If you have any clear sources for whether it is forbidden or permitted to give away the land of Israel or if you would just like to comment on the subject you can do it here.

Rav Shach in Mamurim Paskins that it's permitted. Pikuach Nefesh (to save lives) pushes off all Mitzvos (except the big 3.) wether or not that this policy would save lives and cause peace, or would cause more harm than good, is a different discussion. (of course if it would cause more harm than good it would be prohibitted to do it.)

land for peace is not the issue.It would be naive for us to think land will be the price for peace. lets not kid ourselves.In the eyes of the arabs this is just a down payment.

Shalom and welcome to the Golbal Yeshiva! The title of this post is not land for peace it is land and peace and that is why we want to discuss it.

I agree with you Joe, and this is the reason why Rav Elyashiv ruling to the religous parties not to vote on giving back the land, as not to controdict the ruling of Rav shach, is that Rav Shach was saying (many years ago) in terms of thereticaly Halachacly giving back the land. Rav Elyashiv's ruling that practicly, it will not work. I think one thing that we must keep in mind before dealing with arabs, that all cultures are not the same. that just because our culture is to be fair and to live by the rules. Other cultures it may be more cut throut than that, and the ends justify the means, especially when the justified ends might not sound to justified to us either.

my Rav said somthing very interesting, which in truth is i agree that if we are to give away the settlement to the Palestine in should be done in such a way to enhane peace. now how can this be. by given the land to them however only on the condition that those who are Israeli have evey right to be Palestiny citizen there so they may live there. in the hopes that it would turn out to be like Haifa.
for it is permited for the sake of peace. however is it really premitted if it merely doesn't change anything or cause more war. thus if both Israeli and Palestiny are living togather in Palestine state i believe should be the only condition it should be permitted (for the sake of saving lives).

The following speaks on this issue http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=82019:

The Torah rules: Giving up territory will make you more vulnerable to attack. To give up territory in return for a promise of "peace" is not just a reckless gamble of your and your people's lives -- it's a gamble that you're sure to loose. Do not yield territory that makes you more vulnerable to attack, even if you must go to war to prevent that. It's a matter of pikuach nefesh -- preventing the loss of life. War is a dangerous thing, but one must go to war to save lives.

More halakhic perspectives are discussed at http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=72559

The Rashbam asks: Why is the story of the pact between Avraham and Avimelech adjacent to the story of "Akeidat Yitzchak" which follows immediately thereafter, and opens with the words, "And it came to pass after these things..." - words that the sages tell us come to express a real connection between these two events?

The Rashbam gives the following answer: "After the pact that Avraham made with Avimelech, (a pact) with Avraham's grandchildren and greatgrandchildren, he gave him seven lambs. And the Almighty became enraged by this, for behold, the land of the Philistines had been given toAvraham ... and the Almighty commanded them, 'thou shalt not allow a soul to live'. Therefore, 'Hashem tested Avraham' - to teach him a lesson... That is, you were proud of the son I gave you, and made a pact between your sons and their sons (of the Philistines)? - go now and offer him as a sacrifice, and find out how useful your pacts are!"

In other words, the Rashbam explains that this pact, including the veryimpressive ceremony of the seven lambs, was a sin. And why? Because thecontent of the pact was, "now therefore swear to me here by G-d that youwill not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son". In other words, this was a "not to attack" pact between the offspring of Avraham and the offspring of Avimelech. And what does an agreement "not to attack" mean here? It means that the offspring of Avraham will not be able to attack and conquer the land of the Philistines, which is a part of the land of Israel. By making such a commitment, Avraham is relinquishing a part of Eretz Yisrael! (according to Trachtate Sota, (9-10), only after the Philistines broke the original treaty, Israel was able to fight them and take their land from them.)

Let us understand what the Rashbam is saying here. After all, the JewishPeople had not yet even come into the world, and so obviously, the Land of Israel was not in their hands. And what did Avraham do? In order to avoid conflict with the notoriously unpredictable Avimelech, Avraham made an agreement with him. What is the big deal! Yet, Avraham is chastised nonetheless: You should have taken into account that such an agreement would tie the hands of your children, preventing them from conquering the land the G-d promised to your seed in the future!

