New York (VINNEWS/Rabbi Yair Hoffman)

Join our WhatsApp group

Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email

Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman ignited a political firestorm this week when he proposed, on the Besheva podcast, that Jordan assume security and administrative responsibility for Areas A and B of Yehuda and Shomron. Lieberman said the Palestinian Authority had “gone bankrupt” and that “you cannot have a vacuum.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu demanded an immediate retraction. Finance Minister Smotrich warned of a return to the days of the Jordanian Legion, and Minister Amichai Chikli called the idea “a delusion from the land of delusions.”

Most of the criticism has focused on security and politics. There is, however, a halachic question that deserves attention: would such a proposal run afoul of the Torah prohibition of Lo Sechanem?

The Source of the Prohibition

When the Torah instructs the Jewish people about entering Eretz Yisroel and conquering the seven nations, it says: “U’nesanam Hashem Elokecha lefanecha v’hikisam, hacharem tacharim osam, lo sichros lahem bris v’lo sechanem” (Devarim 7:2). The final words, lo sechanem, literally mean “you shall not grant them favor or grace.” What does this mean practically?

The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 20a) derives three separate halachos from the word sechanem, but we will focus only on the first:

1. Lo titen lahem chanayah bakarka: do not give them a dwelling place in the land.

The Rambam codifies these prohibitions (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 10:3-4), and the Sefer HaChinuch counts it as Mitzvah 426. The Chochmas Adam (Hilchos Avodah Zarah) summarizes the purpose of all three: so that we do not draw close to them and learn from their deeds.

The prohibition is not merely about property transactions. It is about the Jewish people’s relationship to Eretz Yisroel and to those who would share it with them.

To Whom Does the Prohibition Apply?

The verse refers to the seven nations who inhabited Eretz Yisroel. One could argue that the halacha applies only to them, and the Torah Temimah (Devarim 7:2) does take this view (cf. Tzitz Eliezer 15:47). The Rishonim, however, assume that the prohibition reaches further.

The Majority View. Most Rishonim hold that the prohibition applies to all non-Jews. The one exception is a Ger Toshav, a “resident alien” who has formally accepted the seven Noahide laws, generally understood to mean acceptance before a Beis Din (see Avodah Zarah 64b-65a).

The View of the Meiri. The Meiri holds that the prohibition applies specifically to idolaters. According to him, there would be no prohibition regarding other non-Jews.

The Halachic Ruling. The Shulchan Aruch (see Beis Yosef, Choshen Mishpat 249) and the vast majority of Poskim (see Shach, Yoreh De’ah 151:18) follow the first opinion. They extend the prohibition to all non-Jews, “even Yishmaelim.” Some contemporary Poskim rule like the Meiri, but this is firmly a minority position. Moreover, even those who follow the Meiri do not appear to apply his leniency to selling land in Eretz Yisroel, which remains prohibited.

The Question of Yishmaelim

The status of Yishmaelim is directly relevant here, since Jordan is a Muslim kingdom. The Rambam famously held that Muslims are not idolaters. On this basis, some Acharonim concluded that Lo Sechanem does not apply to them.

The Heter Mechira Debate. The issue came to a head in the debate over the heter mechira, the sale of land in Eretz Yisroel to a non-Jew during Shmittah. Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, zt”l, relied in part on the view that selling to Yishmaelim, who are not idolaters, does not violate Lo Sechanem (Mishpat Kohen 63).

The Chazon Ish’s Rejection. The Chazon Ish, zt”l, rejected this position forcefully. He ruled that selling land in Eretz Yisroel to a non-Jew violates a Torah-level negative commandment of Lo Sechanem (Chazon Ish, Shvi’is 24). This applies even when the sale is conducted by the Chief Rabbinate acting as agent for the farmers.

The Minchas Yitzchak. A related application appears in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 80b; Gittin 8b). One who buys a house in Eretz Yisroel from a non-Jew may even have a non-Jew write the deed on Shabbos, so that the land comes into Jewish hands. The Minchas Yitzchak is cited as ruling, as a significant chiddush, that this leniency does not apply when buying from Yishmaelim, since in his view Lo Sechanem does not apply to them.

Where the Halacha Stands. The mainstream halacha, as codified by the Shulchan Aruch and the Shach, does not accept this distinction. The prohibition extends “even to Yishmaelim.”

Who Is an Idolater?

Even according to the Meiri, the parameters of “idolater” are not clear-cut. The Rema (Orach Chaim 156) famously writes that non-Jews are not prohibited in shituf, a partnership of a deity with other powers. This is not quite polytheism, but it is not the Jewish definition of monotheism either. It is unclear whether the Rema refers only to swearing in such a name or to actual worship (see Pischei Teshuva, Yoreh De’ah 147:2). Many Acharonim disagree with the Rema and hold that anyone who believes in more than one deity in any form has the halachic status of an idolater (Pischei Teshuva ibid.). A well-regarded contemporary posek has noted that the majority of Acharonim do not accept the Rema’s position, and it is not the halacha.

In short, it is a stretch not to apply Lo Sechanem to all non-Jews. This is certainly true according to the Shulchan Aruch, and arguably even according to the minority opinion of the Meiri.

Do Not Give Them a Dwelling Place in the Land

The first of the three halachos bears most directly on Lieberman’s proposal. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 151:8) rules:

In Eretz Yisroel. Houses and fields may not be sold to non-Jews. Houses may be rented to them, but fields may not. Renting a field is forbidden because the field will no longer be tithed.

