at the correct conclusion, although they were unaware of the proper rationale behind it.
אָמַר לוֹ, לֵךְ אֱמוֹר לָהֶם: אַל תָּחוּשׁוּ לְמִנְיַינְכֶם, כָּךְ מְקּוּבְּלַנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ: הִלְכְתָא לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. מָה טַעַם — הַרְבֵּה כְּרַכִּים כָּבְשׁוּ עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם וְלֹא כְּבָשׁוּם עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל,
Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yosei to go and say to the Sages in the study hall: Do not be concerned with regard to your counting, that you might not have ruled properly, as you have not in fact instituted a new ordinance at all. This is the tradition that I received from Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that in Ammon and Moab one separates the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. What is the reason? Those who ascended from Egypt conquered many cities, and those who ascended from Babylonia did not conquer them after the destruction of the First Temple.
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִדְּשָׁה לְעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְהִנִּיחוּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּסְמְכוּ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲנִיִּים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית.
This difference is important, because the first consecration of Eretz Yisrael, by those who ascended from Egypt, caused it to be sanctified only for its time and it was not sanctified forever, as that depended on the renewed conquest of the land by the Jewish people. And those who ascended from Babylonia left those cities aside and did not consider them part of Eretz Yisrael even after Jewish settlement was renewed there. They would plow and harvest in these places in the Sabbatical Year and tithe the poor man’s tithe, so that the poor of Eretz Yisrael, who did not have sufficient income from the previous years, could rely upon that produce in the Sabbatical Year, receiving help from this tithe.
- יבמות פב:
דְּתַנְיָא בְּסֵדֶר עוֹלָם: ״אֲשֶׁר יָרְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתֶיךָ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ״, יְרוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה — יֵשׁ לָהֶן, וּשְׁלִישִׁית — אֵין לָהֶן.
As it is taught in a baraita in the anthology called Seder Olam, with regard to a verse that speaks of the Jewish people’s return to Eretz Yisrael following their exile: “And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it” (Deuteronomy 30:5). These two expressions of inheritance teach that they had a first inheritance of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua and a second inheritance at the time of the return from the Babylonian exile. That is to say, since the sanctity of the land had lapsed when the First Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people exiled to Babylonia, a second sanctification was necessary when they returned to their land. But they will not have a third inheritance. In other words, it will never be necessary to sanctify the land for a third time, as the second sanctification was permanent.
- רש”י שם
ירושה ראשונה – בימי יהושע הויא ירושה וכן שניה דבימי עזרא דכשגלו גלות ראשונה בטלה קדושת הארץ:
שלישית אין להם – כלומר לא בעי למהדר ומירתא דירושה עומדת היא ואשמעינן האי קרא דלא בטלה קדושת הארץ בגלות טיטוס:
First inheritance: the inheritance was in the time of Joshua and likewise in the sanctity in the time of Ezra – when they were exiled the first time, the sanctity of the land was nullified.
They do not have a third: i.e., they do not have to go and inherit again, for the inheritance stands (from earlier). And this verse is teaching us that the sanctity of the land was not nullified in the exile byt Titus.
- רמב”ם משנה תורה הלכות בית הבחירה ו:יד-טז
כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשָׂה בְּכָל אֵלּוּ וְכַסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה אֵין קָדוֹשׁ גָּמוּר. וְזֶה שֶׁעָשָׂה עֶזְרָא שְׁתֵּי תּוֹדוֹת זִכָּרוֹן הוּא שֶׁעָשָׂה לֹא בְּמַעֲשָׂיו נִתְקַדֵּשׁ הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה שָׁם לֹא מֶלֶךְ וְלֹא אוּרִים וְתֻמִּים. וּבְמַה נִּתְקַדְּשָׁה בִּקְדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ שְׁלֹמֹה שֶׁהוּא קִדֵּשׁ הָעֲזָרָה וִירוּשָׁלַיִם לִשְׁעָתָן וְקִדְּשָׁן לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא:
Any place which was not [consecrated] with all the above [elements] and according to the above procedure is not thoroughly consecrated. Though Ezra offered two thanksgiving offerings [to dedicate the city,] he merely carried out a testimonial act. The Sanctuary was not consecrated through his deeds, for neither a King nor the Urim V’Tumim were present there.
[If so,] how was [the Second Temple] consecrated? With the first consecration performed by Solomon, for he consecrated the Temple Courtyard and Jerusalem, for that time and for eternity.
