{"id":12248,"date":"2026-07-12T00:17:51","date_gmt":"2026-07-11T21:17:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/?p=12248"},"modified":"2026-08-05T14:46:34","modified_gmt":"2026-08-05T11:46:34","slug":"17-12-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/","title":{"rendered":"17. The State of Israel Today"},"content":{"rendered":"

All areas under the sovereignty of the State of Israel have the status of gevul olei Bavel<\/em> with respect to the Land-dependent mitzvot. In terms of the Land\u2019s sanctity, the basis for the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land applies there by Torah law. This applies even to places that were part of gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> \u2013 where, during the Second Temple period, these mitzvot applied only rabbinically \u2013 once they come under Jewish sovereignty.<\/p>\n

As we learned above in section 7, the second sanctification, in the days of Ezra, sanctified the Land for all generations. The Torah states: \u201cThe Lord your God will bring you to the land that your fathers inherited, and you shall inherit it\u2026\u201d (Devarim 30:5). The Sages derived from this that there would be a first inheritance and a second inheritance, but not a third. In other words, the Land needed to be sanctified once in the days of Yehoshua and again in the days of Ezra, but it would never need a third sanctification. From here they learned that even after the destruction of the Second Temple, the sanctity of the Land for its mitzvot was not nullified (Yevamot<\/em> 82b; MT, Laws of Terumot 1:5; above, section 7).<\/p>\n

During the Second Temple period, only the areas settled by olei Bavel<\/em> were sanctified by Torah law, since that sanctification took effect through Jewish settlement. Since there is no third sanctification, it follows that when the boundary of Jewish settlement expands, the same sanctity applies in those additional areas as well. This is what happened during the Second Temple period itself: at first, the sanctified area was limited to the region around Jerusalem, where Jewish settlement was concentrated; as settlement spread, the same sanctity applied in each place that became part of that settlement. Once an area had been sanctified through the settlement of olei Bavel<\/em>, its sanctity did not lapse even after the destruction of the Temple.<\/p>\n

So too in our time: wherever Jewish sovereignty and settlement extend, the sanctity of the Land for its mitzvot applies there as it does in gevul olei Bavel<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Even according to those who maintain that the second sanctification was nullified with the destruction of the Second Temple, areas of Eretz Yisrael under the sovereignty of the State of Israel are sanctified for the Land-dependent mitzvot by Torah law, for the State acts in the name of the Jewish people as a whole. As Rambam writes: \u201cThe Land of Israel referred to in every context means the lands conquered by a king of Israel, or by a judge, or by a prophet, with the consent of the majority of Israel; this is what is called kibbush rabim<\/em>\u201d (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:2). He writes further: \u201cAll lands that Israel conquers under a king and by the authority of a court constitute kibbush rabim<\/em>, and they are like Eretz Yisrael conquered by Yehoshua in every respect\u201d (MT, Laws of Kings and Wars 5:6). Maran Rav Kook zt\u201dl ruled that in the absence of a king, that authority passes to the nation as a whole, and whatever is done in the name of the Jewish people has full halakhic force. The Jews living in the Land therefore represent the nation in this regard (Mishpat Kohen<\/em> 144; Horayot<\/em> 3a). [20]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Therefore, in all areas under the sovereignty of the State of Israel, one must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> with a berakha. One may also separate from produce grown in one such area for produce grown in another. However, one should not separate from produce grown outside Israeli sovereignty for produce grown under Israeli sovereignty, or vice versa, since according to some authorities, areas under the sovereignty of the State of Israel are subject to terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> by Torah law, while areas beyond the borders of the State are subject to them only by rabbinic enactment.<\/p>\n

When the majority of the Jewish people live in the Land, all agree that terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> will apply by Torah law in all areas under Jewish sovereignty; see Peninei Halakha: Shemita Ve-yovel<\/em> 11:3\u20134, regarding the number of Jews worldwide. [21]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

