Do not allow gentiles to reside in Israel as its citizens
Verse: ולא תחנם
Command: Do not allow gentiles to reside in Israel as its citizens
Devarim 7:2
Type: Negative
SMG Mitzva # 48
Cross-Ref: {link}
INTRODUCTION
To understand the SMG and the Amuday Shlomo, it is important to keep in mind that the obligation to seek out and destroy idolatry is limited to idols and idolatry within Israel, and only when Jews have the authority and control over their lands and homes.
This control of land includes land owned by a Jew, upon which the Jew has legal rights to control what is found on his property. Thus, a prohibition of renting out houses for an idolator to dwell in is appropriate, because presumably the idolator will have his idols where he lives, and thus the Jew has the obligation to destroy those. Since that isn’t practical, that the Jewish landlord should conduct inspections of his tenant’s articles and destroy the idols there periodically, instead the rental itself is prohibited by Rabbinic decree.
This prohibition of renting out property to a gentile idolator is in addition to the prohibition from the Torah of this negative Mitzva – namely the prohibition of allowing gentiles [other than those who accept Jewish authority and covenant to obey the seven (7) Noaĉide laws – namely a גר תושב] to establish residence in the land of Israel. However, because both the Rabbinic prohibition against renting properties to idolators and the negative Mitzva of granting gentiles permission to dwell in Israel revolve around the same action – namely providing property to gentiles – both scenarios are discussed here.
Additionally, this Mitzva is included here with the Mitzvos combating assimilation because, aside for the aspect of the Mitzva which prevents the introduction of idols into Jewish homes, the Gemara also learns [as does Rashi] that this Mitzva prohibits Jews from looking at gentiles and commenting about how beautiful they are. Any research at all into the impact of so-called role models, and how fashion models, actors and other famous people for things which aren’t worthy of being famous for in a Torah in the same way that neighbors affect a neighborhood – will show just how important this Mitzva is in preventing our assimilation and the erosion of our values.
[AUTHOR’S NOTE] although as the SMG notes below, this Mitzva is primarily targeting the seven (7) Cana’anite nations who previously dwelled in Israel, its purpose is to prevent assimilation and has components that are applicable to all gentiles. Thus, I have included it in this book rather than the book of war.
SMG
[There is a negative Mitzva] prohibiting the provision [to gentiles or allowance] of residence with ownership of the land of Israel, as it says in the verse[i] ולא תחנם. For this reason, we learnt in the Gemara[ii] that we do not sell houses or fields in Israel to them[1]. However, outside Israel this is permitted.
There are three[2] things our sages have derived from this verse:
- The term of residence, as we have explained.
- The term of grace; one is prohibited to comment about how nice a gentile is, so that one will not come to learn from their deeds. And if so, this is referring to gentiles about whom we are not commanded to kill.
- The term of bestowal [α]; about whom we learnt in the Gemara[iii] we do not assist them in escaping from a pit [β], nor do we push them into one.
But the main meaning of the verse is that we are not to have mercy on them but must kill them. This is speaking of the seven (7) nations; the Emorites, the Cana’anites etc.
Now, in the Gemara[iv] where it states that it is permitted to sell houses and fields to a gentile outside of Israel, Rav Yosef said, [this is true with the caveat that] one does not provide a neighborhood[3] which is defined as three (3) or more houses [γ].[4] Therefore [δ], it is prohibited to sell three (3) adjacent houses to three (3) gentiles if there any Jews remaining nearby, as perhaps these three (3) gentiles will conspire evilly and will kill their [remaining] Jewish neighbors, or seek to harm them.[5]
We also said there that even in places where it is permitted to rent property to a gentile[6] that doesn’t include homes, since the gentile will bring in his idols into the dwelling, and the Torah said in the verse[v] ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך – as ‘the benefit is not acquired’.[7] But one may lease out structures used for storage. Now [ε], people are accustomed to even renting houses to live in. My [the SMG’s] maternal grandfather, Rabeinu Chaim the Kohen provides[vi] a supporting proof [for this custom] from the Yerushalmi[vii] that in places where it was ruled ok to sell, for example outside Israel, it is permitted to sell even houses to live in, and lease out houses even if they will be lived in. This was ruled, even though in Syria this was not the rule [ζ] – as we learnt in the Tosefta that it was permitted to sell, but not rent. This is the quote from the Tosefta[viii]:
We do not lease out to gentiles houses or fields in Israel. And in Syria we do sell to them houses, and rent out fields. And outside of Israel[8] we sell both. But ‘here and here’ we do not lease out houses for dwelling.
