Is Yeshivat Ha'aretz (Dwelling in Eretz Yisrael) a mitzvah?
The Sources -
(ד) וְגַ֨ם הֲקִמֹ֤תִי אֶת־בְּרִיתִי֙ אִתָּ֔ם לָתֵ֥ת לָהֶ֖ם אֶת־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן אֵ֛ת אֶ֥רֶץ מְגֻרֵיהֶ֖ם אֲשֶׁר־גָּ֥רוּ בָֽהּ׃
Malbim -
Why does the pasuk say אֶ֥רֶץ מְגֻרֵיהֶ֖ם - the land of their sojourning (which implies temporary residence) is Eretz Yisrael was the forefathers permanent land where they settled?
The avot knew that Eretz Yisrael was a temporary stop on the way to Olam Habah, for Eretz Yisrael is of a higher spiritual level.
Rambam vs. Ramban
(א) היא שצונו להרוג שבעה עממין שישבו בארץ כנען ולאבדם, שהם שורש ע"ז ויסודם הראשון. והוא אמרו יתעלה החרם תחרימם. ובאר לנו בהרבה כתובים שסבת זה כדי שלא נלמוד מכפירתם. והנה באו כתובים רבים לרמוז על זה רוצה לומר על הריגתם לחזק בזה, ומלחמתם מלחמת מצוה. ואולי יחשוב חושב שזאת מצוה שאינה נוהגת לדורות, אחר ששבעה עממין כבר אבדו. וזה אמנם יחשוב אותו מי שלא הבין ענין מנהג נוהג לדורות ואינו נוהג לדורות, כי הצווי שנשלם בהגיע תכליתו מבלתי שיהיה זה תלוי בזמן ידוע לא יאמר בו אינו נוהג לדורות, אבל הוא נוהג בכל דור שימצא בו אפשרות הדבר ההוא. התחשוב כשיאבד השם יתעלה זרע עמלק ויכריתהו עד אחריתו כמו שיהיה במהרה בימינו, כמו שהבטיח אותנו באמרו כי מחה אמחה את זכר עמלק, אינו לדורות, זה לא יאמר, אבל נוהג בכל דור ודור כל זמן שנמצא מזרע עמלק מצוה להכריתו. וכן להרוג שבעה עממין ולאבדם צווי נצטוינו בו והוא מלחמת מצוה ואנחנו מצווים לחטט אחריהם ולרדפם בכל דור ודור עד שיכלו ולא ישאר מהן איש, וכן עשינו עד אשר תמו ונכרתו בימי דוד ונתפזרו הנשארים ונתערבו באומות עד שלא נשאר בהם שרש, ולא בעבור שנכרתו תהיה המצוה שנצטוינו להרגם בלתי נוהגת לדורות ואפילו אחר כלותם ואבדם, מפני שאלה המצות אינן נקשרות בזמן ולא במקום מיוחד כמו המצות המיוחדות במדבר אבל הם נקשרות בו כל זמן שימצא שיהיה אפשר בו הצווי ההוא. ובכלל הנה ראוי לך להבין ולדעת ההבדל אשר בין המצות והדבר ההוא שנצטוינו עליו, כי פעמים הרבה תהיה המצוה נוהגת לדורות אבל יהיה הדבר שנצטוינו עליו כבר נעדר באחד מהמקומות מהדורות, ולא בהעדר הדבר שנצטוינו עליו תשוב המצוה בלתי נוהגת לדורות, אבל תהיה בלתי נוהגת לדורות כשיהיה הענין בהפך, והוא שיהיה דבר נמצא בענין אחד מן הענינים, והוא חייב לעשות המעשה אחד או משפט אחד בזמן מן הזמנים והוא היום בלתי נוהג אע"פ שהדבר ההוא נמצא באותו ענין, כמו לוי שהיה פסול במדבר והוא כשר אצלנו היום, וכמו שהתבאר במקומו. והבן זה השרש ושים אותו בלבבך. (שופטים ושוטרים הלכות מלכים פרק ה'):
It [mitzvah 187] is to kill the seven nations that dwell in Eretz Canaan, for they are the roots of idolatry
(19) As noted earlier, Rambam does not enumerate the commandment "and you shall inherit the land and dwell therein" in his compilation of the 613 precepts. The simplest and most obvious reason for this omission is that Rambam does not view this injunction as constituting a mandatory obligation binding upon all generations. Rambam may well have deemed the commandment to have been binding only upon the generation of the wilderness to whom it was addressed and to those who were charged with the original conquest of the land of Canaan,6aThe phrase “the wars of Joshua to conquer” employed in Sotah 44b as the definition of milḥemet ḥovah certainly appears to indicate that the original conquest was commanded. See, however, R. Shlomoh Goren, Maḥanayim, no. 69 (lyar 5722), pp. 5-15, reprinted in his Torat ha-Shabbat ve-ha-Mo‘ed (Jerusalem, 5742), pp. 338-356, who draws attention to Rambam’s ruling in Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1 to the effect that even in the wars of Joshua it was required that the indigenous populace be offered terms of peace and were to be permitted continued residence upon acceptance of these terms. Rabbi Goren maintains that the wars of Joshua constituted milḥamot ḥovah or milḥamot miẓvah, not by virtue of a commandment to conquer the land of Canaan per se, but by virtue of the entirely independent commandment to annihilate the Seven Nations; see Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:1. Cf., below, notes 7 and 8 for Rabbi Israeli’s analysis of Rambam’s position as formulated in his Ereẓ Ḥemdah. The phraseology of Sotah 44b also seems to be at variance with the position of R. Aaron Soloveichik cited below, note 9. but not intended as a binding commandment for all of posterity.7Megillat Ester, however, understands Rambam’s position as being that the commandment lapsed only upon the destruction of the Temple. Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 454, sec. 4, and R. Ovadiah Yosef, Torah she-be-‘al Peh, XI (5729), 36, assume that the miẓvah of settlement in Israel will again be binding in the messianic era. Accordingly they take exception to Megillat Ester’s explanation of Rambam’s omission of this commandment from his enumeration of the 613 miẓvot since Rambam does reckon among this number miẓvot which will again be binding in the days of the Messiah. It, however, appears evident that Megillat Ester assumes that settlement in Israel, although certain to occur with the advent of the Messiah, will not have the status of a binding miẓvah. Perhaps this is because Jews in the messianic era will have sufficient motivation to immigrate to Ereẓ Yisra’el even in the absence of a binding commandment. Alternatively, Rambam may have interpreted the verse as constituting sage counsel, as did Rashi, rather than as a commandment.8R. Sha’ul Israeli explains Rambam’s position on the basis of his own thesis as cited above, note 7. He asserts that Rambam understands the verse “and you shall inherit the land” as a necessary prerequisite for fulfillment of the subsequent directive “and you shall dwell therein.” Rambam differs from Ramban, according to Rabbi Israeli, in understanding the term “ve-horashtem” as meaning military conquest and displacement of the indigenous populace. This form of “inheritance” is not merely not required but also prohibited in our era by virtue of the “three oaths” and the biblical statement concerning exile. Since “and you shall dwell therein” requires antecedent inheritance,” Rambam adopts the position that the miẓvah concerning settlement has lapsed as well. It thus follows that, in our time, according to Rambam, there is no divine imperative requiring a Jew to remove himself from the Diaspora and to establish residence in Israel.
(19) As noted earlier, Rambam does not enumerate the commandment "and you shall inherit the land and dwell therein" in his compilation of the 613 precepts. The simplest and most obvious reason for this omission is that Rambam does not view this injunction as constituting a mandatory obligation binding upon all generations. Rambam may well have deemed the commandment to have been binding only upon the generation of the wilderness to whom it was addressed and to those who were charged with the original conquest of the land of Canaan,6aThe phrase “the wars of Joshua to conquer” employed in Sotah 44b as the definition of milḥemet ḥovah certainly appears to indicate that the original conquest was commanded. See, however, R. Shlomoh Goren, Maḥanayim, no. 69 (lyar 5722), pp. 5-15, reprinted in his Torat ha-Shabbat ve-ha-Mo‘ed (Jerusalem, 5742), pp. 338-356, who draws attention to Rambam’s ruling in Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1 to the effect that even in the wars of Joshua it was required that the indigenous populace be offered terms of peace and were to be permitted continued residence upon acceptance of these terms. Rabbi Goren maintains that the wars of Joshua constituted milḥamot ḥovah or milḥamot miẓvah, not by virtue of a commandment to conquer the land of Canaan per se, but by virtue of the entirely independent commandment to annihilate the Seven Nations; see Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:1. Cf., below, notes 7 and 8 for Rabbi Israeli’s analysis of Rambam’s position as formulated in his Ereẓ Ḥemdah. The phraseology of Sotah 44b also seems to be at variance with the position of R. Aaron Soloveichik cited below, note 9. but not intended as a binding commandment for all of posterity.7Megillat Ester, however, understands Rambam’s position as being that the commandment lapsed only upon the destruction of the Temple. Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 454, sec. 4, and R. Ovadiah Yosef, Torah she-be-‘al Peh, XI (5729), 36, assume that the miẓvah of settlement in Israel will again be binding in the messianic era. Accordingly they take exception to Megillat Ester’s explanation of Rambam’s omission of this commandment from his enumeration of the 613 miẓvot since Rambam does reckon among this number miẓvot which will again be binding in the days of the Messiah. It, however, appears evident that Megillat Ester assumes that settlement in Israel, although certain to occur with the advent of the Messiah, will not have the status of a binding miẓvah. Perhaps this is because Jews in