From: Netvort@aol.com <netvort@aol.com>
<br>To: "joshhoff@aol.com" <joshhoff@aol.com>
<br>Cc: "jschacte@yu.edu" <jschacte@yu.edu>
<br>Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2013, 10:41:39 PM EDT
<br>Subject: Getting Settled: Netvort, Mattos-Masei 5773

 <p>

 

 

Getting Settled
<p>
By Rabbi Joshua (deceptively known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

 
<p>
            The Torah tells us that the tribes of Reuven and Gad had an abundance of cattle, and wished to settle on the eastern side of the Yarden, with its fertile grazing pastures, rather than on the western side, together with the rest of the Jewish people. Moshe at first criticized them, thinking that they wanted to avoid joining their brothers in the battle for Eretz Yisroel, but then told them that they could build dwelling places for their families and cattle on the eastern side, join the rest of the nation in their battle for Eretz Yisroel proper, and then return to their dwelling places on the eastern side. The two tribes agreed to the condition. In presenting this arrangement, Moshe told them that by fulfilling the condition they would be “guiltless before God and before Yisroel” (Bamidba, 32:22). This verse is the source for the prohibition of “maris ha-ayin,” doing anything which arouses suspicion that one is involved in committing a sin. Since this is a general prohibition that applies to many areas of Torah, we may ask why it is specifically mentioned in the context of the settling of Eretz Yisroel? A verse in parshas Masei may help us answer this question. 
<p>
            There is a prohibition of taking a ransom, or bribe, to exempt a deliberate murderer from the death penalty, or an inadvertent murderer from being exiled to a city of refuge. By refraining from taking such ransom, we are told we will not be “machnif” the land (Bamidbar 35:33). The usual translation of the term “chanifah” is flattery, or obsequiousness, but it is hard to understand how this term applies to the land. The Ramban shows from the sections of tochecha, or admonition, in the Torah, that “chanifah” applies to the land in the sense of unfaithfulness, not yielding its produce when the people similarly do not act properly. He then cites the Sifrei, which takes our verses as a general prohibition on acting deceptively, obsequiously, giving the appearance of thinking one way while actually having the opposite feeling. In fact, he says, the two explanations can be combined by saying that when the people act obsequiously the land responds by being unfaithful. Rav Mordechai Ilan, in his Mikdash Mordechai, says that just as one must not act deceptively with respect to people, on an individual or a collective level, so too we must not act in such a manner toward Eretz Yisroel. The land must not be treated in a utilitarian way, for one’s personal benefit, but only for the promotion of its sanctity, and the fulfillment of its mitzvos. In a sense, then, Eretz Yisroel must be approached with the same sensitivity that we have for a human being. With this understanding in mind, we can understand why the prohibition of “maris ha-ayin” is mentioned specifically in connection with Eretz Yisroel. 
<p>
            Rav Moshe Sternbuch, in his Ta’am VoDa’as, notes that the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shekalim, 3:2), in citing the verse which serves as the source for maris ha-ayin, says that just as one is obligated to vindicate himself before God, so too must he vindicate himself before man.  The phrase “just as,” says Rav Sternbuch, implies an equation between the two sides. He explains that just as God is aware, not only of our deeds, but also of our thoughts and intentions, and, so, we must be pure and honest in both areas, so too, must we be in relation to human beings. He goes on to carry this further, saying that this applies to our relationship with Eretz Yisroel, as well, which must be informed by pure intentions, to promote its sanctity. Eretz Yisroel, as we have seen in regard to the prohibition of “lo sachanifu es ha’aretz”, has its own personality, that responds to our actions and thoughts, and this, according to Rav Sternbuch, holds true in regard to “maris ha-ayin” as well. Perhaps, then, that is why this halacha is mentioned in the context of conquering Eretz Yisroel, especially in regard to the first conquest, which endowed it with its sanctity, and, therefore, needed to be accomplished with the purest of intentions.