The Hebrew word “Huqqat [חקת], after which our Parasha is named, means “decree.” Indeed, the Parasha opens with, “And HaShem spoke to Moshe and to Aharon, saying, “This is the decree of the Torah [חקת התורה] which HaShem has commanded. . . .” Bamidbar 19:1-2.
The Torah is not here speaking about just any decree, but rather, is speaking about a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה]. The quintessential example of a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה] is the Red Cow [פרה אדמה], which the Torah discusses immediately after introducing the concept of a “decree from the Torah” [חקת התורה].
The nature of the Red Cow [פרה אדמה] is puzzling, because it purifies those who, through contact with a corpse, became impure, while simultaneously rendering impure those who prepared its ashes. From this, the Sages derive that the meaning of a “decree from the Torah” [חקת התורה] is a decree that is beyond the ability of humans to logically understand.
We often believe that we understand certain decrees from the Torah, because some decrees seem logical to us. However, an extremely important point to remember is that, as religious Jews, we do not do as the Torah commands, or refrain from doing that which the Torah forbids, simply because the Torah make logical sense to us. Rather, we obey Torah commands, first and foremost because that is what HaShem has commanded us to do.
Recall that when the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Har Sinai, we responded, “We will do and then we will hear (understand) [נעשה ונשמע],” Shemot 24:7, meaning that we will first obey the commandments of the Torah and then we will study the Torah to gain an understanding of those commandments.
Do the decrees [חוקים] of the Torah regarding Eretz Yisra’el have anything in common with the decree [חוק] concerning the Red Cow? If so, what can we learn from Parashat Huqqat, about the concept of a “Two-State Solution,” or “Land for Peace,” both of which appear to make logical sense to a large number of Jews and Gentiles alike?
First, we need to understand and accept that the Torah is not merely a collection of nice stories. The word “Torah” [תורה], literally translated, means “to instruct.” As we learn from the Midrash, “The deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children.” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9. What the Midrash is trying to teach is that we should learn from the events that are described in the Tanakh and apply those lessons to our lives.
The term “Two-State Solution,” simply put, means that Medinat Yisra’el (the State of Israel) would allow Arabs who currently reside in Medinat Yisra’el to establish their own sovereign state on Jewish land. Why might Medinat Yisra’el agree to such a proposal? In a word, “peace,” or in a phrase, “Land for Peace.”
Israeli-Arabs, however, are not interested is a sovereign state carved out of, and located next to, the Jewish state of Medinat Yisra’el. Rather, they desire the entirety of the lands controlled by Medinat Yisra’el. Consider the statement of an Arab-Israeli teacher on the subject of using Medinat Yisra’el’s democratic political system against the Jewish state in order to transform it into another, of many, Arab state:
Today, I am in the minority. The state is democratic. Who says that in the year 2000 we Arabs will still be the minority. Today I accept the fact that this is a Jewish state with an Arab minority. But when we are the majority, I will not accept the fact of a Jewish state with an Arab majority.
Na’ama Saud, a teacher from the Israeli Arab village of Araba; May 28, 1976.
Fast-forward almost a half century. A Deputy Israeli Religious Affairs Minister publicly mused that, if it were possible, he “would send all of the [Israeli-]Arabs . . . to Switzerland where they could live wonderful lives.” Deputy Minister Matan Kahana, June 14, 2022. The deputy minister then dismissed the idea, stating “I guess they [Arab-Israelis] are meant to live on this land, in some way or another.”
Deputy Minister Kahana’s desire to expel Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el is, however, much more than just a pie-in-the-sky wish. It’s actually a “decree of the Torah” [חקת התורה] – no different than the Red Cow [פרה אדמה].
Both the Torah and Halakha require that all Gentiles who claim a right to Eretz Yisra’el which is superior to that of the Jewish people must be expelled from the Land.
Beware of what I command you today. Behold, I drive out before you the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivvite, and the Jebusite. Be vigilant lest you seal a covenant with the inhabitant[s] of the land to which you are to come, lest it be a snare among you.
Regarding non-Jews who live in Eretz Yisra’el, the Halakha – Jewish law – recognizes two classes of people: those who claim an ownership or similar interest in Eretz Yisra’el and those who do not claim any such interest. Regarding the former, the Torah is not merely referring to ancient civilizations who just happened to be occupying Eretz Yisra’el prior to the arrival of the Jewish people; rather, the Torah is referring to any people – for all time – who claim a legal right to Eretz Yisra’el.
According to the Or HaChaim:
“You are to drive out all of the inhabitants of the land. . . .” Even though the Torah says in Debarim 20:16 that “you must not allow a single soul [of the Canaanite nations to remain in Eretz Yisra’el], . . . the Torah does not speak of [only] the seven Canaanite nations[,] but [also] about others who lived among them. This is the reason the Torah chose its words carefully, i.e., “all the ones who dwell in the land,” that the Israelites were to drive out even those people who lived there who were not members of the seven [Canaanite] nations.
Or HaChaim, commentary to Bamidbar 33:52.