the messianic era will have sufficient motivation to immigrate to Ereẓ Yisra’el even in the absence of a binding commandment. Alternatively, Rambam may have interpreted the verse as constituting sage counsel, as did Rashi, rather than as a commandment.8R. Sha’ul Israeli explains Rambam’s position on the basis of his own thesis as cited above, note 7. He asserts that Rambam understands the verse “and you shall inherit the land” as a necessary prerequisite for fulfillment of the subsequent directive “and you shall dwell therein.” Rambam differs from Ramban, according to Rabbi Israeli, in understanding the term “ve-horashtem” as meaning military conquest and displacement of the indigenous populace. This form of “inheritance” is not merely not required but also prohibited in our era by virtue of the “three oaths” and the biblical statement concerning exile. Since “and you shall dwell therein” requires antecedent inheritance,” Rambam adopts the position that the miẓvah concerning settlement has lapsed as well. It thus follows that, in our time, according to Rambam, there is no divine imperative requiring a Jew to remove himself from the Diaspora and to establish residence in Israel.
(20) This is certainly how Rambam is understood by the seventeenth-century scholar, R. Isaac de Leon.9Rambam is also understood in this manner by Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 234. In addition, Ritva, Yoma 38a, clearly maintains that there is no objection, at least subsequent to the dispersion of Israel, to maintaining continued residence in the Diaspora. See Avnei Nezer, Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 454, sec. 63. I believe this also to be the opinion of Maharam of Rothenberg cited by Rosh, Ketubot 13:17 and Tur Shulḥan Arukh 75; see below, note 33. In his work, Megillat Ester, a commentary on the Sefer ha-Mizvot, this authority seeks to defend Rambam's position against Ramban's critique by citing the "three oaths" described in Ketubot 111a.10For an analysis of the halakhic implications of these oaths see Contemporary Halakhic Problems, I, 14-15. The Gemara tells us that at the time that Jews were banished from the Land of Israel and driven into exile, God caused the Jews and the nations of the world to swear a series of solemn oaths. One of these oaths bound the people of Israel not to attempt to retake the Land of Israel by force. Megillat Ester questions how it may logically be possible that there exist a binding commandment to conquer and to settle the Land of Israel if at one and the same time Jews were caused to swear an oath not to exercise force in regaining the Land of Israel. According to this authority, the very possibility of such an oath is a clear indication that the commandment "and you shall inherit the land" is not addressed to all generations in all ages.
(21) Indeed, Rambam himself strongly encourages settling in the Land of Israel. Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:12, declares, "A person should live in the Land of Israel under all circumstances, even in a city in which the majority are heathens, and should not live outside the Land even in a city in which the majority are Jews." This statement follows immediately after Rambam's declaration, Hilkhot Melakhim 5:11: "The Sages said that the sins of whosoever dwells in the Land of Israel are forgiven.… Even if one walks four cubits therein, one is assured of life in the World to Come. So too, one who is buried there will obtain atonement…." Residence in the Land of Israel is thus regarded by Rambam as meritorious in the highest degree, but not as a binding obligation.
(22) It should, however, not be inferred from Rambam's failure to classify settlement in the Land of Israel as a mizvah that it was his position that residence in Israel is not preferable to residence in the Diaspora.11This seems to be inherent in the position of Mahari Asad, no. 88; cf., however, Pe’at ha-Shulḥan, Bet Yisra’el, 1:15. See also R. Abraham I. Kook, Shabbat ha-Areẓ, Introduction, ch. 15, as well as the comments of Kli Yakar, Genesis 13:17. Even in the absence of a specific binding obligation concerning residence in the Land of Israel in all generations, Erez Yisra'el remains unique for all Jews. Despite the absense of the imperative engendered by a mizvah, domicile in Erez Yisra'el carries with it great zekhut or merit.