לְפִיכָךְ מַקְרִיבִין הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת כֻּלָּן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם בַּיִת בָּנוּי. וְאוֹכְלִין קָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בְּכָל הָעֲזָרָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא חֲרֵבָה וְאֵינָהּ מֻקֶּפֶת בִּמְחִצָּה וְאוֹכְלִין קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בְּכָל יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין שָׁם חוֹמוֹת שֶׁהַקְּדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קָדְשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא:
Therefore, we may offer all the sacrifices [on the Temple site], even though the Temple itself is not built. Similarly, sacrifices of the most holy order can be eaten in the entire [area of the] Courtyard, even though it is in ruin and not surrounded by a divider.
We may also eat sacrifices of lesser sanctity and Ma’aser Sheni throughout Jerusalem, even though [it is not surrounded by] a wall, for through its original consecration, it was consecrated for that time and for eternity.
וְלָמָּה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם קְדֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. וּבִקְדֻשַּׁת שְׁאָר אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעִנְיַן שְׁבִיעִית וּמַעַשְׂרוֹת וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לֹא קָדְשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. לְפִי שֶׁקְּדֻשַּׁת הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וִירוּשָׁלַיִם מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה וּשְׁכִינָה אֵינָהּ בְּטֵלָה. וַהֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כו לא) “וַהֲשִׁמּוֹתִי אֶת מִקְדְּשֵׁיכֶם” וְאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשּׁוֹמְמִין בִּקְדֻשָּׁתָן הֵן עוֹמְדִים אֲבָל חִיּוּב הָאָרֶץ בִּשְׁבִיעִית וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כִּבּוּשׁ רַבִּים וְכֵיוָן שֶׁנִּלְקְחָה הָאָרֶץ מִידֵיהֶם בָּטַל הַכִּבּוּשׁ וְנִפְטְרָה מִן הַתּוֹרָה מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וּמִשְּׁבִיעִית שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵינָהּ מִן אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁעָלָה עֶזְרָא וְקִדְּשָׁהּ לֹא קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּכִבּוּשׁ אֶלָּא בַּחֲזָקָה שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בָּהּ וּלְפִיכָךְ כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחְזִיקוּ בָּהּ עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל וְנִתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּקְדֻשַּׁת עֶזְרָא הַשְּׁנִיָּה הוּא מְקֻדָּשׁ הַיּוֹם וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּלְקַח הָאָרֶץ מִמֶּנּוּ וְחַיָּב בִּשְׁבִיעִית וּבְמַעַשְׂרוֹת עַל הַדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת תְּרוּמָה:
Why do I say that the original consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem for eternity, while in regard to the consecration of the remainder of Eretz Yisrael, in the context of the Sabbatical year, tithes, and other similar [agricultural] laws, [the original consecration] did not sanctify it for eternity?
Because the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem stems from the Shechinah, and the Shechinah can never be nullified. Therefore, [Leviticus 26:31] states: “I will lay waste to your Sanctuaries.” The Sages declared: “Even though they have been devastated, their sanctity remains.”
In contrast, the [original] obligation to keep the laws of the Sabbatical year and tithes on the Land stemmed from the fact that it was conquered by the [Jewish people, as a] community. Therefore, when the land was taken from their hands [by the Babylonians,] their [original] conquest was nullified. Thus, according to Torah law, the land was freed from the obligations of the Sabbatical year and of tithes because it was no longer Eretz Yisrael.
When Ezra returned [to Eretz Yisrael] and consecrated it, it was not sanctified by means of conquest, but rather through Chazzakah. Therefore, every place which was repossessed by the [exiles returning from] Babylon and consecrated when Ezra consecrated [the land] the second time, is sacred today.
Thus, as explained in Hilchot Terumah, it is necessary to keep the laws of the Sabbatical years and the tithes [on this land] even though it was taken from [the Jewish people in later years].
