הכל מעלין לירושלים

שה

(יא) הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין. הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין, אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים (וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים). נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת קַפּוֹטְקִיָּא. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא, נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת קַפּוֹטְקִיָּא:

Mishnah Ketubot 13:11

(11) All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one’s family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem. The mishna lists other halakhic distinctions between various geographic locations: If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, and the currency of the sum in the marriage contract was not specified, he gives her the sum of her marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, where the currency holds greater value, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her the currency of Cappadocia. Everyone agrees that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Cappadocia.

כתובות ק״י ב

גמ׳ הכל מעלין לאתויי מאי לאתויי עבדים ולמאן דתני עבדים בהדיא לאתויי מאי לאתויי מנוה היפה לנוה הרעה ואין הכל מוציאין לאתויי מאי לאתויי עבד שברח מחוצה לארץ לארץ דאמרינן ליה זבניה הכא וזיל משום ישיבת ארץ ישראל הכל מעלין לירושלים לאתויי מאי לאתויי מנוה היפה לנוה הרעה:

Ketubot 110b

However, even within the same land one may not force his wife to move from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town. The mishna adds: One may remove his wife from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, even if it is in another land. However, one may not compel his wife to move from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may also not remove her from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, because a pleasant residence tests the individual, i.e., one accustomed to certain environments can suffer even in more comfortable living quarters. GEMARA: With regard to the statement in the mishna that one may not force one’s spouse to move from a city to a town or from a town to a city, the Gemara asks: Granted, one may not remove her from a city to a town, as all items are readily available in a city, whereas in a town all items are not as available, and therefore the wife can argue that living in a town is inconvenient for her. However, what is the reason that the husband cannot compel her to move from a town to the city? The Gemara answers: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: From where is it derived that dwelling in cities is difficult? As it is stated: “And the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem” (Nehemiah 11:2). This shows that living in a city is difficult, due to the noise and the general hubbub of an urban area. § The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a pleasant residence tests the individual. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tests in this context? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits [veset] or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease. Similarly, it is written in Sefer Ben Sira: All the days of the poor are terrible. And yet there are Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor eat well. Once again, the Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the better. Since the Gemara quoted from Sefer Ben Sira, it cites the rest of the passage concerning the terrible days of the poor. Ben Sira says: Even the nights of the poor are bad. His roof is at the low point of the roofs, i.e., his residence is at the lowest point in the city, and his vineyard is at the mountain peaks, at the highest point of the slope, which means that the rain of roofs washes down to his roof, and the soil of his vineyard to other vineyards, i.e., the rain washes away the soil in his vineyard and carries it away to the vineyards below. MISHNA: All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one’s family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem. The mishna lists other halakhic distinctions between various geographic locations: If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, and the currency of the sum in the marriage contract was not specified, he gives her the sum of her marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, where the currency holds greater value, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her the currency of Cappadocia. Everyone agrees that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Cappadocia. GEMARA: The mishna stated: All can force the members of their family to ascend. The Gemara asks: This inclusive phrase serves to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include slaves, i.e., Hebrew slaves as well may be coerced to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael with their master’s family against their will. The Gemara asks: And according to the one whose text of the mishna expressly teaches the case of slaves, this phrase comes to include what case? As stated later in the Gemara, there are some editions of the mishna that state that this halakha applies equally to men, women, and slaves. The Gemara answers: It comes to include one who moves from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence, i.e., one may coerce his family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael even from a good residence abroad to an inferior one in Eretz Yisrael. § The mishna further taught: But all may not remove others. Once again the Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a Canaanite slave who ran away from his master and came from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, as we say to the master: Sell your slave here, in Eretz Yisrael, and then you may go and return abroad, but you may not take the slave abroad with you, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael. § The mishna taught: All may force others to ascend to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks once again: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a move from a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Jerusalem. § The mishna taught: And all may not remove them from Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include even a move from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence. The