The meaning of ‘here and here’ is Israel and Syria [η], since just prior to that, the Tosefta was talking about lands outside of Israel, as was taught in the Yerushalmi. And the reasoning that we said outside of Israel it is permitted to lease out is because the Torah only prohibits [the introduction of an idol into] a house where a Jew lives in it – similar to the rules regarding the need for a Mezuza [see positive Mitzva 23], which is the obligation of the one who lives there. Our sages are the ones who prohibited [idols being brought into] a house [θ] even when [the Jew] doesn’t live there – and when they sold the house, or leased it out [ι], [the sages] did not wish to enact such a decree.
[1] This applies even if the rules of Yovel were in force, requiring the return of ancestral lands during Yovel, and houses in certain cities.
[2] Note Maharshal who identifies four things this verse could mean.
[3] Within a Jewish neighborhood, as noted momentarily by the SMG.
[4] Maharshal notes that this is not in line with the Gemara. [γ] Taking this a step further, if talking about the establishment of a neighborhood in the times of the Gemara, this would refer to a single compound in which three (3) houses share a common area – a courtyard – which is open to the main thoroughfare. Unlike the way neighborhoods are currently set up.
[5] There are those who would state that this statement is outrageous. It is not. It is factual. While I was writing this section, an interview with Curtis Sliwa, a Republican candidate for the office of Mayor of New York stated ‘It is ingrained in our very essence… Antisemitism is in our blood, even I hold back… I have to restrain myself at times, despite having two Jewish children.’ [the children are from a prior relationship with Queens District Attorney Melinda Katz – presumably she is Jewish and thus he identifies the children as Jewish.] This statement illustrates my point. Antisemitism is generally intrinsic to the gentile experience until the age of Moshiach when אז אהפך אל העמים.
[6] Presumably within Israel, as there is where we are commanded to seek out and destroy Idolatry. [See positive Mitzva 14]
[7] Meaning, even though the house is rented to the idolator, the gentile does not acquire full rights to the house, and thus, for the purposes of this verse, it is still considered the Jewish owner’s house, and he is allowing idols to be brought into his house.
[8] This that Syria is not considered ‘outside of Israel’ could be a possible indication that Syria will be one of those lands annexed to Israel as the future unfolds. On the other hand, it could just be that Syria was provided a Rabbinic sub-Israel status due to its large Jewish population and proximity to Israel.
[i] Devarim 7:2
[ii] Gem. Avoda Zara 21a
[iii] Gem. Avoda Zara 13b
[iv] Gem. Avoda Zara 21a
[v] Devarim 7:26
[vi] See Tosefos אף Gem. Avoda Zara 21a
[vii] Yer. Avoda Zara 1:10
[viii] Tosefta Avoda Zara 2:3
AMUDAY SHLOMO
[α] I [the Maharshal] wonder about this term, because in the Gemara it doesn’t mention חנינה – bestowal, it only mentions חנייה – resting, חן – grace, and מתנת חינם – a free gift. This is also how this section is presented in Maimonides.
Even more wonderous in my [the Maharshal’s] eyes is that חנינה is a term of grace, as we find in the Gemara on the verse לא תחנם means do not give them the ability to be landholders. The Gemara asks, but we need the verse to prohibit one from granting grace to them. And the Gemara answers, if that was the meaning of the verse, the Torah should have used the term לא תחונם and Rashi explains that when the word is written with the letter Vav, then it means חנינה as in grace. So what does לא תחנם mean when written without [the letter Vav], that implies חנייה – that we may not allow them to be landholders. And he asks, but we need the verse to prohibit the giving of free gifts. And he answers if that was the case, then the Torah should have written לא תחינם with the letter Yud, and then both would have been understood. As the Torah hasn’t written לא תחינם that implies that one may not grant them land to own etc.
The verse is thus being read both as לא תחונם which is a term of חנינה grace, and it is read [as written] as לא תחנם free gift. If so, it [the Gemara] explicitly implies that חנינה bestowal is not a third term. But this is not questionable since perhaps the verse only comes to imply that one may not provide חנייה – resting – meaning that the word is not [normally] understood at all as a term of resting. However, since the word was not written with the letter Yud or Vav, we can also learn that it can mean חנייה – resting in real estate.
