Difference between revisions of "Devar/Aliyah-Rambam"
From RonWareWiki
< Devar
m (Devar/Aliyah-Halachic Basis moved to Devar/Aliyah-Rambam) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{hebrew}} | {{hebrew}} | ||
| − | {{heb|ישיבת ארץ ישראל אינה כלולה במניין המצוות על פי הרמב"ם. לכן רבים סוברים שהוא לא ראה חיוב לשבת בארץ (ובפרט כיוון שהוא בעצמו לו ישב בארץ אלא תקופה קצרה). וכן העיר הרמב"ן בהשגותיו על הרמב"ם.}} | + | {{heb|ישיבת ארץ ישראל אינה כלולה במניין [http://mechon-mamre.org/i/0001n.htm |
| + | המצוות על פי הרמב"ם]. לכן רבים סוברים שהוא לא ראה חיוב לשבת בארץ (ובפרט כיוון שהוא בעצמו לו ישב בארץ אלא תקופה קצרה). וכן העיר הרמב"ן בהשגותיו על הרמב"ם.}} | ||
{{heb|נתייחס לשתי נקודות: | {{heb|נתייחס לשתי נקודות: | ||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
{{english}} | {{english}} | ||
| + | "Living in the Land of Israel" is not included in [http://mechon-mamre.org/p/p0001.htm Rambam's listing of the 613 commandments]. Therefore, many are of the opinion that he did not see an obligation to live in the Land (especially since he himself did not live in the Land except for a short period). Indeed, the Ramban commented to that effect in his annotations to the Rambam. | ||
| + | |||
| + | We will respond to two points: | ||
| + | # Why did Rambam not include "living in the Land" in his list of commandments? | ||
| + | # Was he of the opinion that there is no obligation to live in the Land? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Concerning the second point, we will bring two clear ''halachot'' from [http://mechon-mamre.org/i/e505n.htm#11 Laws of Kings chapter 5]: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''halachah'' 15: '''A person must always live in the Land of Israel, even in a city which is mostly inhabited by Gentiles, and not live outside the Land of Israel, even in a city which is mostly inhabited by Jews. Because anyone who lives outside the Land -- it is as if he worships idols.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''halachah'' 11: '''It is always forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for places outside it -- with the exceptions of: learning Torah, or marrying a woman, or to escape Gentiles; [and after completing his goal] then he must return to the Land. Also, he may leave on business. But it is forbidden to dwell outside the Land -- unless there is a strong famine there, such that a ''dinar'' worth of wheat costs two ''dinarim''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Here are two explicitly clear ''halachot'' -- one positive and one negative! Both are based upon the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ketuboth 110-111. In addition to these laws, we find (from the same source text) in the [http://mechon-mamre.org/i/4113n.htm#23 Laws of Women chapter 13 ''halachot'' 23-25]: | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Likewise, he may not make her [his wife] move from a place which is mostly inhabited by Jews, to a place which is mostly inhabited by Gentiles; and in any case, one may make her move from a place which is mostly Gentiles to one which is mostly Jews.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''What case are we considering? Moving from outside the Land to outside the Land, or moving within the Land to another place within the Land. But when moving from outside the Land to the Land -- we force one to make ''aliyah'', even from a nice neighborhood to a bad one. We even force one to make ''aliyah'' from a place inhabited mostly by Jews to one mostly inhabited by Gentiles. And we do not move one from inside the Land to outside the Land, even from a bad neighborhood which is mostly Gentiles to a good one which is mostly Jews.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''If the man stated that he wanted to make ''aliyah'' to the Land of Israel, and she stated she did not want to -- she is given a divorce, but does not get her ''ketuba'' (divorce settlement). If she stated she wants to make ''aliyah'' and he said he does not want to -- he must give her a divorce and pay her ''ketuba'' as well. This is the rule also concerning any place in the Land of Israel with respect to Jerusalem: all [must] make ''aliyah'' to the Land of Israel, but no one may leave it; and all [must] make ''aliyah'' to Jerusalem, but may not leave it.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | And further, in the [http://mechon-mamre.org/i/c508n.htm#10 Laws of Slaves 8:10]: '''A slave who stated his desire to make ''aliyah'' to the Land of Israel -- his master is either forced to make ''aliyah'' with him, or to sell him to a master who will take him there. If the master wanted to leave the Land -- he may not take his slave with him, unless the slave wants to go with him. And this law applies in all eras, even at this time when the Land is in the hands of Gentiles.''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | There is no doubt, therefore, that the Rambam established as ''halachah'' that there is an obligation to live in the Land -- both to make ''aliyah'' and not to leave the Land. If so, why did he not include this in the listing of the commandments? All the commandments he listed have a specific verse in the Torah which testifies about them. The opinion of the Ramban is that the verse: '''And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein''' {{hcite|p/pt/pt0433.htm#53|Ex 33:53}} is the support for the position that dwelling in the Land is a Torah obligation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But according to the system of the Rambam, this verse only indicates a one-time commandment, the conquering of the Land -- and he did not include those commandments which were not eternal ones in his book. Because there is no specific verse indicating the obligation of living in the Land, he did not include it in the listing of commandments. | ||
| + | |||
| + | One should not derive from this that he did not assign to this commandment the highest importance, as it is a ground-laying commandment. That is, very many of the other commandments are dependent upon it (for example, everything connected with the Temple). Therefore it is not in the category of optional commandments -- if one desired, one performs it; if one did not desire, one doesn't perform it -- like the commandment of ''tsitsith'' for instance. Rather, every person must run after the performance of this commandment with all his strength, in order to prepare himself to be able to perform the rest of the commandments which depend on the Land. | ||
{{devar}} | {{devar}} | ||
Revision as of 10:02, 17 February 2009
עברית
- למה לא כלל הרמב"ם את ישיבת הארץ במניין המצוות?
