The holiday of Chanuka celebrates our redemption from the Greek exile. Why was the Greek conquest considered an exile? Where were the Jewish people exiled to? Has that galus ever ended? Is there a positive mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel? And if there is no such mitzvah, why is there a prohibition in leaving the Land? Is flying in for a week-long visit a mitzvah? Is there a difference between traveling to Eretz Yisroel for a vacation and traveling in order to soak up Torah and kedusha? What conditions must be in place to make leaving Eretz Yisroel permitted? What happens to one who does not meet those conditions? These questions, and others, are the focus of our article this week.
Galus Yavan -- Chanukah
The miracle of Chanukah marks our freedom from the Greek exile. But what kind of exile was it?
Unlike other exiles, the Greek exile did not remove the Jewish people from the Land of Israel. We remained in our homeland, and the Beis Hamikdash stood in Yerushalayim. The exile was a spiritual one -- the Greeks prevented us from living as a holy nation, preventing us from keeping the mitzvos, attempting to brainwash the people, and disrupting the avodah in the Beis Hamikdash. We could say that during the Greek exile the Jewish people were not exiled from the Land; rather, it was the Land and its holiness that was taken from them.
In previous articles, we discussed the prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisrael. In this article, we turn to the question of the mitzva: is there actually a positive mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel? This question is especially relevant to Chanukah, when the battle was to restore the holiness and sanctity of the Land, resulting in restoration of our national independence,
The Mitzvah of Settling Eretz Yisroel
The Ramban (Sefer HaMitzvos, Shichachas Aseh 4) lists several mitzvos among the 613 positive commandments which are not listed by the Rambam. One of these is the positive mitzvah to conquer and settle the Land of Israel. According to the Ramban, this mitzvah includes not relinquishing Eretz Yisroel to other nations, and not allowing it to lie desolate. Therefore, living in Eretz Yisroel, is – according to the Ramban – fulfillment of a positive commandment.
The Rambam, however, does not count this mitzvah among the 613 commandments. This seems difficult, since the Torah repeatedly commands the Jewish people to conquer and settle Eretz Yisroel.
The Megillas Esther (ibid) explains that according to the Rambam, the mitzva to conquer and settle the Land applied only at specific times: during the initial entry under Yehoshua Bin Nun’s leadership, and again in the future times of Moshiach. During the exile, however, Hashem adjured the Jewish people not to take the Land by force. Since this commandment applies only at limited times and not to all generations, the Rambam did not count it among the 613 mitzvos.
The Achronim challenged this explanation. They note that there are many mitzvos that apply only at certain times, such as the service in the Beis HaMikdash, or appointment of a king, yet they are still counted among the mitzvos. However, those mitzvos are obligations that rest upon us at all times, but the circumstances prevent us from fulfilling them. The Korban Tamid, for example, remains an obligation every day, even though we are currently unable to bring it. According to the Megillas Esther, however, the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisroel only exists during specific periods.
The Rashbash writes that according to the Rambam, the mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisrael is d’rabonon, however practically, halachah follows the Ramban’s opinion, as stated by the Tashbatz (Zohar HaRakia, Aseh 79): settling Eretz Yisroel is a mitzvas ase d’oraysa.
The Rashbash adds an important caveat. Because of the oath by which Hashem adjured the Jewish people not to “ascend as a wall,” there is no obligation upon the Jewish people as a collective to conquer the Land and settle it by force. Nevertheless, the mitzvah still applies to each individual, who is obligated to individually settle in Eretz Yisrael.
The Chochmas Adam (Sha’arei Tzedek, Sha’ar Mishpetei HaAretz 11:3) rules in accordance with the Ramban that there is a positive mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel, adding that he hoped to merit doing so himself (although this did not ultimately occur).
The Pe’as HaShulchan (1:9) presents both views: both the Rambam’s position and that of the Achronim that there is no Torah obligation and that the mitzvah is rabbinic; and the position of the Ramban, Tashbatz, and the Rashbash that it is a Torah commandment, without issuing his ruling. However, he does note one practical difference between these views: the issue of a shvu’a (oath). One who swore not to live in Eretz Yisrael: according to the Rambam the oath would take effect, since it conflicts with a rabbinic mitzvah. According to the Ramban, however, the oath would not take effect, since it stands in opposition to a Torah commandment.
