The Land I Will Show You, sec. 4, chapter 2

Conditions in the Mitzvah to Reside in Eretz Yisrael

Section 4: The Jewish People in the Diaspora – Generations that Didn’t Return to Eretz Yisrael

2: Conditions in the Mitzvah to Reside in Eretz Yisrael

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

On the basis of the question why all the great ones of Israel didn’t ascend to Eretz Yisrael, the author of the “Avnei Nezer” developed an elaborate and original idea: The mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael is intended only for a person who will find the source of his livelihood in Eretz Yisrael. In contrast, throughout all the generations it wasn’t possible to find a source of income in Eretz Yisrael except for funds sent from the diaspora, and in that kind of case, there is no mitzvah. The mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael is rooted in the notion that the Children of Israel are supported in the land of Hashem directly from Him, without the intermediation of any divine minister or angel, but one who resided there and is supported from the diaspora, through a minister or angel, is lacking in the essence of the mitzvah. These are his words:

Let us now come to our discussion. For the residence of Israel in Eretz Yisrael is [important] since Israel is the portion of Hashem and wasn’t placed under the control any minister… for there is no minister over it but for the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself, and the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded that Israel should reside in Eretz Yisrael, since if it would be in the diaspora, its income would be through the minister of that land… akin to idolatry, which is known… therefore if a person will reside in Eretz Yisrael but he has no source of income but for what is sent to him from the diaspora, such that the flow of his support is through the minister in the diaspora, what kind of residing in Eretz Yisrael is that?! And that is what seems to me to be the reason for the great ones who didn’t travel to Eretz Yisrael. Although one could say that they send them only money and they purchase and consume the fruits of Eretz Yisrael, nonetheless it’s more reasonable that in such a case it’s considered that they receive from the flow of the diaspora… Therefore, those who reside in Eretz Yisrael and are supported from diaspora funds, in my humble opinion minimize the mitzvah, and it’s not clear at all whether they are fulfilling the mitzvah.[1]

The mitzvah is subject to esoteric considerations of the influence of the heavenly ministers that rule in the diaspora; there is no mitzvah to reside in Eretz Yisrael if a person doesn’t escape from their influence.

But it is impossible to establish the parameters of a mitzvah based on these kinds of esoteric matters; the accurate and piercing comment of Rabbi Yoel of Satmar on the novel idea suffices:

We cannot generate, on the basis of a question, new laws in a biblical commandment that have no mention in the Talmud or early sages… who can know the reason of the Creator to say that the reason for the mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael is dependent only on consuming its produce therein?![2]

So much for the words of the “Avnei Nezer.” Rabbi Yoel of Satmar himself raised the problem:

It is hard to understand what this is and why it is that in all the generations from the times of the Tannaim and Amoraim until now all the great ones of Israel and the holy ones who are the pillars of the world didn’t travel to Eretz Yisrael, except for a tiny minority that were in Eretz Yisrael… and this is indeed an open question on all the generations… why didn’t they travel then to Eretz Yisrael?[3]

He concluded, as has been mentioned,[4] that there is no mitzvah during the period of exile, and therefore he justified the great ones of Israel who didn’t ascend throughout all the generations. But if we don’t accept this opinion of his, then we are back to the question: Why didn’t they ascend?

It would appear that the approach of the “Avnei Nezer” hides a deep principle which isn’t explicit in his words. There isn’t an absolute mitzvah to be located in Eretz Yisrael in any circumstance whatsoever, but only in certain circumstances – when it is possible to live in it, i.e., to lead a full life in it.

Let us consider: Is the mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael founded, in essence, on a person’s body being within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, when his physical body is simply located in a certain area on the face of the earth, without considering his connection with the place, or his dependence on it? Or perhaps the foundation of the mitzvah is for Eretz Yisrael to be a place of living, a land for residence, a person’s “land” in the full sense of the word? It seems obvious that the mitzvah is only fulfilled when the land supplies what a land is supposed to supply its residents: income, society, etc. etc., and all the conditions for an ongoing full life. That is how Ramban began defining the mitzvah: “That we were commanded to take possession of the land.”[5] The mitzvah is to “capture its areas, and settle our tribes therein”;[6] on the basis of this mitzvah there is a mitzvah incumbent on every individual in the time of exile, a partial mitzvah derived from the mitzvah in its complete form, as Ramban wrote, but the mitzvah, at its root, is a public capture of the land: meaning that the nation should control it and establish its form as a nation, so that we receive from it all that can be received from a land. From this, from the understanding that the mitzvah, at its root, is that the collective should possess the land, it can be derived that the essence of the mitzvah – even for an individual – is for Eretz Yisrael to be a person’s land, his place of residence that supplies him with the conditions for residence, and not merely his physical place. That is what “residence” means. In a situation that the land won’t supply its residents what lands are supposed to supply, there won’t be a mitzvah at all. This seems correct.

