“AND HIS LAND WILL ATONE FOR HIS PEOPLE”:
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BURIAL IN ERETZ YISRAEL
IN TALMUDIC THOUGHT
By Rav Naftali Balanson
The last three pages of Massekhet Ketuvot (110b-112b) are
devoted to a lengthy series of aggadetot, many speaking of the grandeur
and unsurpassable value of Eretz Yisrael. Strikingly, the first folio
(bottom of 110b-111a) presents a more complex, almost ambivalent
perspective on Eretz Yisrael, especially in relation to the other
contemporary focal point of Jewish life, Bavel.1 Presumably, this reflects
the tensions felt by many Babylonian Jews, residing in the vibrant
epicenter of religious life and Torah study but recognizing the inherent
metaphysical and mystical superiority of Eretz Yisrael. However, even
more surprising is the centrality of burial in Eretz Yisrael in this context;
in three separate discussions on 111a,2 the Gemara focuses on the
1
On the one hand, the Gemara is replete with praise for Eretz Yisrael and its
spiritual import: living in Eretz Yisrael identifies the individual with the Divine, living in
Eretz Yisrael leaves one without iniquity, walking four cubits in Eretz Yisrael guarantees
a place in the World to Come. On the other hand, within this context, a number of the
Amoraic statements are more concerned with Bavel and its spiritual loftiness, equating
Bavel with Eretz Yisrael: “Anyone who lives in Bavel is as if he lives in Eretz Yisrael.”
And most notable of all, Rav Yehuda’s (in)famous assertion, “Whoever goes up from
Bavel to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive commandment.”
2
There is also a fourth instance of this theme – “The upstanding (kesheirim) of
Bavel are gathered in by Eretz Yisrael; the righteous of all other lands are gathered in by
Bavel… [This is] regarding burial” – but it is more limited in terms of providing insight
into our topic. It is a statement of fact, without the meaningful reasons, proof-texts, and
elaborations that animate the other three appearances.
89
Alei Etzion vol. 15 (Elul 5767)
importance of burial in Eretz Yisrael, whereas there is only one direct
statement dedicated to the benefit of living in the Land.
In this regard, then, we may pose questions on two different
levels: the local textual plane and the thematic one. In the first case, we
concern ourselves with why the Gemara elects to herald burial as the
dominant feature of Eretz Yisrael, as opposed to other qualities of the
Land. Were the Sages of the Talmud obsessed with death? What is the
relationship between that which is done with a body post mortem and that
which will befall the soul in the afterlife and beyond? More directly: Is
Eretz Yisrael’s stake in the order of eternal reward and punishment more
instructive than the value of mitzvat yishuv Eretz Yisrael? More
controversially: Is it more palpable, more acceptable to a galuti audience?
Still, the question remains: why specifically burial? In the end, though,
this per se is a broader question of cultural-historical context, one that is
beyond the scope of any article-length work. Moreover, even as we
would learn much about Talmudic conceptions of death and afterlife, our
general and particular points of interest – Eretz Yisrael and burial therein,
respectively – will find themselves relegated to positions of relative
unimportance.
On the other hand, if we investigate the themes associated with
burial in Eretz Yisrael, we will accomplish more in terms of explicating
the text and elucidating its specific uniqueness. As we will see, the
Gemara’s three discussions of burial in Eretz Yisrael produce three
distinct reasons for and approaches to the topic at hand; and each of these
motifs cuts straight to the heart of the matter – the nature and significance
of burial in Eretz Yisrael. Furthermore, almost by definition, we will
learn about the uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael as well. To be sure, there is
an important limitation to this line of inquiry: we will be unable to
reconstruct attitudes toward Eretz Yisrael beyond what is implied by the
Talmudic statements about burial imply.
Hopefully, though, by
unpacking the themes of burial in Eretz Yisrael, we can place it within a
basic framework of Talmudic thought about Eretz Yisrael.
90
I. Kapara - Atonement
Rav Anan said, “Anyone buried in Eretz Yisrael is
considered as if he was buried beneath the altar; it is
written here, ‘An altar of earth (adama) you shall make for
me’ (Shemot 20:21), and it is written there, ‘And His land
(admato) will atone for His people’ (Devarim 32:43).”