Living in Eretz Yisroel: Additional Mitzvos
If the status of the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisroel nowadays is up for debate, why is it so important to live here, and forbidden to leave?
The reasons, as discussed in our previous installments, are several:
One, is our love and desire to fulfil Hashems mitzvos. Only in Eretz Yisroel is it possible to fulfill the mitzvos hatluyos b’aretz. Just as we make a point of wearing a four cornered garment in order to be obligated with the mitzva of tzitzis, so too we should try to live in Eretz Yisroel and be obligated to fulfil the mitzvos of the Land.
Another reason is spiritual advancement: only in Eretz Yisroel is there the unique possibility to connect with Hashem directly, and all sustenance and blessing comes directly from Him. Prayers are accepted here more readily, and Hashem’s blessings descend directly from Hashem in Eretz Yisroel, as opposed to the rest of the world, where sustenance comes from Hashem through the ministering angel appointed over that country. For this reason, the Gemara states that one who lives outside Eretz Yisroel is considered as if he worships idols.
A third reason is the special holiness in Eretz Yisroel. Its air brings wisdom and is more conducive to Yiras Shomayim. We are therefore obligated to live where we can become sanctified and spiritual, and that is in Eretz Yisroel.
Because of these reasons, all agree that the mitzva of living in Eretz Yisroel is at least a mitzva d’rabonon. However, one must be meticulous in observing the mitzvos ha’tluyos ba’aretz and conduct himself in a way that brings him closer to Hashem, because otherwise living in Eretz Yisroel would defeat his purpose.
Contemporary Application
The Tosafos (Kesubos 110b) write that in our times the halacha that a husband or wife may compel one another to move to Eretz Yisroel does not apply. According to the first opinion in Tosafos, this is because the roads are dangerous, and one cannot compel a spouse to endanger himself in order to fulfill a mitzvah. According to Rabbenu Chaim Kohen, in our times there is no mitzvah to live in the Land of Israel at all, because there are many mitzvos dependent on the Land which we cannot fulfill properly.
The Maharit (Vol. II, YD 28; cited in Pischei Teshuvah, EH 75:6) strongly disagrees with Rabbenu Chaim Kohen and writes that these words could not have originated from him, and must have originated from an erring student.
The Shulchan Aruch (EH 75:4) rules that spouses may compel one another to ascend to Eretz Yisroel. However, the Beis Shmuel (ibid. footnote 20) writes that Rabbenu Chaim Kohen and the Rosh disagree as to whether the law of compulsion applies in our times, since they disagree about whether there is a mitzvah today.
Similarly, the Vilna Gaon (ibid. footnote 17) writes that Rabbenu Chaim Kohen disagrees with the Ramban regarding the existence of a mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel, and holds that the obligation to live in Eretz Yisroel is only in order to fulfill the mitzvos ha’tluyos ba’aretz. After the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash, the obligation is lighter, and therefore in our times, if one is concerned that he may not be able to observe the mitzvos properly, one is exempt from living here.
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer I, 102) explains that it is unnecessary to assume a dispute between Rabbenu Chaim Kohen (or the first opinion in Tosafos) and the Ramban. Even according to the Ramban, there is no personal obligation for an individual to live in the Land of Israel, nor is it forbidden to reside elsewhere. Yeshivas Eretz Yisroel is different form the mitzva of tzitzis in that tzitzis is a direct personal obligation, while living in the Land of Israel, fulfils a mitzvah, but it is not an individual obligation. For this reason, the Tosafos rule that if the roads are dangerous, or if moving would place one’s mitzva observance at risk, it is permissible to refrain from fulfilling the mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (Minchas Shlomo, Vol. III, 158:22) notes that according to Rabbenu Chaim Kohen’s reasoning, there is indeed a mitzvah to settle the Land of Israel even today. Otherwise, he wouldn’t need to mention the concern that one might, Heaven forbid, stumble in the observance of mitzvos ha’tluyos ba’aretz. This view is echoed by the Tashbatz (Vol. III, 200), who, while ruling that there is a mitzvah to settle the Land according to the Ramban, observes that many refrain from moving here due to concerns that poverty could lead them to stray from Torah and mitzvos. The Vilna Gaon apparently held similarly, noting that for these reasons, one cannot compel a spouse to move to Eretz Yisrael.