[meaning: to properly imply do not grace them the word should be written לא תחונם, with the letter Vav added. To properly imply do not bestow, the word should be written לא תחינם, with the letter Yud added. Neither of those were done. Instead, the verse implies do not provide gratis, which is why it is written לא תחנם. But the pronunciation of the word is without the Ĉirik vowel, and instead the Kuh’matz is used – לא תחָנם, which allows us to also infer from the verse do not provide resting in real estate.]
We must say that the book [the SMG] changes the phraseology of the Gemara, as he does in many places, and derives the giving of gratis gifts from the term חנינה, which is not because of the exactitude of the language, but rather to illustrate the idea – meaning do not have pity on them [by allowing them to permanently emigrate to Israel] and be kind to them.
There is somewhat of a proof to this in Tosefos, which asks about the Gemara which states the Tana’im were arguing about giving gifts for free: according to the opinion that such is permitted, that counters what we learnt; ‘one may not bring them up’ etc. Which [question] is in accordance with the book [the SMG] who writes it is forbidden to have mercy on them, and the phrase ‘one may not bring them up’ etc. is a term of חנינה which is a free gift.
And perhaps, the intention of the book [the SMG] in changing the phraseology of the Gemara is so that it will come to us to teach and add to that which is forbidden with this prohibition of not giving them something free; to include even something which is not a free gift, such as honor – as explained later. Even in that case, we ‘do not bring them up’, even if paid to do so because the verse implies חנינה.
[β] Do not ask the question; we may not be obligated to raise them from the pit, but perhaps it is permissible to do so if one wants. That is not possible. Because then the second clause of the statement would also be qualified as an obligation, thus allowing one to push them into the pit even when not obligated to. Furthermore, [if the implication is that one isn’t required to raise them from the pit but is permitted to do so] then there is no need to say anything about this. And we can’t argue that if we were silent about raising them from the pit, you would think that there is an obligation to push them into one – in which case, why would it say that we do not raise them if there is an obligation to push them in. Certainly, we do not raise them. That only makes sense if the phrase ‘we do not raise them’ means it is not ok to raise them, and ‘we do not push them’ means it is not ok to push them – in which case, if we were silent about pushing them in you would think it is permitted to push them. Furthermore, we cannot ask then why not be silent about both cases, including ‘do not raise them’ as then we would think it is permitted to raise or push them. The same answer can be used regarding the phrase of ‘we do not raise them.’
[meaning: the statement Is ‘we do not raise them and we do not push them.’ Those can be understood as being imperative, as in ‘we may not raise them and we may not push them’ or they can be understood as passive, as in ‘we are not obligated to raise them and we are not obligated to push them.’ Maharshal says that if either one of those were correct:
- Either there would be no need to say anything; when the statement is being inferred to talk about prohibited obligations, if there is no prohibition, then there is no need to make a statement.
- Or if only one of those is permitted, and one prohibited, then both statements need not be made.
- And to say that both are permitted is a contradiction in intent – either the intent of the statement is that one is permitted to save them, in which case, why would it be permitted to push them in – or it is permitted to push them in, in which case why would it be permitted to save them.
Thus, the only viable explanation is that both are somewhat prohibited, but not fully. Maharshal therefore settles on the term רשאי.]
[γ] I [Maharshal] find this astounding, as the Gemara does not sat this [that a neighborhood is three (3) houses] but rather that it is made up of three (3) people. This is also how it is in Maimonides, who did not specify houses.
Perhaps, [the SMG] is coming to teach us another leniency, that fewer than three (3) houses, even if there were three (3) gentiles, is not prohibited. Perhaps the reliance for this ruling is that a neighborhood is generally three (3) houses, and we cannot twist the statement to mean something it doesn’t actually mean.[1] Perhaps, this is why Maimonides phrases the statement as ‘a neighborhood is not less than three (3)’ without identifying whether he meant people or houses – and his phrasing includes both possibilities.
