| letter of Havayah | Opinion on Settling the Land in Our Time | Essence | |
| yud | An obligation from Torah (mitzvah de’orayta) | absolute duty (חוֹבָה) | י |
| hei | A rabbinic obligation (mitzvah de’rabbanan) | an obligation (מִצְוָה) | ה |
| vav | No obligation because of concern for failure | transgression (עֲבֵרָה) | ו |
| hei | No obligation because of dangers of the journey | danger (סַכָּנָה) | ה |
Ramban and Rambam
Aliyah to the Land of Israel is the clear mitzvah we find in this week’s parashah, Lech Lecha. Regarding the applicability of this mitzvah in our times, there are several opinions. There is the opinion of Nachmanides, the Ramban, who holds that even in this time—during the exile—there is a positive commandment to make aliyah to the Land, conquer it, and settle it. This is derived from several explicit verses in the Torah.
The most difficult opinion to fully comprehend is Rambam’s. On the one hand he brings all the virtues and praises that the sages state regarding those who live in the Land of Israel, including all the halachot that are derived from them. On the other hand, he does not write that it is a positive commandment from the Torah. For this reason, most of the later halachic authorities (the Acharonim) believe that, according to Rambam, in our time, living in the Land of Israel is a rabbinic commandment—a lofty and exalted one, but nonetheless rabbinic.
We know how much Chasidut cherishes and upholds the principle that, “the words of the scribes [the rabbis] are more endeared than the words of the Torah,” and thus, to a certain degree, one must be even more careful with a rabbinic mitzvah more than a mitzvah from the Torah. Among the later authorities, the one who primarily discusses this topic, and upon whom most of the later poskim rely, is the author of Pe’at HaShulchan, Rabbi Yisrael of Shklov, the prominent disciple of the Vilna Gaon (the Gra). He writes that according to Rambam, this mitzvah is of rabbinic origin. There is another way to explain this, which will be elaborated on briefly later.
In any case, this is the straightforward understanding: Ramban holds that dwelling in the Land of Israel is a mitzvah from the Torah even in our time. Of course, this mitzvah applies to the individual—that's the “catch,” as it were. It is not a communal mitzvah. If it were a communal mitzvah, meaning that everyone must make aliyah, it would be considered an “ascent by force” (עֲלִיָּה בַּחוֹמָה), which is prohibited by one of the well-known Three Oaths, complicating the entire issue.
Rambam does not bring up the topic of the Three Oaths in his Mishneh Torah, including the oath not to ascend by force. He does not mention it in his halachic works, but in his Epistle to Yemen, he mentions is forcefully and states that an ascent by force of the Jewish people to the Land poses a great danger to the people.
In my humble opinion, this might explain why he does not include settling the Land of Israel as a mitzvah from the Torah in the Mishneh Torah, and also why he does not mention the oath in his legal writings. There is something in the oath, “I make you vow, O daughters of Jerusalem” that nullifies the mitzvah, so to speak, because how could there be a mitzvah that does not apply to everyone together? Logically, a mitzvah should apply and obligate all, but here, it does not apply to everyone—only to those who, in a special way, desire (the essence and meaning of the Land of Israel, אֶרֶץ, is to desire, to want, רָצוֹן) it—to those who truly “pray through their land.”[1]
The author of Pe’at HaShulchan brings all the early authorities (such as the Tashbetz, Rashbash, and others) who agree with Ramban’s view and states, “this is the primary opinion.” In other words, the one in our generation who rules that in practice the halachah follows Ramban is the Pe’at HaShulchan. It also seems that the Minchat Chinuch, who came after him and is one of his admirers, as well as many later authorities, follow his view, accepting Ramban’s opinion as primary—that the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel is a positive commandment from the Torah, even in our time.
Again, Rambam does not list it as a positive commandment, although he does bring in his halachic writings all the virtues and praises of dwelling in the Land of Israel—everything that the sages said at the end of tractate Ketubot in the discussion on the Mishnah that states “All are brought up to the Land of Israel”[2] (הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל).
