[Tal
Chermon – Moadim pp. 213-220]
The Mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel according to the Ramban
Is
having our own State in the Land of Israel a means to an end, or an end in
itself? Does the State possess inherent
value and holiness, or is it merely a way to accomplish certain goals, such as
the observance of Mitzvot? Is it no more
than a place to achieve security for the Jews – a "safe haven," to
quote Theodore Herzl? If so, then there
may be times when we can achieve these goals better somewhere else. We may come to the conclusion that Jews are
safer in the Exile than they are in the Land of Israel, or that it is easier to
observe the Torah outside of the Land of Israel. If this is the case, are we to give up the
idea of a Jewish State?
To
answer this question, we must first clarify how Halachah relates to the State,
since Halachah is the system that enables us to put the Torah's ideals into
practice. Ramban, who categorized the
halachot pertaining to the Land of Israel and the State of Israel, derived our
halachic obligations regarding the Land from the verse, "And you shall
inherit it [the Land of Israel] and you shall live in it" (Devarim
11:31). This general Mitzvah includes
three related stages (Ramban, additions to Sefer Ha-Mitzvot of the Rambam,
positive Mitzvah #4):
1.
It is a Mitzvah
to live in the Land of Israel and not in the Exile. This Mitzvah is incumbent upon every
individual Jew.
2.
It is a Mitzvah
to build up the Land of Israel and to make it flourish: "We may not allow
it to remain desolate." This Mitzvah
is directed to the Nation and not to individuals. Not every Jew is a contractor or a farmer
(though doctors and teaches obviously also play important roles in developing
the country). Therefore, it is the
Nation as a whole that is responsible for the population and development of all
parts of the Land, by creating cities and villages, and developing agriculture
and industry.
3.
It is a Mitzvah
to possess the Land of Israel: "And we are forbidden to allow it to be
ruled by any other nation." The
Land of Israel must belong to, and be under the sovereignty of the Nation of
Israel. And not be ruled by any other
nation. This Mitzvah is also incumbent
upon the Nation, and not upon individuals (There are other Mitzvot that are the
obligation of the Nation of Israel as a whole, i.e. appointing a king, building
the Temple and declaring war).
Sovereignty of a nation over its land is the definition of a state. Therefore, the Torah commands us to establish
a sovereign Jewish State in the Land of Israel.
A
Mitzvah for every generation, even in exile
We
might think that this Mitzvah applied only until the period in which we entered
the Land of Israel under the leadership of Yehoshua, or to the period in which
King David conquered the Land, and that it is not relevant today. After all, G-d sent Assyria and Babylonia to
destroy the Kingdom of Israel, resulting in the Nation of Israel's exile. Perhaps this is a sign that he that He no
longer wishes us to have a sovereign State in the Land of Israel. The Ramban, however, reiterates three times
that the Mitzvot of conquering the Land of Israel and settling it apply
throughout all generations, even during our exile.
It
is incorrect to presume that our current dispersion indicates that G-d does not
want us to leave the Exile and establish a State. If it is a Mitzvah, no difficulty or obstacle
can erase our obligation. We cannot use
difficult events as an excuse not to fulfill a Mitzvah. This may be compared to a person who is about
to write a check for Tzedakah, when his pen suddenly runs out of ink. Is this a sign that he should not make a
donation? No, it is a Mitzvah to give Tzedakah. If someone mistakenly violates the Shabbat
laws is that a sign that that person is incapable of observing Shabbat? No, it is a warning to be more careful and
study the laws. When we experience
difficulty in fulfilling any Mitzvah, we are simply being told to try harder,
even if it may take a long time until we see the results of our efforts.
Some
of the Mitzvot which require the greatest exertion, and take the longest to
bear fruit are Torah learning, prayer, acts of loving-kindness and settling the
Land of Israel (Berachot 32b). Before
Yehoshua entered the Land of Israel, G-d urged him to "be strong and
courageous" (Yehoshua 1:6, 7, 9, 18), signifying that it was going to be a
major undertaking. We never received the
Land of Israel on a silver platter in the past, and our task today is no less
fraught with difficulty. We might wonder
why the Ramban himself did not try to establish a State in the Land of
Israel. In his times, conditions were
not conducive for its fulfillment.
Halachah terms this phenomenon as one's "force of
circumstance" ("ones").