The most halakhically salient3 aspect of the Gemara’s discussion
pertains to the notion that burial in Eretz Yisrael atones for one’s sins.
Rav Anan asserts that Eretz Yisrael possesses the cleansing quality of the
altar and the sacrifices brought upon it. To a large extent, Rav Anan’s
postulation is merely a continuation and adaptation of the immediately
proceeding line of the Gemara, “Rabbi Elazar said, ‘Anyone who resides
in Eretz Yisrael dwells without iniquity.’” Assuming this conceptual
association with Rabbi Elazar’s comment, we may turn to his statement
in order to clarify the meaning of Rav Anan’s.
On the surface, the idea that one living in Eretz Yisrael lives
without sin seems to have little to do with erasing one’s previous
misdeeds. Instead, it probably deals with the higher quality of religious
life in Eretz Yisrael. In other words, in the land of ultimate spiritual
potential, the land which God supervises most closely,4 the land which
serves as the primary location for observing the commandments,5 it is
easier to live righteously; in Israel, the person himself is more likely to
repent and cease the violations of the Torah. And actually, this
interpretation of Rabbi Elazar dovetails nicely with an alternate version
of Rav Anan’s statement found in Avot de-Rabbi Natan (26:2):
3
Although it is generally prohibited to disinter human remains, for the purpose of
reburial in Eretz Yisrael it is permitted. The Shakh attributes this distinction to the
atonement the deceased receives in Eretz Yisrael (Shulchan Arukh YD 363:1 and Shakh
s.k. 3).
4
Devarim 11:12.
5
See especially Ramban al ha-Torah, Vayikra 18:25. See also Rashi and the
Ramban on Devarim 11:18 and Jonathan Snowbell’s “The Centrality of Eretz Yisrael to
the Fulfillment of Mitzvot,” Alei Etzion 9, 97-106.
91
Anyone buried in Eretz Yisrael is considered as if he was
buried beneath the altar because all of Eretz Yisrael is
suitable for the altar; and anyone buried beneath the altar
is considered as if he were buried beneath the Throne of
Glory (Kisei Ha-kavod).
By extending the formulation to include a comparison to the Throne of
Glory, this version asserts that burial in Eretz Yisrael is beneficial due to
the Land’s spiritual proximity to the Divine.6
Unfortunately, this interpretive strain is wholly unsatisfactory
with regard to the Gemara in Ketuvot. Based on the proof-texts for their
statements – “The people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their
iniquity” and, “And His land will atone for His people”7 – both Rabbi
Elazar and Rav Anan are indeed attributing an atoning power to Eretz
Yisrael; residing in Eretz Yisrael or being buried there atones for one’s
sins. If Eretz Yisrael has a special role in the atonement process, then
Rav Anan’s statement is reminiscent of the spectrum of atonement
established in Yoma 86a:
If one transgressed a positive commandment and repented,
then he is forgiven… If he transgressed a prohibition and
repented, the repentance suspends [the punishment] and
Yom Kippur atones… If he violates a [sin warranting]
extirpation (karet) or capital punishment and repents, the
repentance and Yom Kippur suspend and suffering
purges… But, if he has profaned the Name [of God],
repentance cannot suspend and Yom Kippur cannot atone
6
The Gemara in Megilla (17a) conceives of the World to Come precisely as closeness
to God: “The World to Come does not contain eating or drinking or procreation or
business dealings or jealously or hate or competition. Rather, the righteous ones sit with
their crowns on their heads and enjoy the radiance of the Divine Presence.” It would be
difficult, however, to see full congruence between Megilla and Ketuvot. In the World to
Come, proximity to the Divine is the reward for righteous people; burial in Eretz
Yisrael, on the other hand, only grants atonement, not elevation to the level of
righteousness.
7 Yishayahu 33:24 and Devarim 32:43.
92
and suffering cannot purge, rather they all suspend and
death purges.
Burial in Eretz Yisrael, then, would provide automatic atonement.