(12) 1. Chief among the authorities who maintain that the commandment to reside in Israel remains in force throughout the period of the dispersion is Nachmanides. In his commentary on the verse "And you shall inherit the land and dwell therein" (Num. 33:53), Nachmanides states that the passage is to be understood as a positive commandment to dwell in the Land of Israel while at the same time enjoining Jewry from establishing a national settlement outside of Israel. This view is reiterated by Nachmanides in his glosses appended to Maimonides' Sefer ha-Mizvot. In the latter work Maimonides enumerates each of the commandments, both positive and negative, which in their totality comprise the corpus of the 613 precepts of Judaism. Nachmanides remonstrates that Rambam, in cataloguing the various precepts, did not include the commandment concerning dwelling in the Land of Israel.
R' Isaac de Leon wrote a commentary on Rambam's sefet hamitzvot. His position on the whole machloket is explained here by Rabbi J. David Bleich:
(14) 2. R. Isaac de Leon, the author of Megillat Ester, an early commentary on Maimonides' Sefer ha-Mizvot, maintains that Rambam omitted the commandment to dwell in the Land of Israel in cataloguing the 613 precepts of Judaism because he was of the opinion that the obligation to dwell in Israel lapsed with the dispersion of Israel following the destruction of the Temple. Megillat Ester points out that the Gemara, Ketubot 111a, interprets the verse "I cause you to swear, O daughters of Jerusalem … that ye awaken not nor stir up love until it please" (Song of Songs 2:7) as an admonition not to rebel against the conquerors of Israel or to seize the land by force.
(15) Rabbi Yosef rejects this analysis of Maimonides' position because (a) Maimonides includes in his enumeration of the 613 commandments precepts such as the rebuilding of the Temple, which in Maimonides' own opinion are not operative prior to the Messianic era, and (b) none of the numerous statements contained in talmudic and midrashic works supporting the view that settlement in Israel is a positive commandment in any way intimates that this commandment may be binding only in certain epochs. Of particular note is the statement in Bereshit Rabbah LXXVI, 2 explaining the reason for Jacob's fear that he might be vanquished in battle by Esau. Jacob's foreboding was based on the fact that Esau had acquired greater merit by virtue of having dwelt in Erez Yisra'el uninterruptedly throughout the years spent by Jacob in the house of Laban.
The opinions of other rishonim/achronim -
, אם תזדמן לו בת זוג מתאימה עם מוהר ומתן באופן שיוכל להסתדר בארץ ישראל, אפילו אם יתנגדו הוריו, שורת הדין שאינו צריך לשמוע להם, שמצוות אלו פריה ורביה וישיבת ארץ ישראל חשובות יותר ממצות כיבוד אב ואם, וכתורה יעשה
So the kitzur shulchan aruch seems to say that Yeshivat Ha'aretz is important in fulfulling mitzvot and halachot. To my knowledge from this source, he does not specify whether it is a mitzvah or not.
Tosafot on Ketuvot 110b (s.v. hu omer) writes that the Talmud’s statement permitting the forcing of a spouse to move to Eretz Yisrael does not apply today because of the danger of traveling to Israel. Tosafot continues with an additional reason, quoting Rabbeinu Chaim [haKohen] that there is no longer a mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisrael since we are unable to fulfill the mitzvot ha’teluyot ba’aretz (the agriculturally based commandments). It is for these reasons that the Rambam does not codify living in Israel as a mitzvah.
The Maharit - Rabbeinu Chaim’s comments about not being able to fulfill the mitzvot ha’teluyot ba’aretz in our days is perplexing. He points out that one who wishes to fulfill the commandments can purchase a plot of land in Eretz Yisrael and fulfill all the agriculturally based commandments. Therefore, Maharit suggests that the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim as quoted in Tosafot should not be relied as accurate and was the mistake of a student transcribing the opinion of his teacher. The opinion of Tosafot that there is danger in the travel might suspend for that time period the responsibility to act upon the obligation of settling in the land, as danger suspends the majority of mitzvot. However, such reasoning is not sufficient for explaining the lack of codification of settling in the land as a Biblical commandment. (YU Torah)
Rabbi Yehuda Chai Alkalai writes in a Kol Korai, "Because Israel didn't rise up to return to our Land, and to the inheritance of our forefathers, the decrees began, the expulsions and slaughters, for the matter is dependent on the repentance of returning to Eretz Israel (Kol Korai, Rabbi Yehuda Chai Alkalai. The Writings of Rav Alkalai.)