[20]<\/a>. According to Rambam (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:5; Laws of the Temple 6:16), followed by the consensus of later authorities, the second sanctification sanctified the Land for its time and for the future. Therefore, Eretz Yisrael will not require a third sanctification. Accordingly, when the Jewish people conquer and settle additional parts of the Land, up to the Euphrates River, the sanctity necessary for the Land-dependent mitzvot applies there by Torah law. Since no third sanctification is necessary, the same sanctity that applied to gevul olei Bavel<\/em> applies wherever Jewish rule extends. Today, however, terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> and shemita<\/em> apply only by rabbinic enactment \u2013 not because the sanctity is lacking, but because the additional national conditions have not yet been fulfilled: with respect to terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em>, the majority of the Jewish people are not yet in the Land; with respect to shemita<\/em>, Israel does not yet dwell properly in its Land, each tribe in its inheritance, as explained above in sections 11 and 14.<\/p>\n

Some Rishonim maintain that the second sanctification was nullified, and that the Land will therefore require a third sanctification (Rashba, Ran, Ritva, and Sefer ha-Teruma<\/em>, as cited above in sections 7 and 11 and in note 8). Yet even according to this view, the Land can be sanctified through Jewish settlement alone, and all the more so when settlement is joined by Jewish sovereignty.<\/p>\n

Thus, we find in Hilkhot Eretz Yisrael<\/em> 9\u201310, attributed to Tur: \u201cIn my opinion, no formal sanctification of place is necessary for any area conquered by olei Mitzrayim<\/em>. Even today, if there is one city in Eretz Yisrael designated for Jewish dwelling, with fields designated for Jews, and they are not subject to fear of a non-Jew who can expel them from it \u2013 that itself is its sanctity, and tithes must be separated there by Torah law.\u201d Mahari\u1e6d 1:25 likewise writes that even in the second sanctification, no verbal sanctification was necessary; the sanctification took effect through settlement. According to Radvaz to MT, Laws of Terumot 1:5, the first sanctification took effect through conquest, whereas in the second sanctification, when there was no conquest, Ezra and his court needed to sanctify the Land verbally. If so, in our time, when the Land has been conquered, no verbal sanctification is necessary.<\/p>\n

Some raise a difficulty from Rambam\u2019s ruling that the king conquers the Land only by authority of the court \u2013 meaning Beit Din ha-Gadol<\/em>, the supreme court of ordained judges (MT, Laws of Kings and Wars 5:6). Since the IDF did not conquer by authority of such a court, how could its conquest have the status of kibbush rabim<\/em>? This requirement applies to the decision to wage a discretionary war \u2013 a war undertaken to conquer territory that is not needed for defense. When Israel is attacked, by contrast, all agree that there is a Torah obligation to fight a defensive war (MT, Laws of Kings and Wars 5:1). Accordingly, whatever territory is conquered in the course of such a war is included in the category of mil\u1e25emet mitzva<\/em>. This is also the view of R. Goren (Torat Ha-mo\u2019adim<\/em>, p. 658).<\/p>\n

Although the majority of the Jewish people are not in the Land, Horayot<\/em> 3a teaches that those who dwell in the Land are treated as representing all Israel; consequently, the areas they conquer become sanctified. R. Goren writes this as well. In addition, the IDF\u2019s conquest was carried out on behalf of all Israel, since every Jew in the world has the right to ascend to the Land. It was therefore done in the name of the entire Jewish people. Furthermore, Mabit writes that with respect to gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>, a majority of Israel is not needed in order to sanctify it again (Kiryat Sefer<\/em>, Laws of Terumot 1).<\/p>\n

Regarding Eilat, there is an additional point to consider. According to most authorities, Eilat lies outside gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>, since it is south of the boundary described in Parashat Mas\u2019ei. On that basis, some argue that Jewish sovereignty is not enough to sanctify it. Even though Eilat lies within the broader borders of Eretz Yisrael (see Peninei Halakha: Ha-am Ve-ha-Aretz<\/em>, Likkutim 3:14), they argue that it cannot be sanctified before the conquest of the area within the borders of Parashat Mas\u2019ei has been completed (Eretz \u1e24emda<\/em> I, Gate 3, 6:3; 13:2). This also seems to be the inclination of Be-ohala Shel Torah<\/em> III, 1:4, and the position of rabbis in \u1e24aredi circles, as R. Kalman Kahana writes at the end of Ha-shemita Tishmetenna<\/em>.<\/p>\n

