שנצטוינו לרשת הארץ אשר נתן האל יתעלה לאבותינו לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב ולא נעזבה ביד זולתנו מן האומות או לשממה והוא אמרו להם והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה כי לכם נתתי את הארץ לרשת אותה והתנחלתם את הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאבותיכם...
The fourth mitzvah states that we are commanded to take possession of the land that God has give to our forefathers, to Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yaakov. We should not leave it in the hands of any other people or allow it to lie waste, as it says: And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to posses and you shall settle the land that I swore to your fathers...
(א) מצות הרגת שבעה עממין - להרג שבעה עממים המחזיקין בארצנו טרם כבשנו אותה מהם. והם הכנעני, והאמורי וכו' ולאבדם בכל מקום שנמצאם, שנאמר עליהם (דברים ז ב) החרם תחרים אותם, ונכפלה המצוה בסדר שפטים, שנאמר (שם כ יז) כי החרם תחרימם החתי והאמורי וגו'.... והעובר על זה ובא לידו אחד מהם ויכל להרגו מבלי שיסתכן בדבר ולא הרגו בטל עשה זה, ...
(1) The commandment of killing the seven nations: To kill the seven nations that held our land before we conquered it from them - and they are the Canaanites, the Amorites, etc. - and to destroy them in any place we find them, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:2), "you shall totally destroy them." And this commandment is repeated in the Order of Shoftim, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 20:17), "But you shall totally destroy them, the Hittite, the Amorite, etc."
...And one who transgresses this, and one of them comes to his hand - and he is able to kill him without endangering himself through the matter - and he does not kill him, has violated this positive commandment...
מנחת חינוך שם
צ"ע, דנהי דכל המצוות נדחות מפני הסכנה, מכל מקום מצווה זו התורה צוותה ללזום עמהם, וידוע דהתורה לא
תסמוך דיניה על הנס, כמבואר ברמב"ן, וברוך העולם נהרגים משני הצדדים בעת מלחמה. אם כן הזינן דהתורה גזרה ללחום עמהם אף דיא סכנה, ואם כן דחויה סכנה במקום הזה, ומצווה להרוג אותו אף שיסתכן, וצ"ע
Minhat Hinukh ibid.
This is curious because all mitzvot are pushed aside when there is a situation of danger and nonetheless this mitzvah is a command to wage war against them. And it is known that the Torah does not entail relying on miracles for its laws as Ramban explains and it is the way of the world for there to be casualties on both sides at a time of war. If so, we see that the Torah decrees that we wage war against them even when it is dangerous and if so, we push aside danger in this instance and the mitzvah is to kill them (the seven nations) even in a case of danger.
(ב) וּנְתָנָ֞ם יְהֹוָ֧ה אֱלֹהֶ֛יךָ לְפָנֶ֖יךָ וְהִכִּיתָ֑ם הַחֲרֵ֤ם תַּחֲרִים֙ אֹתָ֔ם לֹא־תִכְרֹ֥ת לָהֶ֛ם בְּרִ֖ית וְלֹ֥א תְחׇנֵּֽם׃
(2) and the LORD your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter.
דאמר קרא (דברים ז, ב) לא תחנם לא תתן להם חנייה בקרקע האי לא תחנם מיבעי ליה דהכי קאמר רחמנא לא תתן להם חן
The source is that the verse states: “You should not show them mercy [lo teḥonnem]” (Deuteronomy 7:2), which is understood as meaning: You should not give them a chance to encamp [ḥanayah] in, i.e., to acquire land in, Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This phrase: “You should not show them mercy”; isn’t it necessary to teach that this is what the Merciful one is saying: You should not give them favor [ḥen] by praising them?