R. Natan comments on the verse: “And doing kindness to thousands of generations to those who love Me and keep My commandments” (Shemot 20:6): "This refers to those who dwell in Eretz Israel and dedicate themselves to all of the Mitzvot" (Yalkut Shimoni, Yitro 292)
Dwelling in Eretz Israel is the equivalent of all the Mitzvot in the Torah (Sifrei, Parashat Ree)
Said the Holy One blessed be He: I only gave them Eretz Israel for them to study the Oral and Written Law and busy themselves with Torah, each subject at its appropriate season and learn good conduct and manners.
Tanna debe Eliyahu Rabba 11
Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi - the Jewish people as individuals and as a nation can only fulfil their true Divine potential and merit Divine Providence from God whilst they dwell in the Land. (Kuzari 2:12.2, 2:14.11)
“Every Jew who lives in the Land of Israel accepts the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and everyone who leaves the Land is akin to one who worships idols.”(Torat Kohanim, Vayikra 25:38)
n answer to the first question, there are a number of sources who agree with the Ramban’s opinion mentioned above and opine that there is a constant positive Mitzvah to settle in the Land of Israel – even in our times. The majority of the Rishonim (early Rabbinic Authorities, 11th -15th Centuries) including The Rambam, Rashi, Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, The Rashba, The Ritva, The Rosh, The Ran, and the author of the Shulchan Aruch Rabbi Yosef Caro were all of this belief. Similarly, the vast majority of Achronim(later Rabbinic Authorities, 16th Century-present) are also of this opinion(1).Amongst them are The Alshich, the author of the Shelah Rabbi Isaiah Horovitz, The Vilna Goan, Rabbi Yaakov Emden, The Chatam Sofer, Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector of Kovno, Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk ,The Netziv, The Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef.Though there are a number of dissenting opinions – most notably Rabbanue Chaim, The Megilat Ester, and The Minchat Eliezer — the overall voice of Rabbinic authorities from Talmudic times until today speak with a clear voice and affirm that there is a positive commandment to dwell in the Land of Israel at all times.
(1) A partial list of the opinions of Rishonim and Achronim who believe that the Mitzvah to dwell in the Land of Israel applies at all times: Maimonides d.1204 (Hilchot Ishut 13:20, Hilchot Avadim 8:9) The Tashbetz d.1444 (Responsa3:288), Rabbi Moshe Isserlis d.1572, the Rama (Yoreh Deah Even Haezer 1:3) the Alshich d.1593 (Commentary on Sefer Devarim 1:3-7) the Sefer Chareidim d.1600 (57:15), Rabbi Isaiah Horovitz d.1630 (Shelah Shar HaOtiyot-Kedushat Hamokom) the Maharit d.1639 (2:28) Beit Shmuel d. 1700? (Yoreh Deah Even Haezer 1:3) Responsa Me’il Tzeddakah d.1712 (Sec26) Rabbi Yaakov Emden d.1776 (Mor Uketziah, vol.2, pg.15) The Vilna Goan d.1797( gloss on Yoreh Deah 267:84, subsection 161) Chida d.1806 (Responsa Yosef Ometz 52, Yair Ozen10:5) Chochmat Adam d. 1820 (Shar Mishpatie HaAretz 11:3) the Pe’at Hashulchan d.1839(chapter 1, Beit Yisrael 14) Chatam Sofer d.1839(Yoreh Deah 233), Pitchay Teshuva d.1868(Yoreh Deah Even Haezer 1:3) Rabbi Chayim Palagi d.1869 (Responsa Nishmat Kol Chai, Yoreh Deah 48) Maharam Schick d.1879(Yoreh Deah 225), Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector of Kovno d.1896 (Shivat Tzion, vol. 1 pg. 16) the Netziv d.1893 (Letters of the Netziv, Sefer Shivat Tzion)Rabbi Abraham Bornstein d.1910(Avnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 454) Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk d.1926(Parshat Lech Lecha 12:5), , The Chazon Ish d.1953 (Vayoel Moshe, Mamar Yishuv Eretz Yisrael, 55-68) Rav Moshe Feinstein d.1986 (Responsa Iggrot Moshe, Even HaEzer 102) Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach d.1995 (Responsa Minchat Shlomo 2-3 158:22, 100:10) Rav Shach d.2001 (Letters and writings Volume 1, Letter 9 pg 22) Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg d.2006(Responsa Tzitz Eliezer 7:48:12) Rabbi Ovadia Yosef d.2013(Responsa Yechaveh Da’at 4:49) The works MeAfar Kumi, Ki Et Lechenena, Land of My Past Land of My Future, were invaluable in assembling this list.
(Joshua Gerstein)
Halachic
Mitzvah
Spiritual
Redemption