[δ] What is the book [the SMG] adding by saying ‘therefore’. In my [Maharshal’s] opinion, [this is being added so that] we will not say as a result of [protecting] the neighborhood that it is forbidden to sell three (3) houses to a single or two (2) gentiles – even though the buyer could then sell one of the houses to another gentile. That is permitted. As was written in the Tur.[2]
[ε] Meaning in the diaspora, outside Israel, we have the custom to rent out houses even if they will be lived in. This same rule would apply during the time of the Base Hamikdash.[3] He phrased it this way because now, most Jews live outside of Israel.
And the proof from his maternal grandfather is related to what he said that in the diaspora it is permitted to rent out a house [to gentiles] even for dwelling in.
[ζ] Meaning, even though we have stated that it is permitted to sell, nevertheless it is prohibited to rent out a house. And in the diaspora where we have said it is permitted to sell, one may also rent out. This is easy to understand[4] as was said in the Yerushalmi that where it was said [it is permitted in Israel] to rent, the intent was not to rent out for dwelling. But in places where it was said outside of Israel, that it is permitted to rent, one may sell and rent even if the house will be used as a dwelling. This is how it was explained in Tosefos in the Gemara Avoda Zara, and in Maimonides’ notes and the commentary by the RAN.
As to what was said in the Yerushalmi that [the statement] ‘in a place where it was permitted to rent, for example in Israel’ is in accordance with Rabbi Yosi who argues with the first opinion in the Mishna – and here is the Mishna [unusually, the Maharshal now quotes the actual text of the Mishna and associated Gemara. See footnotes to follow explaining why]:
MISHNA: We do not rent out houses to them in Israel, and certainly not fields. In Syria, we may rent out houses to them but not fields. Outside of Israel, we may sell houses to them and rent out fields – according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosi says; in Israel, we may rent out houses to them, but not fields. In Syria, we may sell houses to them and rent out fields. Outside of Israel we may sell both.
MISHNA: Even in places where it was said ‘to rent’, the intent was not to rent out for dwelling, because then idols will be brought in [which violates] the verse ולא תביא תועבה אל ביתך.
GEMARA[i]: [quoting the Mishna] “Even in places where it was said ‘to rent’,” implies that there are places where they may not dwell. This unsourced statement is in accordance with Rabbi Meir, because Rabbi Yosi allows dwelling in all scenarios.
[The chart below presents the opinions. Statements in Parenthesis of Rabbi Yosi are the opinions based on the Yerushalmi version of the Mishna which differs from Bavli, and from our accepted editions of Mishna.]
| Case | Rabbi Meir | Rabbi Yosi | |
| Israel | House Rental | No | Yes |
| House Sale | [Obviously no] | [Presumably no] | |
| Field Sale | [Obviously no] | [Obviously no] | |
| Field Rental | No | No | |
| Syria | House Rental | Yes | (Yes) |
| House Sale | Yes | ||
| Field Sale | |||
| Field Rental | No | Yes | |
| Diaspora | House Rental | (Yes) | |
| House Sale | Yes | Yes | |
| Field Sale | Yes | ||
| Field Rental | Yes | ||
This clearly implies[5] that when the Mishna says, “Even in places where it was said ‘to rent’,” that is talking about outside of Israel, and certainly[6] Syria.
[Notwithstanding our version of the Gemara, Maharshal now presents an opinion which differs from the Gemara, as he noted when introducing the text of the Mishna and Gemara]
Rabbi Ĉaim the Kohen wrote that we should rely on the Yerushalmi, which is of the opinion that the Mishna’s statement of “Even in places where it was said ‘to rent’,” is in accordance with Rabbi Yosi – which is why[7] [the SMG] phrased this as ‘In places where it was ruled ok to sell’. This is a bit difficult.
[η] Syria is defined as ארם צובה, which is near Israel. It was conquered by Dovid, and thus represents an individuals conquest [not the conquest of the nation], which doesn’t count as conquest [in terms of expanding the Land of Israel].
Within Syria, houses may be sold and fields may be rented out – but may not be sold. This was explained in the first chapter [of Gem. Avoda Zara], since in Israel there are two (2) prohibitions [which would be violated], 1) prohibiting gentiles from establishing their dwelling there, and 2) the resulting absolution of the tithe [from the fields owned by gentiles][8]. And a decree was enacted in Syria [to prevent the sale of fields] out of concern that people would do so within Israel.[9]
However, houses, which only have one (1) prohibition associated, there was no preventative decree issued [to prohibit their rental].