אַף בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁהִתִּירוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר לֹא לְבֵית דִּירָה הִתִּירוּ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַכְנִיס לְתוֹכָהּ עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְנֶאֱמַר (דברים ז כו) "לֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ". אֲבָל מַשְׂכִּיר לָהֶן בָּתִּים לַעֲשׂוֹתָן אוֹצָר. וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן פֵּרוֹת וּתְבוּאָה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן בַּמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע. אֲבָל מוֹכֵר הוּא מִשֶּׁיָקֹץ אוֹ מוֹכֵר לוֹ עַל מְנָת לָקֹץ וְקוֹצֵץ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז ב) "וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם" לֹא תִּתֵּן לָהֶם חֲנִיָּה בַּקַּרְקַע שֶׁאִם לֹא יִהְיֶה לָהֶם קַרְקַע יְשִׁיבָתָן יְשִׁיבַת עַרְאַי הִיא. וְכֵן אָסוּר לְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחָן וַאֲפִלּוּ לוֹמַר כַּמָּה נָאֶה עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים זֶה בְּצוּרָתוֹ. קַל וָחֹמֶר שֶׁיְּסַפֵּר בְּשֶׁבַח מַעֲשָׂיו אוֹ שֶׁיְּחַבֵּב דָּבָר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְלֹא תְחָנֵּם לֹא יִהְיֶה לָהֶם חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגּוֹרֵם לְהִדַּבֵּק עִמּוֹ וְלִלְמֹד מִמַּעֲשָׂיו הָרָעִים. וְאָסוּר לִתֵּן לָהֶם מַתְּנַת חִנָּם אֲבָל נוֹתֵן הוּא לְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יד כא) "לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי", בִּמְכִירָה וְלֹא בִּנְתִינָה:
Even in the places where the leasing of houses to them is permitted, it is not for dwelling purposes that the permission was granted, as it would bring the abomination of idolatry into it, against which it is said: "Thou shalt bring no abomination into thy house" (Deut. 7.26); but one may lease houses to them for storage. It is forbidden to sell them fruit on the trees, or grain on the stalk; but he may sell it after it be harvested, or sell to one on condition that he harvest it, and when he does harvest it the purchase is binding. But wherefore is it forbidden to sell it to them? Because it is said: "Nor show mercy unto them" (Ibid. 7.2)—given them no permanency on land, for by having no land their settlement will be but a temporary one. It is also forbidden to speak in praise of idolatry, even to say: "How beautiful is this idol's facial features". From this minor premise the major premise can be deducted that it is forbidden to speak in praise of the performance of idolatry, or to love any of its parts even as it is said: "Nor show mercy unto them" (Ibid.), they should have no grace in thine eyes, for it will be a cause to cleave to it and learn its evil deeds. It is, moreover, forbidden to give them a present outright, but it is permitted to give a present outright to an alien sojourner, even as it is said: "Unto the stranger that is in thy gates canst thou give it, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien" (Deut.121.) — to an alien by selling it to him, and not by presenting it to him.
אָמַר לוֹ לֵךְ אֱמוֹר לָהֶם אַל תָּחוּשׁוּ לְמִנְיַינְכֶם כָּךְ מְקּוּבְּלַנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ הִלְכְתָא לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית מָה טַעַם הַרְבֵּה כְּרַכִּים כָּבְשׁוּ עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם וְלֹא כְּבָשׁוּם עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל
Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yosei to go and say to the Sages in the study hall: Do not be concerned with regard to your counting, that you might not have ruled properly, as you have not in fact instituted a new ordinance at all. This is the tradition that I received from Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that in Ammon and Moab one separates the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. What is the reason? Those who ascended from Egypt conquered many cities, and those who ascended from Babylonia did not conquer them after the destruction of the First Temple.
מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִדְּשָׁה לְעָתִיד לָבֹא וְהִנִּיחוּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּסְמְכוּ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲנִיִּים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית
This difference is important, because the first consecration of Eretz Yisrael, by those who ascended from Egypt, caused it to be sanctified only for its time and it was not sanctified forever, as that depended on the renewed conquest of the land by the Jewish people. And those who ascended from Babylonia left those cities aside and did not consider them part of Eretz Yisrael even after Jewish settlement was renewed there. They would plow and harvest in these places in the Sabbatical Year and tithe the poor man’s tithe, so that the poor of Eretz Yisrael, who did not have sufficient income from the previous years, could rely upon that produce in the Sabbatical Year, receiving help from this tithe.
The above argument against relinquishing land for the sake of peace is based on the Ramban's belief that it is a mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael even if it involves loss of life. Rav Yehuda Amital (Alon Shevut 100:34-62) counters that the Rambam (Maimonides) believes that the mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael does not apply today. He questions the ability of a rabbi to rule that we must risk life in accordance with the Ramban (Nachmanides), if the Rambam does not agree with his assertion. Moreover, some Acharonim interpret the Ramban as ruling that only the mitzvah of settling the land, but not conquering the land, applies today. The Pe'at Hashulchan (Hilchot Eretz Yisrael 1:3) rules in accordance with this view.
According to this approach we are no longer commanded to conquer Eretz Yisrael. Thus, if surrendering land will lead to peace, it would be permissible to do so. The mitzvah of settling the land of Israel can still be fulfilled in those areas that remain under Israeli control. Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in a speech at Yeshivat Har Etzion in which he defended the Camp David accords with Egypt, cited Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, Rav Moshe Feinstein, and Rav Yitzchak Hutner as believing that Israel is permitted to exchange land for peace.
Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik: Teshuva Drasha 1967: Transcription by Arnold Lustiger
Available at Avodah Mailing List Volume 15 : Number 040 (aishdas.org)
I don't intend here to engage in politics, but this is a matter
that has weighed heavily upon me since last June. I am very unqualified
to assess the extent of the deliverance that the RBS"O accomplished
on behalf of Klal Yisrael and the Jewish victory over those who hate
Israel. But in my opinion, the greatest deliverance, and the greatest
miracle, is simply that He saved the population of Israel from total
annihilation.
But one thing I want to say. These reasons constitute the primary
salvation behind the six day War. Indeed, we rejoice in the [capture of]
the Western Wall, in the Cave of the Patriarchs, in Rachel's tomb.
I understand the holiness of the Kotel Hamaarovi. I studied Kodshim since
I was a child: Kidsha leasid lavo , kedushas makom, kedushas mechitzos,
lifnei Hashem, these are concepts with which I grew up in the cradle. The
Kotel Hamaarovi is very dear, and the Har Habayis is very dear to me: I
understand the kedusha perhaps much more than many religious journalists
who have written so much about the Kotel Hamaarovi. But we exagerrate
its importance. Our Judaism is not a religion of shrines, and it seems
from this that it lies in the interests of the Ministry of religions
to institute a [foreign] concept of holy sites in Judaism - a concept
we never had. We indeed have the concept of kedushas mokom, this is the
bais hamikdash, [but] graves are not mekomos hakdoshim. As important as
kivrei tzaddikim are, they are not holy. Perhaps there is a different
halacha. To visit kivrei tzaddikim is important, like mekomos hakdoshim.