Yet, we need not locate Eretz Yisrael somewhere specific within the
atonement spectrum of Yoma – the Gemara itself makes no such
association – or suggest that living or being buried in Eretz Yisrael
supercedes this list, affecting atonement more than repentance or
suffering.8 Instead, it is plausible to read Rav Anan figuratively; he is not
expressing the system of atonement qua atonement. What is at stake,
then, in Rav Anan is his application of the atonement motif to burial in
Eretz Yisrael. Considering the Gemara in Yoma, we may rephrase Rav
Anan as follows: Presumably, atonement is important. Certainly, within
the grand scheme of religious experience, in the context of end-of-life
decisions, atonement is the desired effect and that which hangs in the
balance (i.e., the final vidui). Burial in Eretz Yisrael should be
considered religiously important, parallel to the hallmarks of repentance,
sacrifices (see Yoma 85b), Yom Kippur, suffering, and death.
While I have, heretofore, presented the approach of spiritual
proximity as mutually exclusive of and in contrast to Rav Anan’s
statement in Ketuvot, the Maharsha’s interpretation of Rav Anan bridges
the gap between the two (Ketuvot 111a, Chiddushei Aggadot, s.v. ke’ilu).
In his more synthetic explanation of the Gemara, Eretz Yisrael is
identified as “beneath the altar” because of the holiness and purity of the
Land (“kedushat Eretz Yisrael ve-taharatah”). In his commentary, the
8
Although, the Midrash Mishlei (chapter 10) does nearly that. The Midrash, in
bringing the hierarchical list of atonement, questions the efficacy of death in achieving
atonement for a devastating sin such as chillul Hashem. It concludes, however, that this
is a Divine promise, confirmed by the ultimate, post-resurrection return to Eretz Yisrael.
This, according to the Midrash, poses a problem for those already buried in Eretz
Yisrael: what is their guarantee of atonement? The guarantee, then, is another promise
from God, “And His land will atone for His people.” In other words, the Midrash is
asserting that burial in Eretz Yisrael is itself the confirmation that atonement was
achieved. To be sure, as opposed to the parallel in Ketuvot, kapara is afforded to all,
both those buried inside and outside the Land; death is the source of kapara, not the
location of burial. Still, Eretz Yisrael has a unique, if not slightly complex function in
Midrash Mishlei’s construct, serving as both the guarantee and the site of forgiveness.
93
Maharsha interweaves these two themes: the verse “And His land (lit.
earth) will atone for His people” activates kedushat ve-taharat ha-aretz
within a constellation of the creation of man (“dust from the earth”), the
altar (“an altar of earth you shall make”), and the return of the body to the
source of creation and atonement (“ki kemo she-rucho ve-nishmato shav
be-tahara la-makom asher chotzva mimenu, ken afar gufo shav le-makom
tahara – just as his spirit and soul return in purity to the place from where
he was sculpted, so too his body returns to the place of purity”). As a byproduct of the more general ideas of kedushat ve-taharat ha-aretz, the
atonement achieved through burial returns us to the realm of the spiritual
uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael. Certainly, though, we are not constricted by
the particular bounds of the atonement motif per se, and we may view the
religious significance of burial in Eretz Yisrael as part of a larger
discourse on its spiritual import; if anything, this is almost the explicit
meaning of the Gemara Ketuvot.
II. Techiyat Ha-meitim – The Resurrection
While kapara has emerged from the Gemara as a halakhic factor,
techiyat ha-meitim is more thematically prevalent within the Gemara
itself; in this regard, its prominent place within the popular imagination is
no surprise. According to the latter part of the Bavli, as well as a parallel
piece in the Yerushalmi,9 burial in Eretz Yisrael is most beneficial for the
average Jew at the time of the resurrection of the dead:
Rabbi Elazar said, “The dead [buried] outside Eretz
Yisrael will not be resurrected, as it is stated, ‘And I [God]
shall set My desire (tzevi) in the land of the living’
(Yechezkel 26:20): the dead in the land of My desire
(tzivyoni) will be resurrected; [in the land] that is not of
Yerushalmi Kilayim 9:3, “‘I shall walk before God in the land of the living’
(Tehillim 116:9). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said in the name of Bar Kafra, ‘The land
whose dead will live first in the days of the Messiah.’ And what is the reason? ‘He
(God) gives neshama to the people upon it’ (Yishayahu 42:5). But if this is the case, our
rabbis in the Diaspora will lose out! Rabbi Simi said, ‘God will smooth out the ground
before them, and they will roll like bottles, and when they arrive in Eretz Yisrael their
souls will return to them.’ And what is the reason? ‘And I (God) will place you on your
soil and give spirit to you, and you will live’ (Yechezkel 37:14).”