This is the definition of the mitzvah according to Ramban’s opinion, and this is the definition of the matter according to those who argue on him. Even according to the these who hold that residing in Eretz Yisrael is not considered a mitzvah of the 613 mitzvahs, we must learn the significance of residing in it from what is said about it in the Torah: capture, possession and residence; actions the meaning of which is to make Eretz Yisrael into our land. All this teaches the significance of residing in Eretz Yisrael, and in the full sense of the word; Eretz Yisrael must be “our land,” not merely a physical place that contains us. It is a land, not merely a place.[7]

In light of this, there is no mitzvah to be in Eretz Yisrael in a situation where there is no available income in it. At a time that there isn’t an organized community in it, appropriate education for children, and the other necessary conditions for an ongoing full life – the mitzvah is not in force. The idea is not the mitzvah is overridden due to other mitzvahs or other considerations, but rather that the conditions for the mitzvah aren’t fulfilled in a situation that the land can’t supply to us what lands supply their residents, and therefore the mitzvah doesn’t apply at all.

Not only that, but it would seem that if a person would reside in Eretz Yisrael while lacking a source of income connected to the place, such as in the instance discussed by “Avnei Nezer” – that a person would live in a desolate Eretz Yisrael and they will send him his needs from the diaspora, while he also lacks other basic necessities – in this case, too, there is no mitzvah for a person to reside in Eretz Yisrael, since the land isn’t serving as a full place of residence for him, and this residence isn’t considered residence.[8]

In short, the mitzvah is to reside in Eretz Yisrael, not merely to be in it. We can find support for this from what was said about the benefit of dying in Eretz Yisrael: “You can’t compare one who gives it up into his mother’s lap to one who gives it up in the lap of a stranger,” and in the text of the Talmud Bavli of this story: “You can’t compare one who [Eretz Yisrael] receives when he is still alive to one who [Eretz Yisrael] receives when he is already dead.”[9] Three stages were said about residing in Eretz Yisrael, corresponding to the three stages in a person’s life: residing, dying, and being buried. It is good to buried in Eretz Yisrael, it is better to die there, and it is better than both to reside in Eretz Yisrael. Like the one who kills inadvertently who must uproot his residence and move to a city of refuge, about whom it says: “‘Who escaped to there’ (Numbers 35:25) – there should be his dwelling; there should be his death; there should be his burial,”[10] so too residence in Eretz Yisrael is divided into these 3 stages. That is because residence in Eretz Yisrael is fulfilled only when it is a person’s land in actuality, not merely by the fact of a person being situated therein while it is, so to speak, ignoring him; a person’s land is the place of his life, death and also burial – each one of these 3 stages is a separate aspect of the full story of every person and his connection to a specific land.[11]

This principle opens the door to solve the problem with which we commenced – the refraining from ascending throughout the generations, even when aliyah was technically possible. The question was divided into 3 parts: Why didn’t Ramban himself ascend to Eretz Yisrael on the basis of the positive commandment, why didn’t the great ones of Israel ascend, in general, and why didn’t the masses of Israel ascend.

As has been said, one cannot prove from the refraining of the masses to ascend to Eretz Yisrael that this was indeed appropriate. There were in fact times and situations that major danger was involved, and in these situations the matter was inexecutable by the force of the oaths; and there were times and situations that the matter was possible and the masses of the nation weren’t aroused to seize the opportunity, and for this Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi blamed them, and Rabbi Yaakov Emden responded after him with an “ongoing perplexity on the holy Israelites.”[12] But if the masses didn’t ascend, the land remained desolate, and if the land remained desolate, there is no mitzvah to be in it. There is no mitzvah on lonely individuals to be in Eretz Yisrael if they won’t become people of Eretz Yisrael, citizens. There is no proper “residence” without a community.

Ramban testified on himself that he abandoned his household, left his estate, and became like a raven to his sons and cruel to his daughters. That is not the mitzvah. The mitzvah is to establish a household and estate, sons and daughters, all in Eretz Yisrael; and if this isn’t possible, the mitzvah doesn’t apply.