I will tell you a secret- it doesn't matter under whose jurisdiction
the Kotel Hamaarovi lies- whether it is under the ministry of parks or
under the ministry of religions, either way no Jew will disturb the site
of the Kotel Hamaarovi. One is indeed on a great spiritual level if he
desires to pray at the Kotel Hamaarovi,. But many mistakenly believe that
the significance of the victory lies more in regaining the Kotel Hamaarovi
than the fact that 2 million Jews were saved, and that the Malkhut Yisrael
was saved. Because really, a Jew does not need the Kotel Hamaarovi to be
lifnei Hashem Naturally, mikdash has a separate kedusha which is lifnei
Hashem But there is a lifnei Hashem which spreads out over the entire
world, whereever a Jew does not sin, whereever a Jew learns Torah,
whereever a Jew does mitzvos, "minayen sheshnayim yoshvim veoskim
beTorah hashechinah imahem" through the entire world. I want you
to understand, I give praise and thanks to the RBSO for liberating the
Kotel Hamaarovi and for liberating and for removing all Eretz Yisrael
from the Arabs, so that it now belongs to us. But I don't need to rule
whether we should give the West Bank back to the Arabs or not to give
the West Bank to the Arabs: We Rabbis should not be involved in decisions
regarding the safety and security of the population. These are not merely
Halakhic rulings : these decisions are a matter of pikuach nefesh for the
entire population. And if the government were to rule that the safety
of the population requires that specific territories must be returned,
whether I issue a halakhic ruling or not, their decision is the deciding
factor. If pikuach nefesh supercedes all other mitzvos, , it supercedes
all prohibitions of the Torah, especially pikuach nefesh of the yishuv
in Eretz Yisrael. And all the silly statements I read in the newspapers
- one journalist says that we must give all he territory back, another
says that we must give only some territory back, another releases edicts,
strictures and warnings not to give anything back. These Jews are playing
with 2 million lives. I will say that as dear as the Kotel Hamaarovi is,
the 2 million lives of Jews is more important.
We have to negotiate with common sense as the security of the yishuv
requires. What specifically these security requirements are, I don't
know, I don't understand these things. These decisions require a
military perspective which one must research assiduously. The borders
that must be established should be based upon which will provide more
security. It is not a topic appropriate for which Rabbis should release
statements or for Rabbinical conferences.
Available at Avodah Mailing List Volume 15 : Number 040 (aishdas.org)
I don't intend here to engage in politics, but this is a matter
that has weighed heavily upon me since last June. I am very unqualified
to assess the extent of the deliverance that the RBS"O accomplished
on behalf of Klal Yisrael and the Jewish victory over those who hate
Israel. But in my opinion, the greatest deliverance, and the greatest
miracle, is simply that He saved the population of Israel from total
annihilation.
But one thing I want to say. These reasons constitute the primary
salvation behind the six day War. Indeed, we rejoice in the [capture of]
the Western Wall, in the Cave of the Patriarchs, in Rachel's tomb.
I understand the holiness of the Kotel Hamaarovi. I studied Kodshim since
I was a child: Kidsha leasid lavo , kedushas makom, kedushas mechitzos,
lifnei Hashem, these are concepts with which I grew up in the cradle. The
Kotel Hamaarovi is very dear, and the Har Habayis is very dear to me: I
understand the kedusha perhaps much more than many religious journalists
who have written so much about the Kotel Hamaarovi. But we exagerrate
its importance. Our Judaism is not a religion of shrines, and it seems
from this that it lies in the interests of the Ministry of religions
to institute a [foreign] concept of holy sites in Judaism - a concept
we never had. We indeed have the concept of kedushas mokom, this is the
bais hamikdash, [but] graves are not mekomos hakdoshim. As important as
kivrei tzaddikim are, they are not holy. Perhaps there is a different
halacha. To visit kivrei tzaddikim is important, like mekomos hakdoshim.