However, many authorities maintain that Jewish sovereignty over Eilat is sufficient to give it the relevant halakhic status. This appears to be the correct view for several reasons. First, the Sages criticized David for initiating the conquest of Syria before conquering the Temple Mount. In our time, by contrast, all the wars began as defensive wars, and all the territory captured was taken for purposes of security and deterrence. Therefore, these conquests were proper. Second, once Jerusalem was sanctified forever through the first sanctification, and the Land was sanctified forever through the second sanctification according to Rambam and all A\u1e25aronim, there is no longer a need to proceed according to the original order, and any place conquered by Israel becomes sanctified (R. Goren). Third, some maintain that the requirement to proceed in the original order applied only to the conquest of the Canaanite peoples. Once those nations lost their distinct identities, there was no longer a requirement to first conquer the places where they had lived (She\u2019ilat David<\/em>, Kuntres Ha-\u1e25iddushim Be-inyenei Shemita<\/em>). Fourth, according to some authorities, Eilat is not outside gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> at all. In their view, gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> includes the entire Negev down to Eilat, as Shlomo\u2019s kingdom extended that far. It may even fall within the borders described in Parashat Mas\u2019ei, for some identify Ma\u2019aleh Akrabbim with Aqaba, near Eilat (Rasag, R. Tikochinsky, and R. Eliyahu). According to another view, gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> extends throughout all of Eretz Yisrael, from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates, and therefore includes Eilat as well (R. Yisrael Ariel, Otzar Eretz Yisrael<\/em> 5:30). Based on these and other considerations, the halakha is that areas under Jewish sovereignty as far south as Eilat have the status of gevul olei Bavel<\/em>. This is the practical ruling of many authorities, including R. Goren (Torat Ha-mo\u2019adim<\/em>, p. 658; Emunat Itekha<\/em> 50); Tzitz Eliezer<\/em> 10:1; R. Gershuni (Or Ha-mizra\u1e25<\/em> 22); R. Aryeh Stern (Emunat Itekha<\/em> 50); R. Whitman (Shemita Mamlakhtit<\/em>, ch. 11, note 6); R. Zoldan (Malkhut Yehuda Ve-yisrael<\/em> 24); and R. Ne\u1e25emya Rot (Or Ha-ner<\/em> 2).<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a>. In principle, the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land apply by Torah law in gevul olei Bavel<\/em>, while in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> they apply by rabbinic enactment, as explained above in section 8. Regarding terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> today, however, three views were stated.<\/p>\n

According to the first view, during the Second Temple period one was obligated to separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> in gevul olei Bavel<\/em> by Torah law; after the destruction of the Temple, the obligation became rabbinic (Rashba, Ran, Ritva, and Sefer ha-Teruma<\/em>). Based on what was explained in the previous note, this view would maintain that today, in all areas under Jewish sovereignty, one must again separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> by Torah law.<\/p>\n

According to the second view, even after the destruction of the Temple, the obligation in gevul olei Bavel<\/em> remained by Torah law (Rashi, Raavad, and Kaftor Va-fera\u1e25<\/em>). According to this view as well, the Torah obligation today extends to all areas under Jewish sovereignty.<\/p>\n

According to the third view, that of Rambam, although gevul olei Bavel<\/em> has the sanctity necessary for terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> to apply by Torah law, the practical obligation is rabbinic as long as the majority of the Jewish people are not in the Land (MT, Laws of Terumot 1:5, 26). This is the accepted halakha, as explained above in section 11.<\/p>\n

It follows that before the establishment of the State of Israel, only according to the second view was there a difference between gevul olei Bavel<\/em> and gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>: in gevul olei Bavel<\/em>, one was obligated to separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> by Torah law, while in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> the obligation was rabbinic. According to the first view, and likewise according to the third view \u2013 which is the accepted halakha \u2013 before the State was established, the obligation was rabbinic in all areas. Therefore, one could separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> from produce grown in one area for produce grown in another.<\/p>\n