Likewise, Abarbanel said:
Shemot 34:11-12 inform us that since HaShem is driving out the [Canaanite] nations, it would be improper for Yisra’el to forge a covenant with them. If a nobleman helps someone by fighting that person’s battles and banishing that person’s enemies, it would be immoral for that person to make peace with [those enemies] without [first obtaining the] nobleman’s permission. So, too, with HaShem driving out Yisra’el’s enemies, it is immoral for Yisra’el to enter into a treaty with them, for that would profane HaShem’s Glory. This is especially true considering that the treaty will not succeed. Because Yisra’el dispossessed them of what they believe to have been their land, there is no doubt that they will constantly seek to defeat and destroy Yisra’el. This is why it said, “[the Land] to which you are coming.” Since Yisra’el came to that Land and took it from its inhabitants, and because they feel that the Land has been stolen from them, how will they make a covenant of friendship with you? Rather the opposite will occur: “they will be a snare among you.” When war strikes you, they will join your enemies and fight you.
Abarbanel, Commentary on Shemot 34:11-12.
Ibrahim Sarsur, who is an Arab former member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) of the supposedly Jewish state of Israel, a former leader of the Islamic Movement’s Southern Branch and, a member of the Shura Council, responded to Deputy Minister Kahana, stating:
Matan Kahana’s pitiful words, in addition to being fascist and disgusting, prove two important things: One, there is still a very high percentage of Zionists who believe that ethnic cleansing is the solution to the Jewish problem. Two, his recognition of the fact that the Palestinian nation is a fact, and that it will continue to exist in its homeland forever.
Ibrahim Sarsur, June 15, 2022.
Sarsur has also been quoted as being supportive of “redeeming” Jerusalem and creating a “Palestinian” state in preparation for the creation of an Islamic caliphate in all of “Palestine” and beyond. Id.
Not only did Deputy Minister Kahana, albeit likely inadvertently, reject the Torah’s command to expel the Arabs from Medinat Yisra’el, he also provided Sarsur and his ilk with an opening to claim that, contrary to Tanakh, HaShem did not give Eretz Yisra’el to the Jewish people as an eternal inheritance.
Also noteworthy is the hypocrisy which is displayed by Saesur when he accuses Kahana of being “fascist and disgusting” and of supporting “ethnic cleansing” for wanting to expel Arabs from Eretz Yisra’el, and then, practically in the next breath, stating that he supports the creation of a Palestinian state, in preparation for the creation of an Islamic caliphate in all of “Palestine” and beyond.
As an aside, expelling Arabs from Eretz Yisra’el would be neither “fascist,” or “disgusting,” nor would it constitute “ethnic cleansing.” That topic, however, is a discussion for another day.
Returning to the subject of the Two-State “Solution,” since we know that “[t]he deeds of the forefathers are signs for the children,” Tanchuma, Lekh-Lekha 9, and because we know we are supposed to learn from Jewish history as recorded in Tanakh, it would be appropriate for us to see if there is any precedent in Tanakh where a nation that was defeated by Yisra’el sought to reacquire land through a Two-State “Solution.”
After receiving the Torah at Har Sinai, the Jewish People, who had become the Nation of Israel – the Biblical form of the modern-day Medinat Yisra’el – set off on their journey to Eretz Yisra’el, the land that the HaShem had promised them. In order to arrive at their destination, Biblical Medinat Yisra’el needed to pass through several kingdoms (countries). The most direct route was through the Kingdom of Edom.
Toward the end of Parasha Huqqat, we learn that the King of Edom denied a request by Biblical Medinat Yisra’el to peaceably pass through his country. Although disappointed, Biblical Medinat Yisra’el accepted Edom’s refusal to grant their request for passage and looked for an alternative route.
An alternative route was found through the Kingdoms of Ammon and Bashan. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el asked the King of Ammon for permission to peaceably pass through his country. The King of Ammon, like the King of Edom, denied Biblical Medinat Yisra’el’s request for passage. But unlike the King of Edom, the King of Ammon used his military forces to attack Biblical Medinat Yisra’el. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el defended by going on the offensive and, in so doing, conquered the territory, including the cities and towns, which then constituted the Kingdom of Ammon.
The King of Bashan also attacked Biblical Medinat Yisra’el and was likewise defeated.
After the war, the former lands of Ammon and Bashan became part of Biblical Medinat Eretz Yisra’el. There was no immediate request that, in exchange for “peace,” Biblical Medinat Yisra’el would return to Ammon and to Bashan the land which Biblical Medinat Yisra’el had captured during the war.
However, some 300 years later, Ammon proposed “Land for Peace,” stating that it would once again wage war against Biblical Medinat Yisra’el if Biblical Medinat Yisra’el did not “return” to Ammon the land which Biblical Medinat Yisra’el had captured in battle. Shoftim 11:13, 23-24. Biblical Medinat Yisra’el refused; Ammon attacked Biblical Medinat Yisra’el and was once again defeated in battle.
Thus, we see that Tanakh rejects the idea of “Land for Peace.” Exercising full and complete sovereignty over the entirety of Eretz Yisra’el, including over lands which Medinat Yisra’el has captured in wars which were waged to secure Eretz Yisra’el, is nothing more than the logical extension of a full and complete rejection of the idea of “Land for Peace.”
It is no coincidence that the decree [חקת] of the Red Cow [פרה אדמה] is discussed at the beginning of Parasha Huqqat and that the foundation is laid toward the end of Parasha Huqqat for Yisra’el’s rejection of the Two-State Solution and the concept of “Land for Peace.”
Although some may contend that there is no obvious, logical reason or purpose for rejecting offers of “Land for Peace,” Tanakh clearly teaches otherwise.
May all of Yisra’el, and especially the political leaders of Medinat Yisra’el, have the strength, wisdom, and good judgment to truly trust HaShem and His Torah, and to apply Jewish sovereignty to, and expel Arabs from, the entirety of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and any other lands with which HaShem may bless the Jewish people.