The Maharam of Rothenburg (Tashbatz Katan, 559) clarifies the moral dimension: “Those who go there and act frivolously, engaging in quarrels or misconduct, the pasuk applies to them: ‘You have come and defiled My land’ and ‘Who asked this of you, to trample My courtyards?’ But one who goes for the sake of Heaven, to live in holiness and purity, will be richly rewarded, provided he is able to support himself there.”
Regarding the mitzva of conquering Eretz Yisroel, th Pachad Yitzchak (Sefer HaZikaron, p. 52–53) writes that conquest of Eretz Yisroel is considered a conquest only if all idolatry is eradicated from the Land. Since the State of Israel is bound today by international law and public opinion and preserves shrines and churches, the State of Israel does not constitute a Torah mandated conquest. Therefore, in our present reality, we are unable to fulfill the mitzvah yeshivas Eretz Yisroel.
The Avnei Nezer (YD 454:33) summarizes the issues:
- The positive commandment of dwelling in Eretz Yisroel: nowadays, this mitzva level depends on whether Ezra’s sanctification remains in force today on a Torah level, or whether it is rabbinic. There is no distinction in this regard between Jerusalem and the rest of the Land, and this mitzvah applies even to an ordinary person who is not exceptionally righteous.
- The obligation to fulfill the mitzvos ha’tluyos ba’aretz. When the Beis Hamikdash stood there was an additional mitzva of living in Yerushalayim which would allow for eating the korbanos and ma’aser, and praying in the Beis Hamikdash.
- Living in a sanctified Holy Land which is imbued with the Divine Presence, under Hashem’s direct Hashgacha. In this respect, there is a greater mitzvah to live in Jerusalem than in other places. This applies only to a righteous person. Otherwise the holiness cannot tolerate him, as the pasuk states, “Who asked this of you, to trample My courtyards?”
Visiting Eretz Yisroel
The Rashbash (2) writes that there is no mitzvah in only traveling to Eretz Yisroel. The mitzvah is to settle there, and traveling is merely a preparatory step for the mitzvah since one cannot live in Eretz Yisroel without it. According to his opinion it appears that there is no mitzvah at all in staying in Eretz Yisroel for a limited time without intention of settling permanently. Showing a presence in Eretz Yisroel without actually living there does not fulfill the mitzvah of yeshivas Eretz Yisroel. (The discussion concerns whether a shvu’a to travel to Eretz Yisroel is considered an oath to perform a mitzvah or a necessary preparation for a mitzvah.)
On the other hand, the Magen Avraham (248:15) and Mishnah Brura (248:28) cite a dispute regarding setting sail to Israel in the three days before Shabbos. If traveling to Eretz Yisroel is a mitzva, setting sail before Shabbos is permitted since the trip is a mitzva, even if the trip is a tour it or to stay for a short period and then return abroad, because for every four amos that a person walks in the Land of Israel he fulfills a mitzvah. Others, however, hold that the mitzvah is only when one settles in the Land permanently, in which case setting sail before Shabbos is only permitted when traveling for this reason.
The Machatzis Hashekel (footnote 8) notes the Gemara’s statement that one who walks four amos in Eretz Yisroel is assured a share in the World to Come, and therefore there is certainly spiritual value in a short visit. Nevertheless, the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisroel is only fulfilled by establishing one’s permanent residence here. The dispute, then, is whether this lesser fulfillment is sufficient to permit setting sail close to Shabbos, or not.
The Maharit (Vol. II, YD 28) writes that traveling to Eretz Yisroel for a short period is not a well-known mitzvah. Therefore, the Rosh (12:7) and the Shulchan Aruch (YD 228:36) ruled that one who vows to travel to Eretz Yisroel has not taken a vow to perform a mitzvah, and the vow may be annulled. This is because a vow to travel there does not include settling there permanently, and travel alone does not constitute a mitzvah.
Apparently, while the Maharit agrees there is some mitzvah or virtue in traveling to Eretz Yisroel, it is not a “famous” mitzvah, meaning one that Chazal emphasized as a primary mitzvah. (in his opinion, the rule that vows to perform a mitzvah cannot be annulled applies only to well-established mitzvos.)