9
94
My desire the dead will not be resurrected.”… [Rabbi
Elazar] said to [Rabbi Abba bar Memel], “My master, my
exposition was from another verse, ‘He [God] gives
neshama to the people upon it and spirit to those walking
therein’ (Yishayahu 42:5).”…And according to Rabbi
Elazar, the righteous outside Eretz Yisrael will not be
resurrected? Rabbi Ela said, “By rolling.” Rabbi Abba
Sala Raba objected, “For the righteous, rolling is painful!”
Abaye said, “Underground passages will be prepared for
them.”
“And you shall carry me out of Egypt and bury me in their
burying place” (Bereishit 47:30). Karna said, “Something
is inside (i.e. hidden). Yaakov, our forefather, knew that
he was an absolutely righteous man. And if the dead
outside Eretz Yisrael will be resurrected, why did he
trouble his sons? Perhaps he would not merit underground
passages.” Similarly you may say, “And Yosef adjured the
Children of Yisrael…” (Ketuvot 111a)
At first glance, the Gemara Ketuvot is noticeably radical when it
comes to those buried outside Eretz Yisrael. According to Rabbi Elazar,
those outside Eretz Yisrael will not be resurrected at all.10 Of course,
the sugya objects on behalf of the righteous Jews buried outside Eretz
Yisrael, modifying its original approach to techiyat ha-meitim. In the
end, the bones of the righteous will roll painlessly, in underground
passages, to Eretz Yisrael, so that they may experience the resurrection as
well.
However, the Gemara’s conclusion appears less than reassuring
when it comes to the possibility of a smooth ride, even for tzaddikim.
Instead of bolstering its argument, the introduction of the Biblical
precedents of Yaakov and Yosef generates quite a bit of ambiguity and
doubt as to the likely implementation of smooth underground passages.
10
As opposed to Reish Lakish in the Yerushalmi, who maintains that techiyat hameitim will occur, albeit chronologically later, for the non-tzaddikim buried outside
Eretz Yisrael.
95
That is to say, if Yaakov and Yosef, epitomes of righteousness in the
Gemara, express uncertainty about meriting underground passages, what
is the average Jew to think?
In theory, there are two possible ways to understand the bottomline implications of the sugya in Ketuvot as it pertains to techiyat hameitim for those buried outside Eretz Yisrael.
1) At the time of techiyat ha-meitim, anyone buried outside Eretz
Yisrael will roll underground and then be resurrected in Eretz
Yisrael. However, only the truly righteous will benefit from the
smooth passageways; everyone else will have a bumpy, painful
transition. Yaakov and Yosef, then, were afraid that they were
insufficiently righteous, for whatever reason, and wanted to avoid
the pain.
2) Only righteous people will benefit from the underground
rolling. In principle, Rabbi Elazar’s original statement is
maintained, there is no resurrection for those buried outside Eretz
Yisrael. At the same time, the super-righteous will receive an
extra reward, a smooth journey to Eretz Yisrael. Yaakov and
Yosef, while certain of their righteousness, were concerned that
they were not righteous enough, and therefore instructed their
surviving relatives to bury them in Eretz Yisrael.
In either case, but especially given the second possibility, it would
certainly be beneficial from the standpoint of techiyat ha-meitim to be
buried in Eretz Yisrael. If not, any non-tzaddik would eventually
experience a painful underground journey to Eretz Yisrael, at best; at
worst, he or she would not be resurrected at all.