- .האם הוא סבר שאין חיוב לשבת בארץ?
English
"Living in the Land of Israel" is not included in Rambam's listing of the 613 commandments. Therefore, many are of the opinion that he did not see an obligation to live in the Land (especially since he himself did not live in the Land except for a short period). Indeed, the Ramban commented to that effect in his annotations to the Rambam.
We will respond to two points:
- Why did Rambam not include "living in the Land" in his list of commandments?
- Was he of the opinion that there is no obligation to live in the Land?
Concerning the second point, we will bring two clear halachot from Laws of Kings chapter 5:
halachah 15: A person must always live in the Land of Israel, even in a city which is mostly inhabited by Gentiles, and not live outside the Land of Israel, even in a city which is mostly inhabited by Jews. Because anyone who lives outside the Land -- it is as if he worships idols.
halachah 11: It is always forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for places outside it -- with the exceptions of: learning Torah, or marrying a woman, or to escape Gentiles; [and after completing his goal] then he must return to the Land. Also, he may leave on business. But it is forbidden to dwell outside the Land -- unless there is a strong famine there, such that a dinar worth of wheat costs two dinarim.
Here are two explicitly clear halachot -- one positive and one negative! Both are based upon the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Ketuboth 110-111. In addition to these laws, we find (from the same source text) in the Laws of Women chapter 13 halachot 23-25:
Likewise, he may not make her [his wife] move from a place which is mostly inhabited by Jews, to a place which is mostly inhabited by Gentiles; and in any case, one may make her move from a place which is mostly Gentiles to one which is mostly Jews.
What case are we considering? Moving from outside the Land to outside the Land, or moving within the Land to another place within the Land. But when moving from outside the Land to the Land -- we force one to make aliyah, even from a nice neighborhood to a bad one. We even force one to make aliyah from a place inhabited mostly by Jews to one mostly inhabited by Gentiles. And we do not move one from inside the Land to outside the Land, even from a bad neighborhood which is mostly Gentiles to a good one which is mostly Jews.
If the man stated that he wanted to make aliyah to the Land of Israel, and she stated she did not want to -- she is given a divorce, but does not get her ketuba (divorce settlement). If she stated she wants to make aliyah and he said he does not want to -- he must give her a divorce and pay her ketuba as well. This is the rule also concerning any place in the Land of Israel with respect to Jerusalem: all [must] make aliyah to the Land of Israel, but no one may leave it; and all [must] make aliyah to Jerusalem, but may not leave it.
And further, in the Laws of Slaves 8:10: A slave who stated his desire to make aliyah to the Land of Israel -- his master is either forced to make aliyah with him, or to sell him to a master who will take him there. If the master wanted to leave the Land -- he may not take his slave with him, unless the slave wants to go with him. And this law applies in all eras, even at this time when the Land is in the hands of Gentiles.
There is no doubt, therefore, that the Rambam established as halachah that there is an obligation to live in the Land -- both to make aliyah and not to leave the Land. If so, why did he not include this in the listing of the commandments? All the commandments he listed have a specific verse in the Torah which testifies about them. The opinion of the Ramban is that the verse: And ye shall drive out the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein (Ex 33:53) is the support for the position that dwelling in the Land is a Torah obligation.
But according to the system of the Rambam, this verse only indicates a one-time commandment, the conquering of the Land -- and he did not include those commandments which were not eternal ones in his book. Because there is no specific verse indicating the obligation of living in the Land, he did not include it in the listing of commandments.
One should not derive from this that he did not assign to this commandment the highest importance, as it is a ground-laying commandment. That is, very many of the other commandments are dependent upon it (for example, everything connected with the Temple). Therefore it is not in the category of optional commandments -- if one desired, one performs it; if one did not desire, one doesn't perform it -- like the commandment of tsitsith for instance. Rather, every person must run after the performance of this commandment with all his strength, in order to prepare himself to be able to perform the rest of the commandments which depend on the Land.
Send Ron feedback on this essay.