Gemara adds: And since the tanna of the mishna taught: But one may not remove, in the first clause, he also taught: But one may not remove, in the latter clause, despite the fact that this halakha could have been inferred from the first clause. § The Sages taught: If the husband says that he wishes to ascend, i.e., to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, and his wife says that she does not wish to ascend, one forces her to ascend. And if she will not do so, as she resists all attempts to force her to make the move, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract, i.e., she forfeits her rights to the benefits outlined in the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and he says that he does not wish to ascend, one forces him to ascend. And if he does not wish to immigrate, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael, and he says that he does not wish to leave, one forces her not to leave. And if she does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael and resists all attempts to force her to stay, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract. If he says that he wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael and she says that she does not wish to leave, one forces him not to leave. And if he does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract. § The mishna taught that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he must pay her the marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. The same is true if he married her in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the rulings provided by the mishna. The Gemara elaborates: The mishna first teaches that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the customs of the place of the lien, i.e., he pays with the currency of the location of the wedding, where the obligation came into force. Now, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the place of the collection of the money. Rabba said: The Sages taught here one of the leniencies that apply to a marriage contract. The leniency is that the husband pays with the less valuable currency of Eretz Yisrael in both cases, whether the wedding or the divorce occurred there. This is because the tanna of this mishna holds that a marriage contract applies by rabbinic law. § The mishna taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he pays her the marriage contract in the currency of Cappadocia. The Gemara explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a marriage contract applies by Torah law, which means that its debt must be paid according to its highest possible value. Consequently, one follows the place in which the obligation was formed, which is the halakha for all deeds and contracts, and there is no room for leniency in this matter. § The Sages taught: With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, if Babylonia is written in it, he pays it with the currency of Babylonia; if Eretz Yisrael is written in it, he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. In a case where it is written without specification as to where the document was written, if he produced it in Babylonia he pays it with the currency of Babylonia and if he produced it in Eretz Yisrael he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. If the note mentions money without specification of what type of coins are to be used, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes, even the smallest denomination available. However, this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract. The Gemara asks: With regard to this last statement, that this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract: To which part of the baraita is this referring? Rav Mesharshiyya said: It is referring back to the first clause, that if the promissory note mentions Babylonia one pays with Babylonian currency. This indicates that one invariably pays based on the place where the document was written. The tanna adds that this principle does not apply to a marriage contract, as one pays based on the place where a marriage contract was written only if this would lead to a leniency, as explained above (Rid). This ruling comes to exclude the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that that a marriage contract applies by Torah law and must always be paid in the currency of the place in which the obligation was first formed. § The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita, which teaches: If the note mentions money [kesef ] without specification, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes. The Gemara asks: But can’t one say that perhaps the document was not speaking of coins but of silver [kesef ] strips? Rabbi Elazar said: The baraita is referring to a case in which it is written in the document: Coins, although it does not specify which ones. The Gemara further asks: And can’t one say that one may pay off the debt with perutot, a small denomination? Rav Pappa said: People do not ordinarily mint perutot of silver, as they reserve silver for larger denominations. § In relation to the basic point raised by the mishna concerning living in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your God” (Leviticus 25:38). The Gemara expresses surprise: And can it really be said that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael has no God? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. And so it says with regard to David: “For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods” (I Samuel 26:19). But who said to David: Go, serve other gods? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. § The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated:

משנה תורה, הלכות אישות י״ג:י״ט

(יט) בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אוֹ מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲבָל מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ לַעֲלוֹת אֲפִלּוּ מִנָּוֶה הַיָּפֶה לַנָּוֶה הָרַע וַאֲפִלּוּ מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרֻבּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמָקוֹם שֶׁרֻבּוֹ עַכּוּ''ם מַעֲלִין. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וַאֲפִלּוּ מִנָּוֶה הָרַע לַנָּוֶה הַיָּפֶה [וַאֲפִלּוּ מִמָּקוֹם] שֶׁרֻבּוֹ עַכּוּ''ם לְמָקוֹם שֶׁרֻבּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל:

Mishneh Torah, Marriage 13:19

...