Some were uncertain whether, according to the accepted view, one may do so as an initial matter. The question is whether one may separate from produce grown in gevul olei Bavel<\/em>, where according to Rambam the obligation is rabbinic for one reason \u2013 the majority of the Jewish people are not in the Land \u2013 for produce grown in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>, where the obligation is rabbinic for two reasons: the majority of the Jewish people are not in the Land, and those areas were not included in the sanctification of Ezra (Malbushei Yom Tov<\/em>, \u1e24ovat Ha-karka<\/em> \u00a717; R. Tikochinsky, Hilkhot Eretz Yisrael<\/em> II 8:4, is stringent, while Torat Ha-aretz<\/em> 1:8 is lenient). Some maintain that with respect to the level of obligation in the Land, even when two rabbinic factors are present, the status is the same as when there is only one (\u1e24azon Ish<\/em>, Shemita<\/em> 3:34:2). In any event, all agree that after the fact, if one separated from produce of one area for produce of the other, the separation is effective, as explained above in section 9, note 3.<\/p>\n

After the establishment of the State of Israel, however, one must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> with a berakha from produce grown in all areas under the sovereignty of the State of Israel, including places that had belonged to gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> and cities that had previously been in non-Jewish hands. As explained in the previous note, when the Jewish people conquer the Land, the sanctity of the Land for its communal-national mitzvot takes effect by Torah law. Nevertheless, according to Rambam \u2013 and this is the halakha as accepted by the A\u1e25aronim \u2013 terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> today remain rabbinic, because the majority of the Jewish people are not yet in the Land.<\/p>\n

Some maintain that Jewish sovereignty does not change the status of these areas; see Mishpetei Eretz<\/em> 3:6\u20137. Although this view is not accepted, even on its own terms there is room to separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> with a berakha in most of these areas. As we learned, even before the establishment of the State, most authorities maintained in practice that gevul olei Bavel<\/em> and gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em> have the same rabbinic status with respect to definite tevel<\/em>. The only difference between them is the enactment of demai<\/em>, which applies in gevul olei Bavel<\/em> but not in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>. This is the view of Rabbeinu Tam, Ramban, Rashba, Ritva, and Tosafot Ha-Rosh<\/em>. Rambam agrees with this basic principle as well, except that he maintains that the Sages completely exempted cities inhabited mainly by non-Jews from terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em>. Although we generally follow Rambam, the precise locations of those cities are uncertain, and according to most Rishonim one must separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> there. Therefore, the practice was to separate there without a berakha, as explained above in note 14. Today, however, after the establishment of the State, even those who question whether all areas under Jewish sovereignty have the status of gevul olei Bavel<\/em> can at least rely on the view that these cities always had the status of gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>. On that basis, one separates terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> from them with a berakha.<\/p>\n

The only remaining question would be the southern Arava, according to those who maintain that it lies outside gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>. According to that view, there would have been no obligation to separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> there. Yet, as we learned, some maintain that even Eilat is included in gevul olei Mitzrayim<\/em>. Therefore, even before the establishment of the State, if one separated from produce grown there for produce grown elsewhere, the separation was effective after the fact, since in cases of rabbinic doubt we are lenient. All the more so today, after the establishment of the State, the law of Eilat is like that of the rest of the Land, for the primary halakha is that every place under Jewish sovereignty has the status of gevul olei Bavel<\/em> with respect to terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em>, as explained in the previous note.<\/p>\n

It appears that the areas of Sinai that were under Israeli rule likewise acquired the status of gevul olei Bavel<\/em> with respect to terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em>. After the withdrawal, however, they returned to their original status. This is similar to what occurred during the Hasmonean kingdom, as explained above in note 9: areas that were conquered but not settled did not retain the second sanctification after the destruction of the Second Temple. The full sanctity remains forever only when a place is sanctified through both components of the mitzva \u2013 conquest and full settlement.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, one should not separate terumot<\/em> and ma\u2019asrot<\/em> from produce grown under the rule of the State of Israel for produce grown under the rule of Jordan or Egypt, or the reverse. According to Rashba and those who agree with him, the second sanctification was nullified with the destruction of the Second Temple and returned with the establishment of the State, as mentioned at the beginning of this note. On that view, produce grown under the rule of the State of Israel has a Torah obligation, while produce grown in Transjordan is obligated only rabbinically. Moreover, if the areas of Transjordan are outside gevul olei Bavel<\/em>, then even according to Raavad and those who agree with him \u2013 who maintain that the second sanctification was never nullified \u2013 the obligation there is only rabbinic. After the fact, however, if one separated from produce of one area for produce of the other, the separation is effective, since according to Rambam and most authorities, one is obligated to separate only rabbinically in all areas of the Land today. Mishpetei Eretz<\/em> 3:8 does not take the views of Rashba and those who agree with him, or Raavad and those who agree with him, into account, and therefore permits separating from Transjordan for produce grown in the State of Israel.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