[θ] This is how Tosefos phrased it: Since even in Israel, the prohibition is only a Rabbinic decree, therefore, in the diaspora, they did not issue the decree. That is also how Maimonides notes. And the reason that there is a difference between Israel and outside of Israel, is because the gentiles outside of Israel do not cleave to their idols.[10]
As an example of this, we learnt in Tosefos that the gentiles, nowadays, no not bring idols into their house – at least not on a permanent basis – unless there is a stranger [to whom they are showing off to] or if there is someone close to death [as in they call in a priest to perform last rites]. And even when doing so, at that time they aren’t actively worshiping it.
[ι] We can wonder about this a bit, why was a sale mentioned here, as sales are even permitted in Syria. Some answer that the sale is referring to Syria, and the rental is referring to outside of Israel, and this is a side note.
Tosefos wonders how is it possible that we have the custom nowadays to sell houses for dwelling – which implies that even outside of Israel, it would be appropriate to forbid selling so that one doesn’t come to renting them out. [As renting them out] includes the prohibition against idolatry, so why wouldn’t it be forbidden.
It must be that the rental itself is not forbidden[11], and therefore, the case of selling was also included. As to why this decree was not enacted in Syria, to forbid selling so that one wouldn’t come to renting out a house; perhaps rentals were not common and something that was not common does not have a Rabbinic decree associated with it. This is a bit difficult.
[1] The stated prohibition was with regard to a neighborhood, even though it didn’t specify three houses, and only stated three (3) people, to form a minimum size neighborhood those three (3) people would have to be living in three (3) houses.
[2] By defining the prohibition with the word ‘therefore’, meaning as the direct result of the statement in the Gemara, the SMG is providing grounds to prohibit only that which was explicitly stated in the Gemara. One need not take it a step further.
[3] Meaning, the phrase ‘Now’ is not delimiting the time period in which such is permitted, but rather the circumstances.
[4] Renting is less permissible than selling outright. As to the logic of this, the gentile will be bringing in his idols into the house. If the house is sold, then no violation accrues to the Jewish seller when the buyer brings in his idols. But if the house is rented, then the Jew is in effect allowing idolatry onto his property – which is prohibited.
[5] Because the Gemara determines that the statement includes a prohibition against allowing gentiles to dwell there – which follows Rabbi Meir because Rabbi Yosi allows house rentals to gentiles even in Israel – that means that this statement by Rabbi Meir must be talking about outside of Israel, or it would counter Rabbi Meir’s explicit statement prohibiting rentals in Israel.
[6] Certainly, Syria is included in the undefined statement by Rabbi Meir, because with regard to Syria, Rabbi Meir actual explicitly stated it is permitted to rent houses to gentiles. This undefined statement thus serves to qualify Rabbi Meir’s blanket permission of renting out houses in Syria as well as providing us with his opinion on renting out houses outside of Israel.
[7] Instead of the edition provided by Maharshal where the text is “in places where it was said ‘to rent’”, the text provided by the SMG quotes ‘to sell’ and not ‘to rent’. By changing the thrust of the case, this allows for Rabbi Yosi’s opinion to also be included in the blank statement. Maharshal though is dissatisfied with this.
Presumably, the difference lies in a missing word in the Mishna. In the Yerushalmi, the Mishna provides Rabbi Yosi with the opening statement of אף בארץ ישראל משכירין להם בתים – Even in Israel, we rent out houses to them. Maharshal’s version lacks the critical אף – Even, as that is how the Mishna is quoted in the Gem. Bavli.
In the Yerushalmi version, because Rabbi Yosi says ‘Even’ that means that he allows house rentals in all cases, even in Israel. See the insertion of the Parenthesis opinions into the chart. This explains why Maharshal was unable to fully reconcile the statement of Rabbi Ĉaim the Kohen. It also explains why the SMG quoted the Yerushalmi instead of the Bavli.
[8] A farmer who did not wish to tithe, could “sell” his land to a gentile, and avoid the tithe – as gentiles have no obligation to tithe. And then after the harvest the Jew could “buy it back” from the gentile. A similar mechanism is currently employed to sell the Ĉametz before Pesaĉ.