The recollection of the Yaakov and Yosef episodes further
complicates the relationship between burial in Eretz Yisrael and the
resurrection, inasmuch as we become aware of the interpretive nature of
the Gemara. While the Gemara asserts that Yaakov and Yosef knew
“something is inside (hidden)” and therefore adamantly pursued burial in
Eretz Yisrael, their motives are actually easily discernable in the peshat
of the end of Sefer Bereishit. For Yaakov, the singular purpose was to be
96
buried alongside his parents and grandparents (ve-shakhavti im avotai
[47:30]; kivru oti el avotai [49:29]), in the family plot (49:31). The
intrinsic, eschatological value of Eretz Yisrael is not to be found. Yosef,
on the other hand, does not relate to the family plot of the avot and
imahot. Instead, he assumes a more nationalistic stance, linking the
future of his remains with the national destiny of the Jewish people.11
Sure enough, at two momentous junctures, we are reminded that Yosef’s
bones are accompanying the Jewish people as the seek the menucha and
nachala of Eretz Yisrael: by mentioning Yosef’s bones as Benei Yisrael
leave Egypt (Shemot 13:19) and then upon the completion of the
conquest and settlement in Yehoshua (24:32), Yosef’s guarantee of burial
in Eretz Yisrael serves as the bookends and a benchmark for the process
of national redemption.12 In that case, attributing Yaakov and Yosef’s
considerations to concerns about resurrection, against the grain of the
Biblical peshat, highlights the Gemara’s focused intent on associating
burial in Eretz Yisrael with techiyat ha-meitim.
While a detailed analysis of the role of Eretz Yisrael in techiyat
ha-meitim falls well beyond the scope of this essay (as it would entail a
weighty unpacking of numerous gemarot, midrashim, and a significant
portion of Sefer Yechezkel – to start with), we can make a few local
points about their place in our sugya in Ketuvot. First of all, if we review
the proof-texts utilized by Rabbi Elazar in determining the privileged
status of Eretz Yisrael regarding techiyat ha-meitim, we find that Eretz
Yosef’s brief speech (50:24-25) is entirely oriented toward the future redemption
of the Jewish people from Egypt and their return to the Promised Land. Rav
Soloveitchik, in Kol Dodi Dofek, recognizes in this the crystallization of two key
concepts, the emergence of Jewish peoplehood and Yosef’s being “bound up” with this
people (Fate and Destiny, 44).
It is interesting to note, in this light, that Yosef was not buried in Ma’arat Ha-makhpeila
– as was Yaakov – but on a tract of land that became nachala for benei Yosef (Yehoshua
24:32). At the same time, Yosef is buried on land purchased by Yaakov. Perhaps Yosef
and his remains are being used to convey the sentiment that the national homeland is
significant because it is the land of our forefathers. By bridging the gap between past
and future, the sharp distinction I am drawing between Yaakov and Yosef is certainly
blurred; these themes may very well overlap.
12
See the Rashbam’s poetic comments on Bereishit 50:26 which consider the
movement of Yosef’s remains in this vein.
11
97
Yisrael is posited as “eretz ha-chayim – the land of the living” and “eretz
she-tzivyoni bah – the chosen land.” Eretz Yisrael, as the land of
preference (or desire) and life, is also the centralized location of
resurrection. In other words, Eretz Yisrael is the spiritual center of the
world, and therefore the ultimate redemption of spirit should take place
therein. This is driven home by the second, preferred verse brought by
Rabbi Elazar: “neshama” and “ru’ach” are given to those in Eretz
Yisrael. It may be helpful to consider a Zionistic interpretation of these
verses, where life and spirit stand for national renaissance and rebirth.
These very qualities of Eretz Yisrael, the life and spirit that Zionists want
to harness in their mission, are reflected in Eretz Yisrael’s primacy in
techiyat ha-meitim. That this spiritual superiority is expressly manifested
in a most profound moment – the resurrection – definitively demonstrates
the tremendous sublimity of Eretz Yisrael.
III. The Limitations of Burial in Eretz Yisrael
While the previous two Talmudic passages, each in its respective
manner, championed burial in Eretz Yisrael as a wholly positive
experience, the third example in Ketuvot, that is the episode with Ulla,
leads us to question its meaningfulness.
Ulla would regularly go up to Eretz Yisrael; he died
outside Eretz Yisrael. They came and informed Rabbi
Elazar [about Ulla’s death]. He (Rabbi Elazar) said,
“You, Ulla, ‘You shall die on unclean soil.’” They said to
him, “[But] his coffin is arriving [in Eretz Yisrael].” He
said to them, “There is no comparing gathering him in
alive and gathering him in after death.”