One who is unable to perform a Mitzvah is not exempt from it; he is
simply not liable to punishment. We must
keep on persisting throughout the generations, until we succeed in fulfilling
this Mitzvah.
Rambam:
The Mitzvah to appoint a king
In
his addenda to the Rambam's Sefer Ha-Mitzvot, the Ramban inserts the Mitzvah of
possessing the Land of Israel and establishing sovereignty over it. The Rambam himself, however, did not include
this Mitzvah there as one of the 613 Mitzvot.
Yet, in his Mishneh Torah, he does state that it is a Mitzvah to live in
the Land of Israel, and that this Mitzvah is as important as all the other Mitzvot
combined. In fact, it is so important
that one spouse can legally force the other to fulfill it (Hilchot Melachim
5:9-12). Therefore, its conspicuous
omission from the Sefer Ha-Mitzvot is significant and requires explanation.
We
do find that the Rambam considers the appointing of a king over the Nation of
Israel a Mitzvah and includes it in his Sefer Ha-Mitzvot (ibid. 1:6). Obviously, there can be no king unless there
is a Nation over which to rule. If the
Nation of Israel does not live in its homeland – or is ruled by another nation
– this Mitzvah is meaningless. Therefore,
the Mitzvah of appointing a king includes within it the obligation to establish
a sovereign State of Israel for the Nation of Israel who resides there. The term "king" does not
necessarily mean a king in the narrow sense of the word, but refers to any authoritative
leadership agreed upon by the Nation as a whole. This government has all the power and
authority of a king. The laws concerning
rebellion against a king are deduced from Yehoshua, who was the leader of the
Nation of Israel, but nevertheless was not officially its king (Sanhedrin 49a;
Hilchot Melachim 3:8). For example,
Yehoshua was told, "Any man who rebels against you…shall be killed"
(Yehoshua 1:18). Although he was not
formally a king, defying his orders was deemed "rebellion against the
king" because he was the national leader (National leaders are only
granted kingly powers regarding the leadership of the Nation and do not have
the special dispensations granted to kings such as permission to marry eighteen
wives, etc…).
The
Israeli government of today falls into the same category. Since it is elected by the people, it is
empowered to make national decisions.
The sovereignty of the State of Israel is certainly not a true kingship;
it is a government and not a monarchy.
Moreover, it is not run according to religious principles. Despite this, our government has some of the
authority of a king of Israel (see Mishpat Cohain, pp. 128, 365), and is part
of the necessary groundwork for fulfillment of the Mitzvah of establishing the
Kingdom of Israel. This is a long and
arduous process, consisting of many phases, which will ultimately culminate in
the Kingdom of the House of David.
Independence
signifies rejuvenation and its loss signifies destruction
Loss
of an independent State in the Land of Israel is the halachic definition of
destruction. According to Halachah,
"One who sees the cities of Yehudah in their destruction must tear his
clothes" (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 561). Rav Yosef Karo writes, "As long as the
cities are ruled by non-Jews – even if they are settled by Jews – they are
termed 'destroyed'" (Beit Yosef on the Tur, Orach Chaim ibid. and cited in
the Magen Avraham and Mishnah Berurah).
In other words, despite the fact that the cities of the Land of Israel
are populated by Jews, if non-Jews rule them, their halachic status is one of
"destruction." If, however,
Jews control the cities, they are considered "built," even if no one
lives there. Therefore, we do not tear
our clothes today over the sight of any cities, standing or destroyed, that are
under Israeli jurisdiction.
After
the Six Day War, our Rabbi, Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook, ruled that we should no
longer tear our clothes upon the sight of the Temple Mount, since it is under
Israeli jurisdiction. We have the
political power to rebuild the Beit Ha-Mikdash today. The fact that we have no immediate plans to
do so, for various religious, political and other reasons (justified or not),
does not negate the fact that it is our decision not to build the
Beit Ha-Mikdash, and therefore we no longer tear our clothes when we see the
Temple Mount, as we would if it were under non-Jewish domination (Be-Ma'arachah
Ha-Tizburit, p. 55).
Loss
of independence and exile also constitute the destruction of the Torah. There are those who say, "The Torah
alone is sufficient; there is no need for a State. We managed very well without own State for two
thousand years." Our Sages were not
of this opinion. They explained,
"Her [Zion's] king and princes are scattered among the nations – there is
no Torah. There is no greater
nullification of Torah than the exile of Israel" (Chagigah 5b). They did not intend us to take this statement
to mean that we need devote less time to learning Torah in the Exile. They meant that the Exile invalidates the
essence and purpose of the Torah, which can only be realized when the Nation of
Israel is in its homeland.
