Reading Chumash should prompt Jews who voluntarily remain outside of Israel to think about this choice. We should be provoked to ponder whether we are obligated to follow the example of our ancestors and move to Israel.
We will review this highly sensitive and emotionally charged issue from two different perspectives. The first approach will be that of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Moshe Shternbuch, and the second will be that of Rav Eliezer Waldenberg and Rav Hershel Schachter.
Rav Moshe Feinstein
Rav Moshe Feinstein was asked (Teshuvot Igrot Moshe E.H. 1:102, written in 1952) whether one should move to Israel in accordance with the view of the Ramban (Bemidbar 33:53 and mitzvah 4 of the positive mitzvot omitted by the Rambam) that even in our day, every Jew is required to live in Israel, or if one should follow the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen (cited in Tosafot Ketubot 110b s.v. Hu Omeir and the Mordechai, Ketubot 313) that the mitzvah to live in Israel does not apply today. The latter is of the opinion that since the journey to and subsequent life in Israel is fraught with danger and since it is difficult to fulfill the mitzvot hatluyot ba’aretz (land based mitzvot, which apply only in Israel), there exists no mitzvah to live in Israel “today” (the twelfth century).
Rav Feinstein argues that even though most authorities agree with the Ramban, they believe that if one moves to Israel he has fulfilled a mitzvah (mitzvah kiyumit) but that there exists no absolute obligation to do so (mitzvah chiyuvit).1An example of a mitzvah kiyumit is the opinion of the Vilna Gaon (Ma’aseh Rav 181, cited by the Mishnah Berurah 475:45) that although there is an obligation to eat matzah only on the seder night, one fulfills a mitzvah every time he eats matzah throughout Pesach. Rav Feinstein believes that even the Ramban believes that living in Israel is only a mitzvah kiyumit and not a mitzvah chiyuvit.
Rav Feinstein seeks to prove that the Rambam does not believe that there is a mitzvah chiyuvit to move to Israel. The Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 5:9) writes that it is prohibited to leave Israel but does not state that one is prohibited to reside outside Israel. If an absolute obligation to move to Israel exists, writes Rav Feinstein, the Rambam would have recorded a prohibition to live outside of Israel. Rav Feinstein concludes that since there is no absolute obligation to move to Israel, one must "certainly" consider Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen's concern that one might not fulfill the mitzvot hateluyot ba’aretz properly.
Rav Moshe Shternbuch
Rav Moshe Shternbuch (Teshuvot V’hanhagot 1:900) adopts a somewhat similar approach to this question. He writes:
We must weigh each case individually to see if it is appropriate for him to move to Israel, since the impact of the yeitzer hara (evil inclination) in the Holy Land, whose holiness is exceedingly great, is immense and very seductive. Therefore, if one has a great desire to move to Israel because his religious life outside of Israel is inadequate, it is advisable to first visit Israel and ascertain where he will live, where his sons and daughters will study, and how he will earn a livelihood, and only then he should make aliyah, and he will be successful in his service of Hashem in His holy palace.
Rav Eliezer Waldenberg
Interestingly, Rav Feinstein does not consider the impact of the establishment of the State of Israel in either a positive or negative direction. By contrast, Rav Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 7:48:12) very much takes Medinat Yisrael into consideration in an emotional and stirring responsum written shortly after the State was established.2Rav Waldenberg also wrote a very lengthy work entitled Hilchot Medinah, which discusses how to administer the State of Israel in harmony with Halachah. He writes:
With the establishment of Medinat Yisrael, the obligation to make aliyah has become magnified in two aspects. First, the barrier and obstacles of the danger to make aliyah have been removed, and [so has] the obstacle of the inability to earn a living in Israel to the extent of suffering to the point of starvation, G-d forbid. With the removal of these barriers, the halachic exemptions that poskim offer from the obligation to move to Israel are eliminated. Second, we can say the current state in which Medinat Yisrael finds itself – that it has now barely ‘gotten out of diapers’ and is surrounded by enemies sworn to its destruction, Heaven forfend – a special obligation devolves to “arm ourselves swiftly” (see Bemidbar 32:17) and quickly move to Israel and come to the aid of the Jewish people from the enemy that attacked them (see Rambam Hilchot Melachim 5:1)….Indeed, all groups that come to Israel, be they organized or not organized, obviously contribute in this effort, either directly or indirectly.