In the parallel sugya in the Yerushalmi (Kilayim 9:3), similar words are
placed in the mouth of Ulla himself: “What benefit for me is there to lose
my pearl (to die) in an impure land? There is no comparing giving out in
the bosom of one’s mother and giving out in the bosom of a stranger.” In
these sources, burial in Eretz Yisrael is small consolation for one who has
recognized that it is necessitated by a detestable curse: dying outside
Eretz Yisrael. Whether or not burial in Eretz Yisrael is effective on any
plane has become irrelevant; the reverberations of Amos’s curse, the
98
horrifying confrontation with the exile experience, overshadows all other
considerations. From an Ulla-like perspective, reasons such as atonement
and techiyat ha-meitim seem quaint and insufficient.
In the context of the rest of the Gemara Ketuvot, it is important to
note that the author of the statements, “You, Ulla, ‘You shall die on
unclean soil’” and, “There is no comparing gathering him in alive and
gathering him in after death,” is in fact Rabbi Elazar who is also the
source of the earlier statement, “Anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael
dwells without iniquity.” We had previously suggested that the
interpretive key for Rav Anan’s position on burial in Eretz Yisrael
(atonement) rested in its correlation with Rabbi Elazar’s quote about
residing in Eretz Yisrael. Now, however, Rabbi Elazar himself may be
announcing a fundamental distinction between the two postulations.13
Rabbi Elazar may or may not be rejecting Rav Anan outright, but he
certainly indicates the qualitative superiority of his formulation, a
preference for living and dying in Eretz Yisrael over being buried there.
Nor is Rabbi Elazar (or Ulla in the Yerushalmi’s version) the only
Talmudic figure to privilege dying in Eretz Yisrael over being buried
there. If anything, this is the most prevalent theme in the parallel in the
Yerushalmi.14
This reading works better with the Maharsha’s comment on the Ulla story, that
Rabbi Elazar “made it dependent on death,” than with the Talmidei ha-Rashba (brought
in Shitta Mekubetzet) who minimize the gap between Rabbi Elazar and Rav Anan, “Its
(dying there’s) atonement is greater,” implying that burial also provides some level of
atonement.
14
This is also the tenor of Midrash Mishlei, chapter 17. There, the emphasis is most
definitely on dying in Eretz Yisrael, not burial. What is most remarkable, though, is the
Midrash’s synthesis of the atonement and resurrection themes; fascinatingly, the
significant lines from the Bavli and Yerushalmi have been recast to reflect the dying
theme in place of burial:
Rabbi Levi said, “Anyone who lives in Eretz Yisrael, even for one year, and
dies therein, it is guaranteed that he will be worthy of the World to Come.”
And what is his reason, “And His land will atone for His people.” Rabbi
Nechemya said, “Eretz Yisrael atones for the iniquities of its dead.” Rabbi
Zevida said, “What do you do about the righteous people who died outside
Eretz Yisrael? Rather, we can say that Eretz Yisrael atones for its dead, but the
righteous outside Eretz Yisrael: in the future, God will charge the ministering
13
99
“And you, Pashchur and your entire household will go into
captivity; to Bavel you will go and there you shall die, and
there you shall be buried” (Yirmiyahu 20:6). Rabbi Abba
bar Zemina said in the name of Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi
Chama bar Chanina, “One said, ‘If he dies there and is
buried there he has two; if he dies there and is buried there
he has one.’ The other said, ‘Burial here atones for their
deaths.’” (Kilayim 9:3)
Yirmiyahu curses Pashchur and the other false prophets that they
will die and be buried in Bavel – outside Eretz Yisrael. The Yerushalmi
infers from the apparent redundancy of Yirmiyahu’s language, “There
you shall die, and there you shall be buried,” that death and burial outside
of Eretz Yisrael are two different things, two distinct curses. The
subsequent debate between Rabbi Chelbo and Rabbi Chama bar Chanina
is whether burial in Eretz Yisrael merely obviates the second curse
(because the involved party is not buried outside Eretz Yisrael), or even
has the power to cancel the original curse of dying in Exile.15 While the
second position, that burial in Eretz Yisrael triumphs over death outside
the Land, resonates well with Rav Anan’s opinion in the Bavli, both sides
of the machloket agree that dying outside Eretz Yisrael is a curse, a morethan-unfortunate situation that demands atonement (and burial in Eretz
Yisrael may not be enough!). Even if burial in Eretz Yisrael atones
specifically for “dying outside Eretz Yisrael and not moving there in their
lives (Penei Moshe, s.v. ve-Charana) the subject of the Yerushalmi is
clear: we are more concerned with the nature of the curse related to dying
outside the Land than the nature of burial in Eretz Yisrael.