Independence
equal peace
Another
halachic reference to national independence as an ideal may be found in the
laws of fast days. The prophets declared
four national fast days: the Seventeenth of Tammuz, the Ninth of Av, the Fast
of Gedaliah and the Tenth of Tevet. The
prophet Zechariah promised us that in the future, these fast days will become
days of joy (Zechariah 8:19). The Gemara
in Rosh Hashanah (18b) expands upon this, listing three possible permutations
regarding our obligation to fast on these days:
1.
In times
of peace – these will be days of joy.
2.
In times
of oppression – these remain fast days.
3.
When there
is neither peace nor oppression, fasting is optional; it is not an obligatory Mitzvah.
The
Rishonim (early halachic authorities) wrote, however, that regarding the Ninth
of Av – when so many tragedies occurred – the Nation voluntarily accepted upon
itself the obligation to fast from sunset to sunset with accompanying
restrictions. On the other fast days, we
also fast, but with certain leniencies – only from sunrise to sunset and
without the added restrictions of the Ninth of Av. In any case, in times of real peace, we do
not fast.
What
is the definition of "peace"?
According to the Ramban, it refers to the time when the Beit Ha-Mikdash
is built. According to Rashi, it means
"that the nations of the world do not rule Israel with a heavy hand"
(both opinions are cited in the Beit Yosef on the Tur, Orach Chaim 415). In other words, we are autonomous and not
subject to foreign rule. Rashi's
definition of peace has no organic connection to the cessation of hostilities,
but rather of to autonomy. Even during
times of war – as long as we have the ability to defend ourselves and fight
back without losing our independence – according to Rashi, we are "at
peace."
The
Rambam writes that the Jews even fasted on the Ninth of Av during the Second
Temple Period, after the Beit Ha-Mikdash had been rebuilt (Rambam, commentary
on the Misnayot, Rosh Hashanah 1:3). The
Admor (Chasidic Rebbe) of Gur explains that the Rambam follows Rashi's
definition of peace, which is determined by our independence from other
nations. For most of the Second Temple
Period, we were under foreign domination – first under Persian rule and then
Greek and Roman rule. This period was
defined as one in which "there was neither peace nor war," and in
such a case, according to Rashi, the Jews should fast on the Ninth of Av,
despite the fact that the Beit Ha-Mikdash was standing. Only later, under the Maccabees, did we
achieve self-rule. The Rambam therefore
rules that the Jews' lack of liberty during the Second Temple Period obligated
them to fast, except for the brief period of the rule of the Chashmonaim
(ibid.).
Today,
the dove is the universally accepted symbol of peace. Where did this symbol originate? In our sources, the dove first appears in the
story of Noach. He sent the dove out of
the ark to find out whether the floodwaters had sufficiently dried up, and she
returned to him in the evening with "an olive leaf in her mouth"
(Bereshit 8:11). Our Sages commented:
"The dove requested of G-d: Let my food be as bitter as a raw olive, but
only dependent upon You, rather than as sweet as honey, but at the mercy of
men" (Eruvin 18b). The dove thereby
revealed a desire for freedom, even at the price of self-sacrifice and
inconvenience. Thus, the dove is the
symbol of independence and of the willingness to sacrifice in order to achieve
this aim. This is Rashi's definition of
peace: that no other nation will rule over us, even if we have to fight to
preserve our freedom. According to this
view, peace is not a state of "ceasefire," but rather one of
independence despite the wars.
According
to Rashi's outlook on peace, it would seem that we should not fast in this
generation, since we have the State of Israel in our possession. Aren't we independent in our country, free
from the domination of other nations?
Aren't we at the stage of "peace," wherein the fast days are
transformed into days of rejoicing?
There are those who say that our independence is not complete since we
are not altogether free from the influence of the nations, as we are subject to
political pressure. This is not a valid
claim because all nations of the world are subject to such pressure; this does
not make them any less independent.
Rather, the reason that we still fast in our generation is because the
majority of the Nation of Israel is still in Exile under the rule of other
nations; Rashi's definition is peace therefore does not apply to the entire
Nation.