This nationalistic element does not merit any consideration in Rav Moshe’s teshuvah. Moreover, Rav Waldenberg speaks of moving to Israel as a “central and fundamental mitzvah” and compares it to “children returning to their mother’s embrace.”3Somewhat surprisingly, though, Rav Waldenberg approvingly cites Rav Moshe’s approach to aliyah in Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 14:72, wherein he expresses reservations about encouraging youth to make aliyah against their parents’ wishes. Rav Moshe seems to regard the mitzvah of aliyah as essentially no different than any other mitzvah.
Rav Hershel Schachter
Rav Hershel Schachter (Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 8:14-33) adopts the approach that is characteristic of Religious Zionist halachic authorities in Israel today. Rav Schachter cites a responsum of the Avnei Neizer (Y.D. 2:454; though see his addendum to this responsum4In the addendum, he approvingly cites the Ritva (Yoma 38a s.v. L’alexandria), who asserts that “Nowadays, when it is decreed that we be scattered throughout the world, the only prohibition we have is not to move out of Israel.”), who states that Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen's concerns no longer are relevant. Today, there exists a religious infrastructure that facilitates proper fulfillment of the mitvot hatluyot ba’aretz. No semblance of such a system existed in the days of Rabbeinu Chaim Cohen. Rav Schachter adds that "If conditions were not a hindrance when the Avnei Neizer penned his responsum some ninety years ago, surely now they are no problem."5See, however, the Pe’at Hashulchan (1), who rules (in the early nineteenth century) that moving to Israel always constitutes an obligation. It is noteworthy that he ruled thus despite the fact that in his times it was very dangerous to do so - it was not uncommon for residents of Israel to die prematurely. The author of the Pe’at Hashulchan himself lost his first wife and almost all of his children due to the exceedingly difficult conditions in Israel at that time.
Rav Schachter assumes that the Ramban believes that moving to Israel is an absolute obligation, not merely a mitzvah kiyumit. This assumption is supported by the Ramban’s words, "In my opinion, this is a positive command to live in Israel and to inherit it because it is given to us." The Pitchei Teshuvah (E.H. 75:6) and Sdei Chemed (Ma’arechet Eretz Yisrael 9), both state, “The Ramban counted it as one of the 613 mitzvot…and it applies in all times…and such is the opinion of all the earlier and later poskim.” This appears to corroborate Rav Schachter’s approach.
Rav Schachter summarizes the many opinions regarding the Rambam’s celebrated omission of the mitzvah of living in Israel from his list of the 613 mitzvot. He presents opinions (cited by Sdei Chemed Ma’arechet Eretz Yisrael 2) that the Rambam believes that the mitzvah to live in Israel is rabbinic and therefore does not list it as one of the 613 mitzvot. Rav Schachter then cites the Avnei Neizer (in his aforementioned responsum), who asserts that once the Rambam counted the mitzvah of conquering the seven nations who lived in Israel prior to the conquest of Yehoshua (Devarim 20:17), he did not find it necessary to count the actual conquest and settlement as a separate mitzvah.
Rav Schachter questions the approach of the Megillat Ester, who asserts that the Rambam does not list this mitzvah because it applies only in biblical and messianic times. At present, claims the Megillat Ester, we are bound by the oath imposed on the Jewish people not to take Eretz Yisrael by force (Ketubot 111a).6The opinion of the Megillat Ester is the cornerstone of the Satmar Rebbe’s opposition to the establishment of the State of Israel prior to the arrival of Mashiach. Rav Schachter cites the Avnei Neizer's disproof of the Megillat Ester - that the Rambam includes separating terumot (the Kohen’s tithe) and ma’aserot (other tithes) in his count of the 613 mitzvot despite the fact that it does not apply today on a Torah level according to the Rambam himself (Hilchot Terumot 1:26).