[9] Possibly, we can say this isn’t a decree on top of a decree, but that the decree was issued as a blanket prohibition for the lands on which tithes might be given. Syria is a land in which some tithes are taken from, and therefore the prohibition applies – even though the reason tithes are required in Syria is because of a decree.
[10] Being in Israel causes the person there to be more open to spirituality. For a gentile who believes in idolatry, that would mean they would be more fanatically observant in Israel than they are outside Israel. We can see this by the fanaticism displayed by the muslims in Israel as compared to those outside of Israel – both in terms of volume and intensity.
Perhaps this is one of the ancillary reasons for this Mitzva, by preventing gentiles who do not accept upon themselves the seven (7) Noaĉide laws from dwelling in Israel, we are also preventing them from becoming fanatical about their false religions.
[11] Outside Israel, notwithstanding the possibility of bringing in idols.
[i] Gem. Avoda Zara 21a-b
RASHI
Rashi on the verse ולא תחנם provides the following comment:
- ולא תחנם – one may not give them grace; it is forbidden for a person to say ‘how beautiful is that gentile’. Another way [of learning the verse] Do not allow them to settle in the land.
Unlike both the SMG and Maharshal, Rashi initially understands the verse as meaning in the literal sense, do not ascribe grace to them. The term חן is found quite often in the Torah, usually in conjunction with the word מציאה which renders the meaning self-understood as finding favor. A couple times when the term does not exactly fit in context, for example, when Yaakov sought favor with his brother Esav, the concept of ‘finding favor’ did not apply as Esav hated Yaakov. Instead, Rashi there explains[i] that the term also has another connotation, that of the performance of a favor, as in something done without payment. Yaakov sent his gifts with no expectation of payment, and refused Esav’s offer of an armed escort as no payment was necessary.
Those instances, and the many other times the word or derivative of חן is used, implies that there is nothing to be done on the part of the recipient of the grace. That the meaning of grace is in fact in the eye of the beholder, whether that is divine grace [as in Noaĉ before the flood], or mundane human grace [as in Yosef finding grace in the eyes of the prison warden]. Here though, the verse is presented חן as an imperative, as something given to someone else.
To explain this, Rashi notes that חן also relates to beauty, as we find the term graceful to be somewhat synonymous with the term beautiful. In that manner, it is possible to issue an imperative relative to one’s interactions with a gentile – namely, do not ascribe beauty [grace] to them.
However, Rashi judges this to be an inadequate explanation for a command, for if the gentile is truly graceful and beautiful, what difference will it make if one takes note of it by stating the truth or not. The grace and beauty of the gentile is not being created by one’s notice, but was imbued within the person by G-d. Therefore, Rashi resorts to the Halaĉic interpretation of the verse, as in ‘Do not allow them to settle within the land of Israel’. Which explains the imperative in the verse.
As this though is a departure from the plain meaning of the verse, Rashi provides this explanation as a second interpretation leaving the primary interpretation along the lines of the plain meaning of the verse, even if that meaning is awkward for having been rendered into the imperative.
[i] Beraishis 32:6, 33:15
Discussion by SMS
Obviously, the very concept of the גר תושב – the stranger settler which describes a gentile Israeli citizen who submits to Israeli laws and resolves to obey the seven (7) Noaĉide commandments means that the prohibition applies only to gentiles who either refuse to submit to Israeli law or do not resolve to obey the seven (7) Noaĉide commandments.
I find it strange though, even though this is an obvious statement, why didn’t the SMG make that statement?
On a practical matter, this is a specific prohibition against allowing the arabs to have the so-called Right of Return – this prohibits them from being allowed to reenter the land of Israel [the entire land provided to the Jewish people by G-d, not just that area which the so-called United Nations grants to the State of Israel] and take up residence there. Only the גר תושב – the stranger settler is to be allowed to live in Israel as its citizens. And while muslims might not be considered idolatrous, by definition they not willing to obey the seven (7) Noaĉide laws – and therefore, no muslim is allowed to be a citizen of Israel.
Key
Etymology and Definitions of Defined Terms
- תחנם = חן – grace.
- תחנם = חנייה – resting.
- תחנם = חנינה – bestowal.
- תחנם = חינם – gratis.
All these can be defined as nuances related to the underlying term of Grace. Grace is bestowed, not earned. It is free and cannot be paid for. And it rests in the person upon whom it was bestowed, it cannot be transferred.