The Land I Will Show You, sec. 1, chapter 2

(For the previous chapter of “The Land I Will Show You, click here. For the ToC, click here.)

2: The Opinion of the Majority of the Sages who Disagree with the Ramban

Ramban counted the positive commandment of residing in Eretz Yisrael in the “forgotten positive commandments,” as one of the mitzvahs that Rambam left out of his count. But according to Rambam, the mitzvah is not counted as one of the 613. It would seem, prima facie, that this is because it isn’t – according to his opinion – a biblical positive commandment. But Rambam has 14 principles that determine what is included in the 613 mitzvahs, and many mitzvahs that aren’t included in the count due to these principles are no lesser obligations than the other mitzvahs of the Torah. For example, the 3^rd principle establishes that one shouldn’t include a mitzvah that isn’t relevant in all generations, for example, a mitzvah that was only relevant in the desert such as “No man shall leave any of it until morning” (Exodus 16:19), or the inauguration of the tabernacle. Indeed, at the time that these mitzvahs were in force, their obligation was equivalent to a mitzvah that is relevant in all generations, but the count of the 613 mitzvahs includes only mitzvahs that are established forever. Thus, regarding residing in Eretz Yisrael, it’s possible that Rambam too concurs, in principle, with Ramban that it is a biblical mitzvah, but holds that it isn’t counted in the 613 due to this or a different principle. And indeed many ideas were put forth arguing that residing in EY is biblically mandated according to Rambam, some giving one idea and some another.¹

But none of the solutions are unforced, each in its way. We won’t discuss this at length, for not only Rambam left out residing in EY from the count of the mitzvahs. Rather, all of the known counters of the mitzvahs didn’t include it in the count: Bahag, Rasag, Rabbi Eliyahu the Elder, Rabbi Shlomo ibn Gabirol, the Yereim, Smag, Smak and Chinuch – all of them didn’t count this mitzvah.² It seems plain that these sages – the majority in number and authority – disagree with Ramban about the very foundation of the issue, and explain “And you shall take possession of the land and dwell in it” not as a command but rather as Rashi explained the verse, as a promise: If you dispossess the land of its inhabitants, then you will be able to survive in it. This is not a command, but a promise. And in this Rashi is consistent with his opinion, that there is no mitzvah to take possession and reside in the land. For Ramban wrote that delineating the biblical boundaries was necessary in order to establish the land about which we are commanded in capturing and residing in, but Rashi gave a different reason for delineating the boundaries. He says thus on the verse “This is the land that will be distributed” etc. (Numbers 34:2): “Since many mitzvahs are only relevant in EY, and aren’t relevant in exile, it was necessary to write the boundaries of the directions around it, to tell you that from the boundaries and inward the mitzvahs are relevant.” It seems that there is no mitzvah to take possession and reside, according to Rashi, because otherwise he would have explained the need for writing the boundaries as Ramban did – to delineate the land about which we’re commanded to capture and reside in.³
It seems that Rashi along with all the counters of the mitzvahs aside from Ramban and his group hold that there is not a biblical positive commandment to capture, possess and reside in EY, and the Ramban’s opinion is a minority opinion. In line with this presentation, the halachic conclusion would apparently be that there is no biblical mitzvah involved in residing in Eretz Yisrael.⁴ However, as we shall see, even something that isn’t written in the Torah as an imperative can obligate action just like a great, complete mitzvah.

(For the next chapter of “The Land I Will Show You,” click here.)

---

The Hebrew book is available for purchase from me directly, in Judaica stores, and online, here: 

1. See Megillas Esther on the forgotten positive commandments, 4; R’ Yaakov Zisberg, Nachlas Yaakov, Har Bracha 5765, v. 1, pgs. 228 and on.

2. See Sefer Mitzvos He’aruch, Jerusalem 5759, v. 3, pg. 281. Ramban’s opinion was brought in Charedim chapter 59; about this see Vayoel Moshe, treatise on residing in EY, section 60.

3. This proof was brought in Vayoel Moshe, treatise on residing in EY, section 5.

4. There were indeed halachic deciders who ruled in accord with Ramban’s opinion; see: R’ Yaakov Zisberg, Nachlas Yaakov, Har Berachah 5765, vol. 1 pg. 67; R’ Tzvi Glat, Me’afar Kumi, Jerusalem 5741, pg. 100, for a full list. I see no purpose in discussing the accuracy of their words – do all the sages quoted there actually rule like Ramban, why did they rule like Ramban, and is their decision halachically definitive – for, as shall be explained in the next chapter, this has no bearing on the essential question that we’re dealing with: Is it incumbent upon us to live in Eretz Yisrael?