IV. “And You Came and Defiled My Land”
Until this point, while both the Bavli and Yerushalmi introduced
sentiments that lowered the standing of burial in Eretz Yisrael, neither
assumed a negative stance toward it nor questioned its validity. The
15
angels and they will bring them in passageways from outside Eretz Yisrael to
Eretz Yisrael and there it will atone for them” (emphasis added).
See Penei Moshe.
100
concluding anecdote of the sugya in the Yerushalmi is the exception. In
this story, burial in Eretz Yisrael faces an outright challenge.
Rabbi bar Kiri and Rabbi Lazer were strolling in Istrina.
They saw coffins arriving in Eretz Yisrael from Chutz laAretz. Rabbi bar Kiri said to Rabbi Lazer, “What are they
achieving? I assign to them the verse, ‘You make My
heritage desolate’ in your lives, ‘And you came and
defiled My land’ in your deaths!” He responded to him,
“When they arrive in Eretz Yisrael they take a clump of
earth and place it in the coffin, as it is written, ‘And His
land will atone for His people.’”
Rabbi bar Kiri unleashes a virulent attack on those who, having
died outside the Land of Israel, intend to be buried in Eretz Yisrael.
From his perspective, the rejection of Eretz Yisrael, of God’s promise
(see Yirmiyahu 2), is doubly troubling. At one level, Eretz Yisrael is
disrespected by an abject failure to inhabit it while alive, contributing to a
lack of flourishing of the Land. Furthermore, as if this is not enough,
their post mortem journey demonstrates an attitude that Eretz Yisrael is
merely a graveyard for World Jewry.
Given the severity of Rabbi bar Kiri’s criticism, Rabbi Lazer’s
response in the sugya requires dual illumination: a) how is a clump of
earth an answer to Rabbi Kiri’s problem, and b) why is no counter-retort
presented on behalf of Rabbi bar Kiri.16 As to the clump of earth, the Or
Zaru’a (2:119) identifies this Yerushalmi as the source for the stillcommon practice of placing dirt from Eretz Yisrael in coffins.
Apparently, the coffins were brought to Israel for technical reasons:
packets of Eretz Yisrael dirt were not available in Chutz la-Aretz at that
time. If we recall the statement of Rav Anan in the Bavli – “Anyone
buried in Eretz Yisrael is considered as if he was buried beneath the
altar…and it is written there, ‘And His land will atone for His people’” –
16
Here we must be careful to separate between the two questions: even if the dirt in
the coffin accomplishes something, we must still determine how Rabbi Lazer addresses
the rejection of Eretz Yisrael that troubled Rabbi bar Kiri.
101
then Rabbi Lazer is extending this notion to the earth of Eretz Yisrael. In
a very physical sense, “His land will atone.”
Alternatively, in a more restrictive sense than the Or Zaru’a takes
the Yerushalmi, the clump of dirt in the coffin effectuates a chibbur, a
bond, between what is inside the coffin and the ground in which the
coffin is placed. Once again we return to Rav Anan in the Bavli, and
once again we have a somewhat physical rendering of the verse in
Devarim, but we may not extrapolate to circumstances outside the
boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.
What about the ideological problem? Why is Rabbi Lazer granted
the last word by the Yerushalmi?17 Is the Yerushalmi unconcerned about
the rejection of Eretz Yisrael inherent in importing corpses to Israel?
Theoretically, we may suggest that Rabbi bar Kiri was indignant about an
apparent lack of purpose in what he was witnessing: if there is no
purpose, all that is occurring is an introducing of the most severe form of
defilement (avi avot ha-tuma) into the holiest place in the world. Rabbi
Lazer, then, resolves the dilemma by supplying a religious-spiritual
justification for the practice of bringing coffins to Israel for burial; it is
not wanton defilement. Entertaining this reading is enticing, as it neatly
explicates the conclusion of the Yerushalmi, erasing any residue of Rabbi
bar Kiri’s initial vehemence. However, this interpretation only pertains
to the act itself. What of the rejection of Eretz Yisrael? Even if Rabbi
Lazer has justified the practice, has he addressed the attitude of rejection
illustrated by reserving Eretz Yisrael merely for burial.18
17
There may be a formal answer to this question: the Yerushalmi tends to be less
discursive, dialogical, and argumentative than the Bavli, the editor less intrusive, and
perhaps we are simply being provided with two opinions without any give-and-take.