I will tell you a secret- it doesn't matter under whose jurisdiction
the Kotel Hamaarovi lies- whether it is under the ministry of parks or
under the ministry of religions, either way no Jew will disturb the site
of the Kotel Hamaarovi. One is indeed on a great spiritual level if he
desires to pray at the Kotel Hamaarovi,. But many mistakenly believe that
the significance of the victory lies more in regaining the Kotel Hamaarovi
than the fact that 2 million Jews were saved, and that the Malkhut Yisrael
was saved. Because really, a Jew does not need the Kotel Hamaarovi to be
lifnei Hashem Naturally, mikdash has a separate kedusha which is lifnei
Hashem But there is a lifnei Hashem which spreads out over the entire
world, whereever a Jew does not sin, whereever a Jew learns Torah,
whereever a Jew does mitzvos, "minayen sheshnayim yoshvim veoskim
beTorah hashechinah imahem" through the entire world. I want you
to understand, I give praise and thanks to the RBSO for liberating the
Kotel Hamaarovi and for liberating and for removing all Eretz Yisrael
from the Arabs, so that it now belongs to us. But I don't need to rule
whether we should give the West Bank back to the Arabs or not to give
the West Bank to the Arabs: We Rabbis should not be involved in decisions
regarding the safety and security of the population. These are not merely
Halakhic rulings : these decisions are a matter of pikuach nefesh for the
entire population. And if the government were to rule that the safety
of the population requires that specific territories must be returned,
whether I issue a halakhic ruling or not, their decision is the deciding
factor. If pikuach nefesh supercedes all other mitzvos, , it supercedes
all prohibitions of the Torah, especially pikuach nefesh of the yishuv
in Eretz Yisrael. And all the silly statements I read in the newspapers
- one journalist says that we must give all he territory back, another
says that we must give only some territory back, another releases edicts,
strictures and warnings not to give anything back. These Jews are playing
with 2 million lives. I will say that as dear as the Kotel Hamaarovi is,
the 2 million lives of Jews is more important.
We have to negotiate with common sense as the security of the yishuv
requires. What specifically these security requirements are, I don't
know, I don't understand these things. These decisions require a
military perspective which one must research assiduously. The borders
that must be established should be based upon which will provide more
security. It is not a topic appropriate for which Rabbis should release
statements or for Rabbinical conferences.
Rabbi Yehuda Amital: Commitment and Complexity: Jewish Wisdom in an Age of Upheaval pp. 91-93
To the extent that religious Zionist Jewry is conscious of its historical destiny at this difficult time, it must change direction and change tactics. It must declare that we seek peace, and we mean a true and final peace. Not a formal peace with political etiquette, which has recently begun to be regarded as the be-all and end-all, but rather a peace that will remove the fear of the horrors of war. For the sake of such a peace we will be ready to make concessions, including territorial compromise. If such a peace will indeed come about, then there will be moral and halakhic justifications for our concessions. Unfortunately I do not see any chance of such a peace in the visible future, but at the same time we must emphasize this over and over. We must speak about peace as a Jewish value according to the Torah. This is important form an educational and moral perspective, form a Jewish and national perspective, and from a pragmatic perspective within Am Yisrael and within the international community. We must hold onto our sharpened sword, but we must keep in its scabbard and not use it other than times of real need, when there are no other possibilities. (1983)
The Rambam writes (Hilkhot Hanukkah 4:14), "Great is peace for the entire Torah was given to make peace in the world as it is written (Mishlei 3:17): 'Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace.'" These words summarizing the Jewish world-view with regard to the value of peace, occupy a central place in my religious consciousness. At the same time, I must admit that this is not what led me to my political views. Far be it from me to be carried away by visionaries who promise us absolute peace. I merely wish to avoid war...Any political agreement between Israel and the Arabs must involve painful compromise. Talking about political agreements with no territorial compromise has no bearing on reality. At best, it reflects the view that there can be no peace until the coming of the Mashiach. Otherwise, it is simply lip-service that is devoid of any substance. (1994)
If the chance came about for real peace with the Arabs, and in the wake of this there were chances of halting emigration and nurturing a great movement of aliya and we were faced with the question of which is preferable - more Jews in Eretz Yisrael with less of the Holy Land under Jewish rule, or fewer Jews in Eretz Yisrael with more of the Holy Land under Jewish rule, I would choose the first option. I perceive the importance of this declaration not on the practical level, nor from the political perspective, but rather in the educational sphere; therefore, I regard it not as a political message, but rather as an educational one. (1983).