We have clarified that there is no mitzvah to be in Eretz Yisrael in a situation of destruction. But that doesn’t mean that there is no reason to be there – Ramban himself eventually ascended, just like the Rabbi in the Kuzari. As has been clarified,[13] it is appropriate for an individual too to be located in a desolate Eretz Yisrael, in order to connect to the glorious past and future. But one cannot compare residence in it while it is desolate to residence in it while it is built up, when it is serving as a proper land; then, residence in it rises to the level of a mitzvah in the tally according to Ramban, and to “a great and mighty mitzvah”^[14] according to the opinion of those who argue on him. Therefore, there is no wonder about the great ones of Israel refraining from ascending, while other important considerations also presented themselves to them, such as their role in the diaspora to teach Torah to the masses that didn’t ascend or were unable to ascend, and like those very considerations due to which their being in Eretz Yisrael wouldn’t be considered full residence – lack of income etc.[15]

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

---

[1] Responsum Avnei Nezer, Yo”D, sec. 454, 14-18.

[2] Va’Yoel Moshe, Essay on Residing in Eretz Yisrael, sec. 101.

[3] Ibid., sec. 104.

[4] In Section 3, chapter 2.

[5] Book of Mitzvahs, Forgotten Positive Commandments, 4.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Responsum Mahari”t, Yoreh Deah, vol. 2 section 28 wrote something similar: “The main mitzvah is not ascending but residing and living there, as Ramban ob”m brought, but one who ascends to see it with intention to return, we don’t find in this a known mitzvah”; Shiltei Gibborim, Shavuos chapter 3, 8a wrote too: “That there is no mitzvah to go to Eretz Yisrael with intention to come back, and even according to the one who holds that currently there is a mitzvah to go to Eretz Yisrael, that is only in order to reside there, but going with intention to leave is no mitzvah, for just as leaving with intention to return is no sin, so too going with intention to leave is no mitzvah, for the main going and leaving depends on residence, and the same is written in Tashbatz in the name of Maharam ob”m, and it’s reasonable, for what mitzvah can there be in going to Eretz Yisrael with intention to leave it – who asked him for this, to trample His courts?!”

[8] The practical determination of this is subtle and delicate: When is it considered that a person is being supported through the land and when not? If a person develops and grows from the atmosphere of Eretz Yisrael, such that people in the diaspora want to support him, is that considered that he is being supported through the land? And what if a person can’t be supported by the land but he is receiving from it the other necessities of life in full – is Eretz Yisrael still considered his land? What about the opposite situation – that there is no income but there will be for his children? The details are as many as the detailed situations of a person’s life, and they are subtle and complex; we have established only the rule that can be applied, at least, to the extreme case when Eretz Yisrael was in ruins and desolate of its inhabitants.

[9] Kesubos 111a.

[10] Makkos 11b.

[11] The same thing can be said also in the expression that “Avnei Nezer” said: There is no mitzvah to be in Eretz Yisrael except when, correspondingly, certain influences are attained, namely the influences that derive from a certain land. In Eretz Yisrael, the influence is defined as one that comes from Hashem himself, while what is attained in other lands is defined as an influence that comes through the supernal ministers. A person’s location is only one detail in the question of his connection to a certain land on a deeper level, which is defined, in the language of depth, as the influence of Hashem and the ministers. For an expanded explanation of this matter, see section 7, chapter 3.

[12] His words were brought down in section 1, chapter 3.

[13] In section 3, chapter 6.

[14] As per Rabbi Yerucham Yehudah Leib Perlman’s expression, brought down in section 1, chapter 5.

[15] In Responsum of Rashbash, section 2, he wrote that this is the reason that the great ones of Israel didn’t ascend: “If he has children and won’t be able to bring them along and he will orphan his children… and in Eretz Yisrael he won’t find the income for his livelihood… and certainly if there are dangers on the roads, all of these or some of these reasons held back many great ones not to ascend.” From his words, it seems that this is an external restraint, not a condition in the mitzvah itself, see there; but Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, Eretz Chemdah, Tel Aviv, 1917, book 1, gate 1, section 7, brought this idea in the name of the Rashbash in line with the idea that we explained, namely that there is no mitzvah in these circumstances: “Residence of this sort… is not included in the mitzvah of residence at all. This logic is the conclusion of Rashbash (section 2), that if he won’t find his livelihood in the land, the Torah didn’t obligate him, for this isn’t residence at all, for that is only in a place where a person finds food and shelter”; as has been explained, both of these ideas are necessary – since this isn’t full residence, the significance of a person being in Eretz Yisrael without truly possessing it is diminished, and the virtue of that kind of presence can be easily overridden by other needs more important than it.