All areas under the sovereignty of the State of Israel have the status of gevul olei Bavel with respect to the Land-dependent mitzvot. In terms of the Land\u2019s sanctity, the basis for the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land applies there by Torah law. This applies even to places that were part of gevul olei […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[233],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-17-12"],"yoast_head":"\n17. The State of Israel Today - Peninei Halakha<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"17. The State of Israel Today - Peninei Halakha\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"All areas under the sovereignty of the State of Israel have the status of gevul olei Bavel with respect to the Land-dependent mitzvot. In terms of the Land\u2019s sanctity, the basis for the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land applies there by Torah law. This applies even to places that were part of gevul olei […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Peninei Halakha\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-11T21:17:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-05T11:46:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7866b763cf3f205e4ae075eebce0d674\"},\"headline\":\"17. The State of Israel Today\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-11T21:17:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-05T11:46:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3060,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"12 - Land-Dependent Mitzvot\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/\",\"name\":\"17. The State of Israel Today - Peninei Halakha\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-11T21:17:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-05T11:46:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/17-12-17\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\u05d3\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"17. The State of Israel Today\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"Peninei Halakha\",\"description\":\"HaRav Eliezer Melamed\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Peninei Halakha\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/10\\\/2020\\\/08\\\/logo-ph-.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/10\\\/2020\\\/08\\\/logo-ph-.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":64,\"caption\":\"Peninei Halakha\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/7866b763cf3f205e4ae075eebce0d674\",\"name\":\"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f73aec4c538c25ed89bfe678bd2c8d6c4c68e602d853cddfe42d3dbab083bc82?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f73aec4c538c25ed89bfe678bd2c8d6c4c68e602d853cddfe42d3dbab083bc82?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f73aec4c538c25ed89bfe678bd2c8d6c4c68e602d853cddfe42d3dbab083bc82?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/ph.yhb.org.il\\\/en\\\/author\\\/eladgg\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"17. The State of Israel Today - Peninei Halakha","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"17. The State of Israel Today - Peninei Halakha","og_description":"All areas under the sovereignty of the State of Israel have the status of gevul olei Bavel with respect to the Land-dependent mitzvot. In terms of the Land\u2019s sanctity, the basis for the communal-national mitzvot dependent on the Land applies there by Torah law. This applies even to places that were part of gevul olei […]","og_url":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/","og_site_name":"Peninei Halakha","article_published_time":"2026-07-11T21:17:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-05T11:46:34+00:00","author":"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/"},"author":{"name":"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/7866b763cf3f205e4ae075eebce0d674"},"headline":"17. The State of Israel Today","datePublished":"2026-07-11T21:17:51+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-05T11:46:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/"},"wordCount":3060,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#organization"},"articleSection":["12 - Land-Dependent Mitzvot"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/","url":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/","name":"17. The State of Israel Today - Peninei Halakha","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-11T21:17:51+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-05T11:46:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/17-12-17\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\u05d3\u05e3 \u05d4\u05d1\u05d9\u05ea","item":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"17. The State of Israel Today"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/","name":"Peninei Halakha","description":"HaRav Eliezer Melamed","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#organization","name":"Peninei Halakha","url":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2020\/08\/logo-ph-.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/10\/2020\/08\/logo-ph-.png","width":300,"height":64,"caption":"Peninei Halakha"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/7866b763cf3f205e4ae075eebce0d674","name":"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f73aec4c538c25ed89bfe678bd2c8d6c4c68e602d853cddfe42d3dbab083bc82?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f73aec4c538c25ed89bfe678bd2c8d6c4c68e602d853cddfe42d3dbab083bc82?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f73aec4c538c25ed89bfe678bd2c8d6c4c68e602d853cddfe42d3dbab083bc82?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"\u05e6\u05d5\u05d5\u05ea \u05d4\u05d0\u05ea\u05e8"},"url":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/author\/eladgg\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12248","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12248"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12248\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12249,"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12248\/revisions\/12249"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ph.yhb.org.il\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}