Still, this is a story with a snippet of conversation. Furthermore, texts impart meaning
within formal constraints. Imagine if the order of the rabbinic statements were reversed
– with Rabbi Lazer noticing that they were placing clumps of dirt in the coffins and
relating it to a verse, and then Rabbi bar Kiri challenging the efficacy and piety of this
behavior: the Yerushalmi would be strongly affirming Rabbi bar Kiri.
18
Rabbi Lazer may fundamentally disagree with Rabbi bar Kiri, finding the
“defiling” of Eretz Yisrael unproblematic. However, it would be shocking to seriously
sanction such a haphazard, callous abuse of Eretz Yisrael. For the Yerushalmi to
privilege this view by concluding without a rebuttal to it seems unlikely.
102
In that case, we are compelled to conclude that Rabbi Lazer does
redress Rabbi bar Kiri’s attitudinal concerns about importing dead bodies
into Eretz Yisrael. Bringing Jewish remains to Eretz Yisrael is not a
rejection of the land, Rabbi Lazer is arguing, but a recognition of its
value, kedusha, and uniqueness. Yet, if Rabbi Lazer means this, where
does he actually say it? We may locate the source of the positive attitude
in the verse quoted by Rabbi Lazer: “And His land will atone for His
people.” By seeking out Eretz Yisrael in death, the Jew proclaims an
appreciation if His land and its ability to atone. In what Rabbi bar Kiri
sees as an indifferent abuse, Rabbi Lazer recognizes as an inspired
devotion to God and Eretz Yisrael.
This appreciation of God and Eretz Yisrael in the conclusion of
the Yerushalmi brings us full circle to the underlying themes of both the
Bavli and the Yerushalmi. For Rav Anan, especially as understood by the
Maharsha, the operative lesson concerns the spiritual uniqueness of Eretz
Yisrael over the resulting atonement; while atonement is clearly the
desired outcome, it is seen as a specific manifestation of a more general
element: Eretz Yisrael itself. Similarly, the Bavli’s discussion of techiyat
ha-meitim revealed an undercurrent of Eretz Yisrael-centric thought,
where techiyat ha-meitim per se is yet another symptom of the spiritual
centrality of Eretz Yisrael. Still, irrespective of the necessary positive
valuing of Eretz Yisrael that redeems burial in Israel, it is Ulla’s regret
for failing to live in Eretz Yisrael, the bittersweet taste of merely being
buried there, that corrects the problems of being buried outside Eretz
Yisrael. Burial in Eretz Yisrael is inadequate and secondary to actually
living in Eretz Yisrael – the motherland (see Ulla in the Yerushalmi),
God’s chosen land.
A parallel implication emerges from another Gemara that relates
to burial in Eretz Yisrael. Megilla (6a) provides a series of three eulogies
delivered in Teveria: the first for someone who died outside Eretz
Yisrael, the second for when the corpse arrived in Eretz Yisrael for burial,
and the third for Rabbi Zeira who made aliya and died in Eretz Yisrael.
While the order of the Gemara has a logical progression, building
103
towards Eretz Yisrael, the Maharsha acknowledges a qualitative and
ethical prioritizing as well:
There are three types of eulogies recounted here… He who
did not merit at all, even with his body after death, to
come to Eretz Yisrael… He who did not merit to die there
in Eretz Yisrael, but merited after death to have his coffin
brought there…as if he died before his time and was killed
for the sin of living outside Eretz Yisrael… and Rabbi
Zeira, who merited in his lifetime to enter Eretz Yisrael.
(Maharsha, s.v. ki shakhiv, emphasis added)
As we have seen all along, burial in Eretz Yisrael is considered
more “meritorious” than burial outside the Land. Yet, this merit is
relative in nature, if not indicative of something sinful; living in Eretz
Yisrael is a higher value – one that here receives public codification in
the form of the progression of the eulogies. In death, it follows, it is
preferable to have lived in Eretz Yisrael; being buried in Eretz Yisrael is
left for those who never took advantage of the opportunity.
104