Two More Opinions in the Tosafot
There is a short, somewhat strange Tosafot at the end of Ketubot,[3] which seems to undermine everything, but in doing so, it completes the structure of our partzuf/model that corresponds four opinions regarding the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel with the four letters of God’s essential Name, Havayah, which we will shortly see. This is a small yet very significant Tosafot. It cites one of the great Ba’alei HaTosafot, Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen,[4] who argues that there is no mitzvah of dwelling in the Land of Israel in our time—neither from the Torah nor from rabbinic law. Why? Because there are many mitzvot of the land that cannot be fulfilled properly, and due to the near-certain risk that a person will fail in fulfilling these mitzvot, the mitzvah of settling the Land is nullified in our time:
He says to go up [to the Land of Israel], etc.: It is not practiced in our times, as there is danger on the roads. And Rabbeinu Chaim says that today, it is not a commandment to live in the Land of Israel, as there are several commandments that are dependent upon the land—and several punishments—that we are not able to be careful about and to be cognizant of.
This is not just anyone making such a statement, but since this opinion is so peculiar, everyone—as we mentioned earlier, such as the author of Pe’at HaShulchan—makes various efforts to explain it as a textual error and that in the Mordechai, for example, there is a different version of his opinion, which clarifies that it was Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen who mentioned the issue of the dangers of the journey, and that the argument regarding the lack of a mitzvah due to the complications with the land-dependent mitzvot is incorrect. Pe’at HaShulchan further advises that if someone wishes to fulfill the land-dependent mitzvot, they should purchase a parcel of land in the Land of Israel and fulfill the commandments tied to the land. In any case, it is very difficult to accept the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen.
In that same Tosafot, before presenting the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen, another explanation is offered—namely, that the mitzvah to ascend to the Land of Israel is not applicable in our time, not because there is no mitzvah, but due to the dangers of the journey. All the halachot concerning a husband compelling his wife or a wife compelling her husband to ascend to the Land of Israel—“whether men or women”—do not apply now because of the danger involved in traveling to the Land. The principle at play here is “danger is more severe than a prohibition” (סַכַּנְתָּא חֲמִירָא מֵאִסּוּרָא). Thus, the obligation to make aliyah is suspended according to this opinion due to the perilous nature of the journey, rather than the inapplicability of the mitzvah.
So, essentially, we have four opinions regarding the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel in our time. The four opinions correspond to the four letters of God’s essential Name, Havayah in a straightforward way:
- That settling the Land of Israel is a mitzvah from the Torah, a de’orayta, corresponds to the letter yud (י) and the sefirah of wisdom. This is held by Ramban and reflects the wisdom that comes directly from Divine command—the Written Torah, as in the verse, “Listen, my son, to the discipline of your father,”[5] representing the unchanging, essential Torah command.
- That it is a rabbinic mitzvah without any weakening of the obligation corresponds to the second letter, hei (ה), and to the sefirah of understanding. The strong obligation can be seen in the ruling that compels someone to make aliyah, “whether men or women,” found in Rambam. Being rabbinic (perhaps due to the issue of the Three Oaths mentioned earlier) is connected to the Oral Torah, the “Torah of your mother,” which reflects the deep reasoning and understanding within halachic framework employed by the rabbis.
- To cancel the mitzvah because of concern for failure in keeping other mitzvot corresponds to the letter vav (ו) and the six sefirot from loving-kindness to foundation, which constitute the core of Zeir Anpin (the small countenance). This is Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen’s plain opinion in Tosafot—the idea that the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel is nullified because one would likely fail in other mitzvot tied to the Land. This act of weighing pros and cons based on success and failure is typical to the considerations made in the realm of Ze’er Anpin.