Rav Schachter further notes that the Megillat Ester's assertion is shocking, because it essentially states that in messianic times, a new mitzvah will be added to the Torah, namely, a mitzvah to live in Israel. The Rambam lists as one of the thirteen principles of faith that no new mitzvot can ever be added to the Torah. Rav Schachter concludes, “In view of the difficulties inherent in the approach of the Megillat Esther, most Acharonim conclude that Yishuv Eretz Yisrael constitutes a mitzvah according to both Ramban and Rambam.” We may add that the relevance of the Megillat Esther’s approach is diminished in light of Rav Meir Simchah of Dvinsk’s statement (cited in the Encyclopedia Talmudit 25:669 footnote 58) that the oath does not apply after the League of Nations endorsed the Balfour Declaration recognizing the right of the Jewish people to establish a homeland in Eretz Yisrael.7The Aveni Neizer similarly argues that if Jews have permission to move to Israel, the oath does not apply. As such, establishing Jewish sovereignty there is no longer considered taking it by force.8Rav Shlomo Aviner, in his Kuntress Shelo Ya’alu Bachomah (printed at the end of his Hilchot Mashiach) presents thirteen reasons why the oath does not pose an impediment to the creation of the State of Israel or moving to it.
Rav Schachter therefore concludes that most Acharonim are of the opinion that living in Israel constitutes an obligatory mitzvah, even nowadays, according to both the Rambam and the Ramban. Rav Schachter concludes his essay, “Every period of history has its own mitzvot of the hour. Today, when every Jew settling in Israel contributes measurably to the security and economy of the State, and to the Jews in it, Yishuv Eretz Yisrael may indeed be called a mitzvah of the hour.”9Rav Schachter, though, does outline circumstances that would excuse a person from the obligation to move to Israel.
Reb Tzvi Glatt’s Mei’afar Kumi
It should be noted that Reb Tzvi Glatt10Reb Tzvi was a student at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav who moved to Israel from Brooklyn at age sixteen and was murdered by Arab terrorists in Chevron in 1980. wrote a very special sefer entitled Mei’afar Kumi in response to Rav Feinstein's teshuvah. Reb Tzvi reviews the many Rishonim and Acharonim who comment on the mitzvah of living in Israel and concludes that the overwhelming majority rejects Rav Feinstein's approach to this question.11Incidentally, Rav Feinstein wrote a letter of approbation to this book, although he notes that he maintains his ruling and believes that Reb Tzvi “exaggerates.” Reb Tzvi writes that he spoke to many of the great authorities in Eretz Yisrael, including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (as indicated in Teshuvot Minchat Shlomo 3:158:3), Rav Yosef Shalom Eliashiv (see, though, Kovetz Teshuvot 2:14), and Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weisz, and they all agreed that there is an obligation upon everyone to move to Israel, even nowadays, if he can make a living. Indeed, Rav Ovadia Yosef, in his letter of approbation to Mei’afar Kumi, approves Reb Tzvi’s approach (consistent with his ruling in Teshuvot Yechaveh Da’at 4:49).
Conclusion
The question of whether one should make aliyah is complex and depends to some extent on one’s hashkafah regarding Medinat Yisrael specifically and Jewish nationalism in general. There are special circumstances to be considered,12The Pitchei Teshuvah (E.H. 75:6) cites the Teshuvot Mabit’s (2:216) ruling that an area is considered dangerous if merchants do not go there for business. Accordingly, if merchants go to Israel for business, it is not considered dangerous. as we see that even the Pitchei Teshuvah and Sdei Chemed cite authorities who rule that one is not obligated to move to Israel if he is able to earn a living outside of Israel but is not able to do so in Israel. They cite the Gemara's (Shabbat 118a) rule, “Aseih shabatecha chol v’al yitztareich laberiyot” (it is better to eat weekday food on Shabbat than to be reliant on charity) as support for this assertion.
Nonetheless, we cannot be complacent regarding our decisions concerning the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael. Indeed, Chazal (Ketubot 110b-112b) greatly extol the mitzvah of living in Israel. Moreover, Chazal (Ketubot 110b, codified by the Shulchan Aruch E.H. 75:1) view one spouse’s refusal to fulfill the mitzvah to live in Israel as potential grounds for divorce, and they even permit asking a non-Jew to write on Shabbat to facilitate fulfillment of this mitzvah (Gittin 8b, cited by the Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 6:11). Rav Aharon Lichtenstein (in a personal conversation) framed the issue succinctly: Just as a Jew would find it painful to live without kedushat hazman (holiness of time, such as Shabbat and Yom Tov), he should find it painful to live without the kedushat makom (holiness of space) of the land of Israel.13We must also consider Reish Lakish’s harsh criticism of the Jews of Babylon, who for the most part did not return to Israel when given the opportunity to do so (Yoma 9b). Rav Yehudah Halevi (Sefer Hakuzari 2:23-24) similarly criticized the Jews of his generation for failing to make aliyah.