Kavana
The Pnei Yehoshua (Kesubos 111a) and Rav Shlomo Kluger (HaElef Lecha Shlomo, EH 120) write that the mitzvah of ascending to the Land of Israel applies only when one goes there with the intention of fulfilling a mitzvah. If one ascends for another purpose, there is no mitzvah involved. The Pnei Yehoshua writes that only one who comes to Eretz Yisroel for the mitzvah receives the Yiras Shomyim that safeguards him from sin and assures his repentance. One who was born here, however, or who comes for material gain or another physical reason, does not enjoy this protection, and when he sins, his sin is more severe.
The Shulchan Aruch HaRav (OC 248, Kuntrus Acharon footnote 8) writes that one who goes to Eretz Yisroel for a temporary visit in order to fulfill the mitzvah of walking four amos in the Land of Israel should not be chastised for setting sail close to Shabbos, since there are those who hold that travel is enough a mitzvah to permit it. However, one who is traveling only for physical pleasure without intention of a mitzvah might indeed be protested against when traveling close to Shabbos, since no mitzvah is being fulfilled.
Conditions for Mitzvas Yeshivas Eretz Yisroel
The Chochmas Adam (Sha’arei Tzedek, Sha’ar Mishpetei Ha’Aretz, chapter 11, 1–5) lists several conditions that need to be in place for one to fulfill this precious mitzvah:
First, is the ability to sanctify and purify himself, and to serve Hashem constantly with a full heart. Such a person must be clean of hand and pure of heart, as the pasuk says, “Who may ascend the mountain of Hashem, and who may stand in His holy place? One who is clean of hands and pure of heart” (Tehillim 24:3). “Clean of hands” refers to mitzvos between man and his fellow, while “pure of heart” refers to mitzvos between man and Hashem.
Second, a person must be thoroughly knowledgeable in all the relevant halachos, so that his spiritual gains do not turn into a loss, since there are many areas in which one could easily err. He notes that he composed his work “Mishpetei Ha’Aretz” on the laws of Eretz Yisroel as part of his own personal preparation to move there, a plan that was ultimately not carried out.
Third, one who cannot support himself in Eretz Yisroel and must rely on the community, whereas in chutz la’aretz he earns his livelihood through his own efforts, should certainly remain where he is.
Fourth, one whose parents object to his moving must carefully consider whether he is obligated to go despite their opposition.
The Avnei Nezer (YD 454) summarizes the matter as follows:
First, is parnossah: the fullest expression of the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisroel is when one earns his livelihood from the Land. When one is supported by funds sent from abroad, his sustenance is, so to speak, bound with the spiritual influence of those lands rather than the direct blessing of Eretz Yisroel. Nevertheless, even those who live off of foreign donations still fulfill the mitzvah of dwelling in Eretz Yisroel.
Second, in his view, the mitzvah of settling the Land applies in its ideal form only to a tzaddik of such stature that, were all Jews to be like him, redemption would surely come. This also includes the wife of such a person, or one who lives under the guidance of a rebbi of that stature.
Third, the poskim all agree that every Jew has a mitzvah to make aliyah even if these ideal conditions are not met. According to those who hold that the mitzvos ha’teluyos ba’aretz apply today on a Torah level, the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisroel is likewise biblical; according to those who view them as rabbinic, dwelling in the Land is also rabbinic. However, in areas that were not conquered by Olei Bavel, such as Beit She’an, Gaza and land south of Ashkelon, and the Western Galilee north of Akko, the mitzvah applies only when the above conditions are fulfilled. Similarly, the unique status of Jerusalem over the rest of Eretz Yisroel applies only under these conditions.
Fourth, one who makes aliya and settles among Torah-observant people fulfills a mitzvah likened to all the mitzvos in the Torah, yet there is no prohibition upon one who does not do so.
Fifth, it is important to encourage governments to enable as many Jews as possible to make aliyah and settle in Eretz Yisroel (make housing affordable). There is also special merit in the fulfilling of the mitzvos ha’teluyos ba’aretz, and through mutual assistance the Jewish people increase holiness and blessing. It is likewise meritorious for those outside the Land to acquire property in Eretz Yisroel, especially when they derive their livelihood from it, which is considered a partial fulfillment of the mitzvah of settling the Land.
May it be Hashem’s will that through settling Eretz Yisroel in holiness and purity, and through meticulous observance of all the mitzvos practiced within it, we merit that just as in our days – on Chanukah — we witnessed the end of the Greek exile and the return of the Jewish people’s sanctity, so too may this be fully realized speedily in our days. Amen.