To the extent that religious Zionist Jewry is conscious of its historical destiny at this difficult time, it must change direction and change tactics. It must declare that we seek peace, and we mean a true and final peace. Not a formal peace with political etiquette, which has recently begun to be regarded as the be-all and end-all, but rather a peace that will remove the fear of the horrors of war. For the sake of such a peace we will be ready to make concessions, including territorial compromise. If such a peace will indeed come about, then there will be moral and halakhic justifications for our concessions. Unfortunately I do not see any chance of such a peace in the visible future, but at the same time we must emphasize this over and over. We must speak about peace as a Jewish value according to the Torah. This is important form an educational and moral perspective, form a Jewish and national perspective, and from a pragmatic perspective within Am Yisrael and within the international community. We must hold onto our sharpened sword, but we must keep in its scabbard and not use it other than times of real need, when there are no other possibilities. (1983)
The Rambam writes (Hilkhot Hanukkah 4:14), "Great is peace for the entire Torah was given to make peace in the world as it is written (Mishlei 3:17): 'Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are peace.'" These words summarizing the Jewish world-view with regard to the value of peace, occupy a central place in my religious consciousness. At the same time, I must admit that this is not what led me to my political views. Far be it from me to be carried away by visionaries who promise us absolute peace. I merely wish to avoid war...Any political agreement between Israel and the Arabs must involve painful compromise. Talking about political agreements with no territorial compromise has no bearing on reality. At best, it reflects the view that there can be no peace until the coming of the Mashiach. Otherwise, it is simply lip-service that is devoid of any substance. (1994)
If the chance came about for real peace with the Arabs, and in the wake of this there were chances of halting emigration and nurturing a great movement of aliya and we were faced with the question of which is preferable - more Jews in Eretz Yisrael with less of the Holy Land under Jewish rule, or fewer Jews in Eretz Yisrael with more of the Holy Land under Jewish rule, I would choose the first option. I perceive the importance of this declaration not on the practical level, nor from the political perspective, but rather in the educational sphere; therefore, I regard it not as a political message, but rather as an educational one. (1983).
חכם עבדיה יוסף, הערה למאמרו בתחומין י׳
והנני להזכיר כאן מה שכתב הרה”ג דב כ”ץ בספר הגות ודעות בשם הגאון האדיר רבי חיים סולובייצ’יק מבריסק זצ”ל, שבימי מלחמת עולם העולמית, אשר רבים חללים הפילה ועצומים כל הרוגיה, ונהרגו גם כן הרבה מאחינו בית ישראל, אמרו לו להגר”ח בתוך כדי שיחה, שאילו לפחות המלחמה הזאת היתה מביאה את הגאולה אולי כדי היה הדבר. גער בהם הגר”ח ואמר: מוטב שידחו כמה גאולות מישראל, ואל תאבד נפש אחת מישראל. ואילו היתה באה שאלה לפנינו, שאם על ידי קרבן של אדם אחד מישראל יבוא המשיח, בודאי שהיינו פוסקים, שמוטב שלא יבוא המשיח, ולא ימות אדם אחד מישראל. כי הלא פיקוח נפש דוחה כל מצות שבתורה ובכלל זה אף משיח והגאולה
Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Footnote in Tehumin 10
And at this point I must mention that which is found in Rav Dov Katz’s book ‘Hagot v’Deot’ in the name of the great Gaon, Reb Chayyim Soloveitchik of Brisk of blessed memory. That during the days of the World War, when so many multitudes had fallen and the dead were so numerous, including many of our brothers in Israel, it was said in passing to Reb Hayyim, that if only this war would bring the redemption perhaps it would have been worthwhile. Reb Hayyim responded with fury saying: better for numerous redemptions to pass us by rather than a single life be lost from Israel. And if the question were to come before us (at the Beit Din), that if through the sacrifice of but one Jew Moshiach would come immediately, most certainly we would decide that better for Moshiach not to come at all, rather than a single life be lost from Israel. For pikuach nefesh – the mitzvah of preserving life – overrides all mitzvoth in the Torah, even Moshiach and the redemption.