- Finally, suspending the mitzvah altogether because of danger corresponds to the second hei (ה) in Havayah, and to the sefirah of kingdom. The idea that one cannot coerce another to make aliyah to the Land of Israel due to the dangers of the journey reflects the sefirah of kingdom about whom it is said, “Her feet descend down unto death”[6] (רַגְלֶיהָ יֹרְדוֹת מָוֶת). Kingdom is practical and aware of the dangers of the physical world were “living in them”[7] (וָחַי בָּהֶם) takes precedence, meaning that a major consideration in performing every mitzvah is its physical safety.
Together, all four opinions regarding the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel form a holistic understanding, which can be summarized as a partzuf, as follows:
| An obligation from Torah (mitzvah de’orayta) | absolute duty (חוֹבָה) |
| A rabbinic obligation (mitzvah de’rabbanan) | an obligation (מִצְוָה) |
| No obligation because of concern for failure | transgression (עֲבֵרָה) |
| No obligation because of dangers of the journey | danger (סַכָּנָה) |
As soon as we recognize the complete structure—the complete partzuf—everything has its place and there is a state of peace between the different opinions. The apparent conflict between the opinions transforms into a coherent system, and all is pleasant. The tension that Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen caused is resolved once we see his view as part of the broader picture, contributing to the completeness of the partzuf. In fact, it turns out that we need his opinion regarding the danger in order to complete the partzuf. Notice that both the opinions brought in the Tosafot find their place in this model and contribute to the overall balance, bringing clarity and harmony to the differing views.
Spiritual Dangers in Our Times
Indeed, some may argue that today there is no longer physical danger in journeying to the Land of Israel, but perhaps there is still a general type of danger.
We need to ask whether the opinions of Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen and the concern for danger presented in the Tosafot are still relevant today, albeit in a different form. If someone wants to dismiss Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen's argument by saying that nowadays one can come to the Land of Israel and easily fulfill the mitzvot, we must consider that in his time, this may not have been so simple. Back then, fulfilling all the land-dependent mitzvot might have been much more difficult, but today, with greater access to Torah learning and guidance, it is feasible and even seen as a great merit.
One could also argue that there is no more physical danger on the journey to the Land of Israel. So, what exactly might be the counter-argument? To answer this, let us look at an example from just a few decades ago.
Rabbi Yisrael Abuhatzera, known as the Baba Sali (who was named after the Ba’al Shem Tov) made aliyah from Morrocco in the 1960s. After he spent some time in the Land of Israel, he wrote to the Lubavitcher Rebbe that he planned on returning to Morrocco and that he was recommending that all Moroccan Jews do the same. Why did the Baba Sali want to return abroad? Indeed, it seems that if it were not for the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who insisted that he stay in the Land of Israel because of his responsibility to his community. Did he not love the Land of Israel?
It was because of what he saw what was happening in the country, the spirit of the place, that people were removing their kippot and tzitzit, and cutting off their side curls (payot). There is no need to elaborate on this distressing matter. This is the reason he himself gives and therefore he said that it is better to be a God-fearing Jew in Morocco than to live in the Land of Israel because of the spiritual danger present here.
The conclusion is that the two lower levels of our partzuf—transgression and danger—are still relevant. These two levels correspond to the “that which is revealed are [the responsibility of] us and our children”[8] and therefore they change from generation to generation, taking on a different form. One must not deny their existence. But in the end, the Lubavitcher Rebbe coerced Baba Sali to stay. He wrote to the Baba Sali: “You are a king, and your people are here—the king does not abandon his people, and the captain does not leave the ship.” Ultimately, Baba Sali accepted the Rebbe's decision and stayed
[1]. See 1 Kings 8:48.
[2]. Mishnah Ketubot 13:11.
[3]. Ketubot 110b s.v., Hu omer la’alot.
[4]. He is frequently quoted in Tosafot. His name (רַבֵּינוּ חַיִּים הַכֹּהֵן) has the same numerical value as “barren” (תֹּהוּ), as in the verse (Isaiah 45:18) “He did not create it [the Earth] to be barren; He formed it to be inhabited.”
[5]. Proverbs 1:8.
[6]. Proverbs 5:5.
[7]. Leviticus 18:5.
[8]. Deuteronomy 29:28.