משנה תורה, הלכות אישות י״ג:כ׳

(כ) אָמַר הָאִישׁ לַעֲלוֹת לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִיא אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה תֵּצֵא בְּלֹא כְּתֻבָּה. אָמְרָה הִיא לַעֲלוֹת וְהוּא אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וְהוּא הַדִּין לְכָל מָקוֹם מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עִם יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. שֶׁהַכּל מַעֲלִין לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין הַכּל מוֹצִיאִין מִשָּׁם. הַכּל מַעֲלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְאֵין הַכּל מוֹצִיאִין מִשָּׁם:

Mishneh Torah, Marriage 13:20

...

אבן העזר ע״ה:ד׳-ה׳

(ד) אמר האיש לעלות לא"י והיא אינה רוצה תצא בלא כתובה: הגה אבל נכסי מלוג שלה ונצ"ב הקיימי' נוטלת ואם אינם קיימים אם הוא הפסידן נצ"ב א"צ לשלם ונ"מ צריך לשלם ואם נגנבו או נאבדו נ"מ לית לה ונצ"ב צריך לשלם (במרדכי סוף כתובות בשם מוהר"ם) והא דכתובה אין לה דוקא שנשאר בא"י אבל אם הוא חוזר לסוף כמה שנים להתיישב בח"ל צריך לשלם לה או ליורשיה אף הכתובה (ג"ז שם): אמרה היא לעלות והוא אינו רוצה יוציא ויתן כתובה וה"ה לכל מקום מא"י לירושלים שהכל מעלין לא"י ואין הכל מוציאין משם הכל מעלין לירושלים ואין הכל מוציאין משם:

(ה) יש מי שאומר דהא דכופין לעלות לא"י היינו בדאפשר בלא סכנה הילכך מסוף המערב עד נוא אמון אין כופין לעלות ומנוא אמון ולמעלה כופין לעלות דרך יבשה וגם דרך ים בימות החמה אם אין שם לסטים:

Shulchan Arukh, Even HaEzer 75:4-5

(4) If he proposes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and she does not want to, he must divorce her without her dower. Rem"a: But she keeps her milog assets, and takes extant tzon barzel assets; if they are no longer extant, then if he ruined them, he need not repay the tzon barzel assets, but must pay the milog assets. If they were stolen or lost, she has no claim on the milog assets, but he must repay the tzon barzel assets (Mordechai at the end of Ketubot, citing Maharam). Her forfeiture of the dower applies only as long ashe remains in Eretz Yisrael. However, if he returns to settle in the Diaspora after a a few years, he must pay the dower to her or her inheritors (ibid.). If she proposes ascending [to Eretz Yisrael] and he does not want to, he must divorce her and give her dower. The same applies for anyplace in Eretz Yisrael to Jerusalem. Anyone may initiate ascent to Eretz Yisrael, and no one may compel departure; anyone may initiate ascent to Jerusalem, and no one may compel departure.

(5) There is one who says, that which we compel to go up to the land of Israel, that's when it's possible without danger. Therefore, from the end of the West until Noe Amon we don't compel to go up, and from Noe Amon and upwards, we compel to go up by the way of the dry land, and also the way of the sea during the "days of sun" (summer), if there are no robbers.

רמב"ן על במדבר ל״ג:נ״ג

(א) והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה כי לכם נתתי את הארץ לרשת אתה על דעתי זו מצות עשה היא יצוה אותם שישבו בארץ ויירשו אותה כי הוא נתנה להם ולא ימאסו בנחלת ה' ואלו יעלה על דעתם ללכת ולכבוש ארץ שנער או ארץ אשור וזולתן ולהתישב שם יעברו על מצות ה' ומה שהפליגו רבותינו (כתובות קי) במצות הישיבה בארץ ישראל ושאסור לצאת ממנה וידונו כמורדת האשה שאינה רוצה לעלות עם בעלה לארץ ישראל וכן האיש בכאן נצטווינו במצוה הזו כי הכתוב הזה היא מצות עשה ויחזיר המצוה הזו במקומות רבים באו ורשו את הארץ (דברים א ח) אבל רש"י פירש (רש"י על במדבר ל״ג:נ״ג) והורשתם את הארץ והורשתם אותה מיושביה אז וישבתם בה תוכלו להתקיים בה ואם לאו לא תוכלו להתקיים בה ומה שפירשנו הוא העיקר:

Ramban on Numbers 33:53

(1) AND YE SHALL DRIVE OUT THE INHABITANTS OF THE LAND, AND DWELL THEREIN; FOR UNTO YOU HAVE I GIVEN THE LAND TO POSSESS IT. In my opinion this is a positive commandment,²⁴Among the great scholars who enumerate the individual 613 Commandments, Ramban was the first to mention this commandment [to conquer and settle in the Land of Israel etc.] as binding for all times. In his notes to Maimonides’ Sefer Hamitzvoth (Book of the Commandments), in the section on “additional” positive commandments, No. 4, Ramban discusses this opinion at length. Here in his commentary on the Torah, he mentions it briefly, relying presumably on his explanation in the work quoted above. in which He is commanding them to dwell in the Land and inherit it, because He has given it to them and they should not reject the inheritance of the Eternal.²⁵I Samuel 26:19. Thus if the thought occurs to them to go and conquer the land of Shinar or the land of Assyria or any other country and to settle therein, they are [thereby] transgressing the commandment of G-d. And that which our Rabbis have emphasized, the significance of the commandment of settling in the Land of Israel, and that it is forbidden to leave it [except for certain specified reasons], and [the fact] that they consider a woman who does not want to emigrate with her husband to live in the Land of Israel as a “rebellious [wife],”²⁶Kethuboth 110b: “If he wants to emigrate [to the Land of Israel] and she refuses, she may be forced to go there, and if she still refuses, she may be divorced without her kethubah (marriage contract — see Vol. II, pp. 385-386). and likewise the man²⁷“If she wants to emigrate [to the Land of Israel] and he refuses, he may be forced to go there, and if he still refuses, he must divorce her and give her the kethubah (ibid.). — the source of all these statements is here [in this verse] where we have been given this commandment, for this verse constitutes a positive commandment.²⁸“For all generations, every person being obliged in the performance thereof, even during the exile” (Ramban in his notes to Maimonides’ Sefer Hamitzvoth “additional” positive commandments, No. 4). This commandment He repeats in many places, such as Go in and possess the Land.²⁹Deuteronomy 1:8. “And when they refused to go up, it is written: but ye rebelled against the commandment of the Eternal your G-d (ibid., Verse 26 — Ramban on Sefer Hamitzvoth, ibid.). Rashi, however, explained: “And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the Land — [if] you dispossess it of its inhabitants, then ye will be able to dwell therein, and to remain there, but if not, you will not be able to remain in it.” But our interpretation [of the verse] is the principal one.

השגות הרמב"ן על ספר המצוות, שכחת העשין ד׳:א׳

(א) שנצטוינו לרשת הארץ אשר נתן האל יתעלה לאבותינו לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב ולא נעזבה ביד זולתנו מן האומות או לשממה... ואומר אני כי המצוה שחכמים מפליגים בה והוא דירת ארץ ישראל עד שאמרו כתובות (דף ק':) כל היוצא ממנה ודר בחוצה לארץ יהא בעיניך כעובד ע"ז שנאמר כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת ה' לאמר לך עבוד אלהים אחרים, וזולת זה הפלגות גדולות שאמרו בה הכל הוא ממצות עשה הוא שנצטוינו לרשת הארץ לשבת בה, א"כ היא מצות עשה לדורות מתחייב כל אחד ממנו ואפילו בזמן גלות

Hasagot HaRamban on Sefer HaMitzvot, Positive Commandments Omitted by Rambam 4:1

...

שו"ת רשב"ש (רבי שלמה בן שמעון דוראן).

שות חת"ס יו"ד רל"ג:
פשוט בעיני שישיבת ירושלים יש בה מצוה יותר מישיבת שאר ערי א"י... לא משום
מצוות התלויים בא"י וירושלים כופין (לעלות), אלא משום קדושת עצמה וכל הדר
בחו"ל דומה כמי שאין לו א-לוה... וכיוון שכל עצמו הוא משום קדושתה אין
להיכנס... אי קדושה ראשונה (קידשה לשעתה) וקידשה לעתיד לבוא... רק בקדושה
עליונה שירושלים היא שער השמים... קדושת שניהם (=א"י וירושלים) קדושת
עולמים... אלא שקדושת ירושלים חמורה מקדושת שאר א"י... הארץ עצמה קדושה
וירושלים קדושה יותר.

