The Land I Will Show You, sec. 6, chapter 1

The Opinion of Rabbi Chaim Kohen – There is Currently no Mitzvah to Reside in Eretz Yisrael

Feb 22, 2024

Section 6: The Problem of the Mitzvahs of the Land

1: The Opinion of Rabbi Chaim Kohen – There is Currently no Mitzvah to Reside in Eretz Yisrael

“Now it is not a mitzvah to reside in Eretz Yisrael because there are several mitzvahs dependent on the land and several punishments that we cannot be cautious with and uphold."

Thus asserted Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen, a student of Rabbeinu Tam. This opinion is cited in the Tosafot on Ketubot (110b, s.v. He says to ascend), and in the whole subject of aliyah, there is no assertion more opposing to the notion that we are obligated today to return and dwell in Eretz Yisrael. Now it is not a mitzvah. The difficulties with the mitzvahs dependent on the land and their severity are too great. We are therefore obligated to understand Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen's words and discuss them to the best of our ability, regarding:

His intention
His reasoning
And the determination of the halacha

Firstly, regarding his intention. "Now it is not a mitzvah." When is "now"? When does the period defined by this term end? Did Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen intend to exempt us from the mitzvah until the coming of the Messiah or the return of prophecy, or did he refer only to his own time, namely, at that exact period he was active? The Chida and others interpreted his words in the latter sense. This is a local and temporary ruling, similar to the opinion mentioned there in Tosafos before his words:

"He says to ascend" etc. – is not practiced at this time because there is danger on the roads.

This ruling is certainly dependent on local circumstances that can change, such as the Crusades that occurred at those very times, and never did the Tosafos intend to exempt us from this mitzvah until the coming of the righteous redeemer. We can say the same regarding Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen's ruling mentioned immediately after: Perhaps his intention was only that in his time – "now" precisely – the mitzvahs dependent on the land were an unbearable yoke. For indeed, his reasoning is obscure and impenetrable. His words are astonishing: Yes, the mitzvahs dependent on the land are difficult, but are we really unable to be cautious with them so that the mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael should be nullified? They are difficult but nevertheless possible. As the Shelah questioned: "And what he said that we cannot be cautious with them, this matter is not understood by me. Why can't we be cautious? And who is preventing?"[1]

What reason is there to change the halacha and nullify the commandment? And in this manner, Rabbi Yaakov Emden commented: "May his Master forgive him; Heaven forbid to say so. He contradicts Mishnah and Gemara without basis. Who is this that isn’t careful about his flour?"[2] The revolutionary words did not sit well with the Maharit, to the extent that he asserted that these words could never have come from Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen, but rather are a student’s gloss in the Tosafos and are not reliable at all.[3]

These are understandable claims. Therefore, we should interpret that Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen’s intention was only that in his days (and any similar time) the mitzvahs were too difficult, almost impossible to observe properly. Either due to the reality that prevailed then, when they were unable to dwell in the land under stable and safe conditions that would allow for the observance of these mitzvahs, or due to the state of the halachic determination regarding many questions and disputes in the mitzvahs dependent on the land, when the topics of laws of Zera'im had not yet been clarified in their entirety and fundamental disputes regarding the matter had not been resolved. This is a valid reason to rule that the mitzvah is not practiced – temporarily, until this difficulty is resolved. And thus the Chida interpreted the intention and reasoning of Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen:

We return to the words of Maharit who extensively responded to Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen's words... and wondered that it is possible to observe the commandments... It’s possible that Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen’s intention was that there is a dispute whether a non-Jew’s acquisition exempts from tithes and offerings. Also, there is a dispute about which year is the Sabbatical year. Also, whether a non-Jew’s acquisition exempts from the Sabbatical year. And during the Sabbatical year, all fruits must be destroyed... and it’s very difficult to be cautious with the laws of destroying... but we in our time rely on the Rambam’s opinion... also regarding destroying we rely on Maran’s opinion... as the majority of rabbis in Eretz Yisrael and abroad convened and agreed on the Sabbatical year to follow the Rambam, and now the aforementioned customs are established according to rabbis, and one need not worry. But in Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen’s time, all these doubts still existed, and those living in Eretz Yisrael stumbled both in tithes and offerings and in the Sabbatical year, in which year and whether to practice destroying and the like, and it was a great stumbling block. I remember that in my youth I saw the handwritten commentary of the great rabbi Maharash Sariliyo from the Sephardim on the Jerusalem Talmud order of Zera'im, and in his introduction he wrote that they come to live in Eretz Yisrael and stumble in the mitzvahs of Eretz Yisrael because they do not know and do not understand, and therefore he composed a work on the Jerusalem Talmud order of Zera'im to explain the mitzvahs dependent on the land, to observe and do. And therefore, Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen spoke in his time, because all the aforementioned doubts still existed then.[4]

According to this interpretation of his words, Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen's ruling is limited to his place and time, when the mitzvahs dependent on the land were not feasibly performed.[5]

There is another way to interpret the strange ruling, and according to it, the words are not limited to their place and time. The great later authorities questioned the determination "we cannot be cautious": who is preventing? Truthfully, it’s strange to definitively state that it’s impossible for an individual fearing and trembling for Hashem’s word to be cautious with these mitzvahs. But perhaps Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen, in his broad understanding, did not refer to the individuals at the level of the sages who argued strongly on his words – these righteous individuals can indeed be cautious without anything stopping them – but to the broad masses of the people of Israel. "We" – means all the masses of the people of Israel, and these certainly are not yet at such a spiritual level that they would endeavor to accept and keep the mitzvahs dependent on the land. At the spiritual level we are at, the masses cannot be cautious.

Since the entire people are not prepared to face it, it is possible that the mitzvah to reside in Eretz Yisrael is not in effect. A mitzvah that is performed by the broad public is conditioned on the circumstances in which the public is worthy to face the difficulties involved in it – and perhaps specifically these mitzvahs dependent on the land hinder the mitzvah of the land. They are its conditions and limitations, and when the entire public is not prepared to face them, there is no mitzvah.

This is what seems to us regarding the intention and reasoning of Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen; now to the determination of the halacha.

(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:

Ha'Aretz asher Areka

Unapologetics

Discussion about this post