Some commentators say that it is necessary for 12 tribes to be settled in Israel in order to keep shmita (rambam) but the fact is that two of the tribes had given up their shares in Israel to live on the other side of the Jordan river. The fact is that there never really were 12 tribes in biblical Israel and shmita was kept.

Another argument would be that there is a high likelyhood that those living in Israel have some ancestry from the 12 tribes.

Shouldnt shmita be kept deoraita by all in Israel?

  • I think there's also a requirement that most of B'nei Yisrael has to live here.
    – Scimonster
    Commented Jul 18, 2015 at 20:58
  • Please cite that Rambam. Your whole question is based on it, but it is AFAICT not accurate. This is what I believe the Rambam says judaism.stackexchange.com/a/45628/759
    – Double AA
    Commented Jul 19, 2015 at 1:59
  • @DannySchoemann How so? That question doesn't mention Israel at all.
    – Daniel
    Commented Jul 20, 2015 at 12:36
  • 1
    @DannySchoemann You're reading your own knowledge into that question. Just because the answer is the same doesn't mean the question is the same.
    – Daniel
    Commented Jul 20, 2015 at 13:51
  • 1
    This is clearly not the same as my question - the OP is effectively questioning the Rambam's reasoning: how is it possible that Yovel / Shmita etc depend on all the tribes being settled on their allocated plots in the Land of Israel, when in fact some settled on different plots outside the land of Israel east of the Jordan river, not the plots they were originally intended to settle on west of the Jordan river. Commented Jul 20, 2015 at 15:53


Browse other questions tagged .