It's possible that the problem with Avraham was because he has been promised thus he should have trusted in Hashem. In the 5th Perek of Gittin we seee the opposite by R' Yochenen Ben Zacai, that said to make a treaty with the Romans, since he saw that heaven wasn't on his side, The Biryonim wanted to fight and R"Y argued that they couldn't win, and they didn't, and hence caused the Churbon Habayis. So we see that it's not always the general rule not to make treaties. It all depends on the time and place.

with all due respect rav chayim
that gemara with yerushalayim teaches us many things but is not qouted l'halacha!
the shulchan aruch only brings the story of naharda'a qhich has a very different conclusion.
in order to minimize contradiction one must say the gemara w/ R' yochanam applies in a situation where we almost lost a war, teaching us the massada option isnt the correct one but rather the one r' yochanan did when requestiong yavne and the rabonnim in yerushalayim did in 5708(1948)
It would be very difficult to solve it by arguing that the halocho of "habo lehorgecho haskem lehorgo" (prepare to kill earlier, one who is seeking to kill you) would apply to a lesser degree in the land of israel, even acc. to the satmar rov (in vayoel moshe & divrei yoel) who maintains the oath about rebelling against the nations is still applicable after the holocaust and the 1947-8 UN votes.

PS are these posts too much 'yeshiva' style?
can you recomment what I would cut out of my posts to make it more "beginner friendly"?
(in real life when speaking publicly or teaching, it is much easier to edit to fit the student's level since I know exactly who my audience is there)

With all due respect, I don’t think the Gemarah (Eiruvin 45a or O.C. 329) has anything to do with our Sheila. There are plenty of variables that are quite different in the situations. There is an external enemy; here is an internal enemy. There would brake the security system, here it wouldn’t etc. I would even wonder if it would apply in these days, since all the rules of warfare changed over the last century (which was the downfall of France in the World Wars), besides the change in urban living. The Shulchen Orach is not giving a P’sak on how to do security measures in all situations, it just saying that if such a procedure is needed, you can be M’challel Shabbos on it. If it doesn’t make sense to make such a procedure, then doing so is not going against S.A. as much as a doctor who does a different procedure on a patient then said in S.A. is not a murderer. SO this is why R’ Yochenen B”Z is not a Stirah, since every situation with all variables must be taken into account before determining what is the best security policy.


With all due respect, I don’t think the Gemarah (Eiruvin 45a or O.C. 329) has anything to do with our Sheila. There are plenty of variables that are quite different in the situations. There is an external enemy; here is an internal enemy. There would brake the security system, here it wouldn’t etc. I would even wonder if it would apply in these days, since all the rules of warfare changed over the last century (which was the downfall of France in the World Wars), besides the change in urban living. The Shulchen Orach is not giving a P’sak on how to do security measures in all situations, it just saying that if such a procedure is needed, you can be M’challel Shabbos on it. If it doesn’t make sense to make such a procedure, then doing so is not going against S.A. as much as a doctor who does a different procedure on a patient then said in S.A. is not a murderer. SO this is why R’ Yochenen B”Z is not a Stirah, since every situation with all variables must be taken into account before determining what is the best security policy.

Sorry to bring up an old topic.
I found this shiur given by Rabbi Meir Kahane zt"l at YU in 1989 about land for peace:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3518296759593973459

The reason the we even turn to the idea of land for peace is because of a lack of faith in Hashem. Hashem has given us power and has given us results in war.
It is not suprising that anti religous secular leaders offer such solutions.

The only halachic permisson to give land is "Pikuach Nefesh". (And even on this some argued that pikuac nefesh would not apply to the entire nation giving land. But I don't think it is even worth arguing this issue as it is not relavent and is only theoretical.)


Hashem has shown us very clearly that every time we give land or give in in any other way to the terrorists we und up getting hit hard and loose lives. And every time we stood up and faught with courage for the land we improved our situation.
So pikuch nefes is a lousy excuse to promote the agenda of secular liberal non believers. They don't recognize Hashem's power and do not atribute our victories to Hashem's help.

Even Rav Ovadia Yosef who supported the Oslo Accords for reasons of Pikuach Nefesh understands very well that it was a mistake and did not support similar solutins offered later.