- אבן האזל על הרמב”ם R. Isser Zalman Meltzer, 18th-19th c. Minsk, Volozhin, Hadera
…דזה מוכח מדברי הרמב”ם דחזקה עדיף מכיבוש לענין זה דמה שזכו ישראל ע”י כיבוש מהני כיבוש להוציא מידם, אבל מה שזכו ישראל משל הפקר לא מהני כיבוש מלחמה להוציא מידי ישראל…
…for this is proven from the words of Maimonides, that possession is more effective than conquest for this purpose – for when the Jews acquired land through conquest, a subsequent conquest removed it from their hands; but when the Jews acquired land that was ownerless, subsequent conquest could not remove it from the hand of the Jews…
- פירוש יכין לעדויות ח:ו R. Yisrael Lifschitz, 18th-19th c. Dessau and Danzig, also known as Tiferet Yisrael
קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד לבא
וקיי”ל דקדושת א”י לענין מעשר ושביעית דוקא אותה הארץ שנתן להם כורש, והחזיקו בה עולי גולה, חייבת גם השתא במעשר מדאורייתא, דמדלא התנבא נביא בפירוש שיחזרו עכו”ם ויטלוה מהן, לא אתא כיבוש עכו”ם ומבטל חזקה דידן. אבל מה שכבשו עולי גולה אח”כ, פטור מדאורייתא ממעשרות, דאתא כיבוש עכו”ם ומבטל כיבוש ישראל:
And we maintain that the sanctity of the land of Israel for the purpose of tithing and sabbatical applies specifically to the land that Cyrus gave them and the returning exiles possessed – which is now always obligated Biblically in tithing: for because no prophet prophesied explicitly that the gentiles would come back and take it from them, the conquest by the gentiles did not undo their possession. But that which the Babylonian exiles conquered later is rabbinically exempt from tithing, because the subsequent conquest by gentiles nullified the Jewish conquest thereof.
- Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, “Expiation, Suffering and Redemption,” in On Repentance , adapted and edited by Phinchas H. Peli (Maggid Modern Classics), 219
When Maimonides speaks of the “possession with which the returnees from Babylon possessed the land,” where did this occur? Not in the peripheries but first of all right in the center, in Jerusalem…
How was the land sanctified in the days of Ezra? By the right of possession? Possession in itself does not bring any sanctification! When the Holy Temple, the chosen dwelling place for the Shekhinah, was built, it bestowed sanctity on the whole Land of Israel. This time the sanctification did not gravitate inward from the circumference, from the outer peripheries toward the center. Quite the contrary, the sanctity was established first in the center itself and from there it spread outward, like a fountain gushing forth, overflowing into the Jerusalem environs and, from thence, to the rest of the Land of Israel, until all of it was completely sanctified.
That which sanctified the Land of Israel in Ezra’s day was the Temple, the dwelling place of the Shekhinah. This is why Maimonides ruled that the sanctification of the Land by Ezra was in the same category as that of the Temple, whose sanctification by Solomon was not terminated because the Shekhinah cannot be withdrawn.
- רמב”ם הלכות תרומות א:כו
הַתְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל וַאֲפִלּוּ בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא אֵינָהּ מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ תְּרוּמָה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבַד וּבִזְמַן שֶׁכָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כה ב) “כִּי תָבֹאוּ” בִּיאַת כֻּלְּכֶם כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בִּירֻשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה וּכְמוֹ שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לַחֲזֹר בִּירֻשָּׁה שְׁלִישִׁית. לֹא כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בִּירֻשָּׁה שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּימֵי עֶזְרָא שֶׁהָיְתָה בִּיאַת מִקְצָתָן וּלְפִיכָךְ לֹא חִיְּבָה אוֹתָן מִן הַתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהוּא הַדִּין בְּמַעַשְׂרוֹת שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם כִּתְרוּמָה:
In the present era, even in the areas settled by the Jews who ascended from Babylonia, even those [settled] in the era of Ezra, [the obligation to separate] terumah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment, merely that of a Rabbinic decree. [The rationale is that] the Scriptural [commandment to separate] terumah applies only in Eretz Yisrael and only when the entire Jewish people are located there. [This is derived from the phrase] “When you enter….” [Implied is that] the entire [Jewish people] must enter [the land], as they did when they took possession of the land originally and as will happen in the future when they take possession of the land a third time. In contrast, the second time [the people] took possession of the land, in the time of Ezra, only a portion entered. Hence, they were not obligated according to Scriptural Law. Similarly, it appears to me that the same concept applies with regard to the tithes. In the present era, this obligation [as well] has the status of a Rabbinic decree like terumah.
- R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, The Emergence of Ethical Man (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 2005), 150.
With all my respect for the Rishonim, I must disagree with such an opinion. I do not believe that it is halakhically cogent. Kedushah, under a halakhic aspect, is man-made; more accurately, it is a historical category. A soil is sanctified by historical deeds performed by a sacred people, never by any primordial superiority. The halakhic term kedushat ha-aretz, the sanctity of the land, denotes the consequence of a human act, either conquest (heroic deeds) or the mere presence of the people in that land (intimacy of man and nature). Kedushah is identical with man’s association with Mother Earth. Nothing should be attributed a priori to dead matter. Objective kedushah smacks of fetishism.