In Surya. Houses may be sold and fields may be rented.

Outside Eretz Yisroel. Both houses and fields may be sold.

The Rambam (Hilchos Avodah Zarah 10:4) explains why a sale is prohibited while a rental of a house is not. The prohibition of chanayah concerns a permanent foothold in the land. A sale grants permanence, while a rental does not.

Is the Prohibition on the Person or on the Land?

An important analytical question is raised regarding the nature of this prohibition. Is it an issur gavra, a prohibition on the Jew not to perform the act of giving? Or is it an issur cheftza, a prohibition concerning the land itself, meaning that land in Eretz Yisroel should not end up in non-Jewish hands?

The practical difference is significant. If the prohibition is only on the act of the Jew, then an arrangement in which no Jew directly transfers anything might escape it. If the prohibition concerns the land itself, then any arrangement that results in non-Jewish control of Eretz Yisroel would be problematic, regardless of the mechanism used.

This question goes to the heart of the Lieberman proposal. His plan does not involve an individual Jew selling a house. It is a political arrangement that would place territory under the authority of a foreign kingdom. The more the prohibition is understood as concerning the land itself, the more squarely the proposal falls within it.

A Ruling of Rav Chaim Kanievsky

Maran HaGaon Rav Chaim Kanievsky, zt”l, was asked a question about a Jew living in Ramla among Arabs. For years he had lived with them in peace. When riots broke out, stones were thrown at his home, and he felt compelled to sell. He had two offers: a Jew who would pay less, and an Arab who would pay considerably more. Could he sell to the Arab?

Rav Chaim’s answer was unequivocal. This is a Torah prohibition of Lo Sechanem, and there is no heter. He must sell to the Jew.

The implication is striking. An individual under real duress, facing genuine financial loss, still may not grant a non-Jew a foothold in a single house in Eretz Yisroel. It is difficult to see how a proposal to grant a foreign state authority over entire regions could be treated more leniently.

Where the Prohibition Does Not Apply

The Poskim identify several situations in which the concerns of Lo Sechanem are set aside. Each should be examined to see whether it could justify Lieberman’s proposal.

A Gift for One’s Own Benefit. Rav Elyakim Dvorkes discusses whether Lo Sechanem applies when a gift is given for the giver’s own benefit. The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 65a) permits a gift to a non-Jewish acquaintance who will reciprocate, since this is more like a sale than a free gift. Along similar lines, the Poskim permit showing gratitude to a non-Jew who has done a favor (see Igros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah 2:117). If Israel received a genuine security benefit in return, the prohibition of matnas chinam might not apply. The prohibition of chanayah bakarka, however, is not lifted by payment. As the Ramla case shows, a sale of land is forbidden even at full price, and even at a premium.

The Pikuach Nefesh Question

Any discussion of relinquishing control in Eretz Yisroel must address pikuach nefesh.

The View of Rav Ovadia Yosef. Rav Ovadia Yosef, zt”l, ruled that territory in Eretz Yisroel may be relinquished if doing so will genuinely save Jewish lives, since pikuach nefesh overrides nearly all mitzvos (see Techumin vol. 10). Rav Ovadia made this conditional, however: the determination must rest on the assessment of military and security experts that the step will in fact prevent bloodshed.

The Opposing View. Others argued that surrendering territory itself endangers Jewish lives. They pointed to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 329:6), which rules that when non-Jews besiege a Jewish border town, Jews must take up arms even on Shabbos, even if the attackers ostensibly want only straw. The reason is that a breach on the border endangers the entire land.

Both views therefore turn on a factual question: would the step save lives or endanger them? On that question, the reactions to Lieberman’s proposal are telling. Senior government ministers warned that introducing Jordanian forces into Yehuda and Shomron would be dangerous. They cited the Kingdom’s large Palestinian population, its internal weakness, and the possibility of an Islamist regime eventually coming to power in Amman. Unless there were a clear consensus of security experts that the arrangement would save lives, even Rav Ovadia’s heter would not seem to apply.

A Historical Irony

Jordan held Yehuda and Shomron from 1948 until 1967 and annexed the territory in 1950, although few countries recognized the annexation. On July 31, 1988, King Hussein formally severed Jordan’s legal and administrative ties to the region. Lieberman’s proposal would ask Jordan to reverse its own decision of nearly four decades ago, and to return to territory that Jews came back to in the miraculous victory of the Six-Day War.

Conclusion

According to the Shulchan Aruch, the Shach, and the majority of Poskim, Lo Sechanem applies to all non-Jews, including Yishmaelim. The Chazon Ish ruled that granting land in Eretz Yisroel to a non-Jew is a Torah-level prohibition. Rav Chaim Kanievsky ruled that even a Jew facing violence and financial loss may not sell a single home to an Arab.

Granting a foreign Muslim state administrative and military control over parts of Eretz Yisroel therefore raises serious halachic concerns. This is especially so if the prohibition is understood as concerning the land itself rather than merely the act of an individual. The recognized exceptions do not appear to fit this case: reciprocity does not permit transferring land, and it is hard to call such a move a Kiddush Hashem. The pikuach nefesh argument depends on a security consensus that, at present, does not appear to exist.

As with all matters of such magnitude, the final word belongs to the Gedolei HaPoskim.

The author can be reached at [email protected]