(Perhaps it could be argued that at the time of the Oslo Accords some thaught it would be pikuach nefesh despite the fact that the Lubavitch Rebbe , Rav Kahana and many more, including military experts said otherwise, but today there can't be any machloket on this)

It is true that we are permitted and even obliged to break jewish law in any case that there is a safek of pikuach nefesh. But we can't use pikuch nefesh as an excuse, especially when many experts as well as Gdolim actually think it is pikuch nefesh not to give land.

quote:

Even Rav Ovadia Yosef who supported the Oslo Accords for reasons of Pikuach Nefesh understands very well that it was a mistake and did not support similar solutins offered later.

I am bothered by this. Rav Ovadia did not say that it was a mistake.

I am afraid things are not so clear as you suggest. Only very recently, Rav Elyashiv approved the disengagement (despite what was claimed here by Rav Chaim about Rav Elyashiv). Rav Ovadia did not, but I am not convinced that this was for principled reasons.

If a new plan comes up, e.g. Olmert will go ahead with the Saudi plan, I fear that Rav Ovadia will approve. I very much hope that I am wrong.

I would like to suggest an answer to the question of the post (and some of the issues raised in response).

I agree with Rav Chaim that Halachot like O"C 329 do not decide this issue. Clearly the idea there is that things depend on circumstances. Also, the very often cited Minchat Chinuch on the Mitvot regarding killing seven nations and Amalek is not conclusive in itself(the Minchat Chinuch rules that these Mitzvot are not pushed aside by Pikuach Nefesh). The case is not the same as Land and Peace, and besides the Chinuch rules differently.

It is quite obvious that our issue is related to the issue of bringing Moshiach. What can we do and what not? After the Churban and the defeat of Bar Kochba, the sages ruled that great care should be taken. The three oaths of Ketubot 111a are a reflection of this. We see that in the Talmud Bavli the issue of Bar Kochba was in effect covered up. This led to a status quo of centuries.

But around the year 5,000 we a turn-around. We see a revival of the wish to return to the Land. We see that Yehudah HaLevi denies the relevance of the three oaths and argues for a massive Aliya to prepare/bring the redemption. We see that the Rambam bases his psakim regarding Moshiach on the example of davka Bar Kochba. And so forth, until the Gra who sent his talmidim to the Land to prepare/bring the redemption, and the talmidim of the Besht and many more doing the same.

Clearly many endangered themselves!
Diseases, Arab murderers. There were some spiritual losses also. We had Shabtai Tzvi and similar cases.

There always was the other approach, the one of the oaths. Let us wait, wait for Moshiach. It naturally tends to get stronger when it becomes clear that the Land is acquired through yissurim, suffering.

What is the answer? Who is right? How can HaShem put us in such an awkward position? We have no prophets. How can we know what to do? Should we be Bar Kochba, or Yochanan ben Zakai? The GR"A or the Satmar Rebbe?

My answer is that obviously we should be Bar Kochba (not repeating his sins of course). This is what is behind what the Rambam writes. The psak to stay put was valid only for a limited time. It was Et La'asot L'Hashem. The holy principle is opposite. In the name of this principle, Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai should not have given up Yerushalayim, and our sages make this clear. There was a g'zera - he was forced. It does not change the holy principle.

We are not like Christianity. Christians also wait for their Moshiach, passively. Nothing in the daily life of the Christian can bring his Moshiach closer. For the Christian this is natural. Daily life is mundane. But we think different, opposite. For a Jew, everything he does is spiritual. Nothing is mundane. The physical is sanctified, through the Mitzvot. By moving to the Land we bring Moshiach closer. Is it hard, dangerous even? Yes, and this must be so. It is the price of what is acquired.

Lerm
Yishar Coach, very well written.

quote:

I am bothered by this. Rav Ovadia did not say that it was a mistake.

I am afraid things are not so clear as you suggest. Only very recently, Rav Elyashiv approved the disengagement (despite what was claimed here by Rav Chaim about Rav Elyashiv). Rav Ovadia did not, but I am not convinced that this was for principled reasons.

If a new plan comes up, e.g. Olmert will go ahead with the Saudi plan, I fear that Rav Ovadia will approve. I very much hope that I am wrong.

Rav Ovadia did not say he made a mistake but he also didn't approve later plans on the basis of pikuach nefesh.
I share your fear that Rav Ovaida may approve some new plan in the future.
But it will be hard to use Pikuach Nefesh as a reason now that it is should be clear to all the giving land in not in any pikuach nefesh.