ספר התשב"ץ, חלק שלישי ר״א

(א) ענין רא:

(ב) וצריך לדקדק מה קדושה נשארה לירושלים לענין חיוב מצות משאר א"י שיהיו מעלין מא"י לירושלים שהי' נרא' שאם בטלה קדושת א"י שהוא הדין שבטלה קדושת ירושלים ... ומשמע דאיכא לחלק בין קדושת הארץ לקדושת הבית וירושלים דקדוש' הארץ בטלה וקדושת חומת העיר וקדוש' מקדש לא בטלה והנכנס שם היום חייב כרת...

והדבר העולה לנו להלכה הוא שקדושת הארץ כלה בטלה מן התור' ואינן חייבין בתרומה ומעשרות ובשאר חובת הקרקע אלא מדרבנן ובזה שוות שלש ארצות יהודה ועבר הירדן וגליל וקדושת העיר לא בטלה לענין דברים שנאמרו בירושלים

Sefer HaTashbetz, Part III 201

...

שיטה מקובצת על כתובות ק״י ב

ומה שהקשה כל עבדים יפקיעו עצמן מרשות אדוניהם יותר מזה עשו חכמים משום ישוב ארץ ישראל שאשה יכולה להפקיע עצמה מבעלה וכן כתוב בתוס' הרא"ש:

Shita Mekubetzet on Ketubot 110b

...

פאת השלחן א"י ג
עיקר טעמא... משום יוקר מצווה זו ששקולה ככל התורה עשו כמה דברים יותר מהדין. כן הכא אמרו חכמים שכופין זה את זה כדי שיעלו ויוגרם ישיבת א"י... ולכן אמרו שכופין לאיש גם כן. לא משום מצוות התלויות ולא משום מצוות ישיבת האישה בה.

עיר הקודש והמקדש (טוקצ'ינסקי)

אבני נזר

ישכיל עבדי (הרב עובדיה הדאיה)

הרב יעקב אריאל (כ"ע צהר)
מכוחה של קדושת ירושלים. יש כאן סגירת מעגל. תחילת התהליך הוא קידושה של ארץ ישראל, כשהמטרה היא ירושלים. קדושת ירושלים נמצאת בכוח בתוך ארץ ישראל, שהרי הארץ כולה מיועדת לשכינה (במדבר רבה שם). ואילו בקדושה השנייה הסדר הוא הפוך: לאחר קידוש ירושלים בפועל, ניתן להשליך את הקדושה ממנה חזרה לכל רחבי ארץ ישראל. ולכן אין צורך באותו קידוש שהיה בקדושה ראשונה.

הרב יהודה הרצל הנקין ז"ל
לעומת זה, האפשרות השלישית שהביא הרב זיסברג (שם, אות ד), שדין "הכל מעלין לארץ ישראל ולירושלים" הוא תקנת חז"ל כדי להרבות בהן אוכלוסין, יש לה מקור במקרא והובא שם בגמרא בכתובות. בנחמיה (יא, א) מסופר שהחוזרים לא"י "הפילו גורלות להביא אחד מן העשרה לשבת בירושלים עיר הקודש". פשוט שבמצוה מן התורה אין לחלק בין עשרה אחוזים מן העם לבין השאר. אלא, הרגישו צורך לאומי שיהודים ישבו בירושלים החריבה, ולכן הפילו גורלות לקבוע את מי לחייב לעשות כן. מצאנו שיקול דומה של "מצוה ותועלת לכל ישראל" לגבי "כותבין עליו אונו אפילו בשבת", בחידושי הרמב"ן למסכת (שבת קל, ב) ובשו"ת הריב"ש (סי‘ קא). הוא הדין, בלא קשר למצוה מן התורה, תקנו חכמים שהכל מעלין לא"י ולירושלים כי היה צורך לאומי לאכלס אותן