When I lived in Israel, there was an outspoken journalist, TV commentator and politician, named Tommy Lapid (father of Yair Lapid, who is now a powerful person in the Knesset). His political stance was right of center, although he would take each issue as it came. He had a deep hatred for religion. I once saw him say on TV "Religious Jews are vermin". When the moderator asked "And how should we deal with vermin?" he refused to answer; but we knew what he was thinking. From time to time, a fellow panelist would call him a Nazi. he would get enraged, saying "How dare you? I lived through the Holocaust". Once, two rabbis were in a heated debate, on the topic of "Land for Peace" (sic). The Kookian rabbi said "Never! Absolutely forbidden!" The Hareidi Aggudist rabbi said "Of course we should. The halachah requires us to!". Tommy Lapid looked at them and said "Tell me; do you read the same books?" When trying to derive a final halachah from sources, one must watch out for claims based on politics, or that say "This is not mentioned in sources, because it is so obvious." The latter assertion rarely hold up to reason. Very often, there are conflicting views, and it takes a great deal of skill to arrive at truth. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the issue of if there is or isn't a Torah requirement to live in the Land of Israel. There are many aggadic statements in the Talmud that lavishly praise living in the Land of Israel. These are the statements that we often see in rabbinic essays that declare "aliyah" to be obligatory. However, we seek in vain for a halachic statement. True, RAMBAN (1194-1270)(among others) understands the verses that say "You shall go over Jordan, inherit the land of your enemies, and dwell therein" as a command. But nearly all other authorities see those words as a promise, rather than a command. RAMBAM clearly states that a Jew may live anywhere in the world he chooses, other than Egypt (problematic, as that is precisely where he lived). However, once he has lived in the Land, he may never leave. (Most others give parameters that would allow leaving.under certain circumstances) The Shulchan Aruch makes no mention of such an obligation, although it rules that if a couple are divided on the issue, this constitutes grounds for divorce. In fact, we find no major authorities debating the issue before the twentieth century, and the founding of the State of Israel. Living in the Land was overwhelmingly seen as something meritorious, but by no means obligatory.Those for and against the idea that one must live there, take their stands along partisan and ideological lines; is the State Israel the promised Redemption? When I go over this material, I ask, along with Tommy Lapid, "Tell me, do you read the same books?" In my next installment, I will deal with the writings and arguments of these twentieth century rabbinic figures. After that, I will deal with the question "if I'm not obligated, is it nevertheless something I really should do?"Living in the Land of Israel part 1
When I lived in Israel, there was an outspoken journalist, TV commentator and politician, named Tommy Lapid (father of Yair Lapid, who is now a powerful person in the Knesset). His political stance was right of center, although he would take each issue as it came. He had a deep hatred for religion. I once saw him say on TV "Religious Jews are vermin". When the moderator asked "And how should we deal with vermin?" he refused to answer; but we knew what he was thinking. Once, two rabbis were in a heated debate, on the topic of "Land for Peace" (sic). The Kookian rabbi said "Never! Absolutely forbidden!" The Hareidi Aggudist rabbi said "Of course we should. The halachah requires us to!". Tommy Lapid looked at them and said "Tell me; do you read the same books?" When trying to derive a final halachah from sources, one must watch out for claims based on politics, or that say "This is not mentioned in sources, because it is so obvious." The latter assertion rarely hold up to reason. Very often, there are conflicting views, and it takes a great deal of skill to arrive at truth. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the issue of if there is or isn't a Torah requirement to live in the Land of Israel. There are many aggadic statements in the Talmud that lavishly praise living in the Land of Israel. These are the statements that we often see in rabbinic essays that declare "aliyah" to be obligatory. However, we seek in vain for a halachic statement. True, RAMBAN (among others) understands the verses that say "You shall go over Jordan, inherit the land of your enemies, and dwell therein" as a command. But nearly all other authorities see those words as a promise, rather than a command. RAMBAM clearly states that a Jew may live anywhere in the world he chooses, other than Egypt (problematic, as that is precisely where he lived). However, once he has lived in the Land, he may never leave. (Most others give parameters that would allow leaving.) The Shulchan Aruch makes no mention of such an obligation, although it rules that if a couple are divided on the issue, this constitutes grounds for divorce. In fact, we find no major authorities debating the issue before the twentieth century, and the founding of the State of Israel. Those for and against the idea that one must live there, take their stands along partisan lines; is the State Israel the promised Redemption? When I go over this material, I ask, along with Tommy Lapid, "Tell me, do you read the same books?" In my next installment, I will deal with the writings and arguments of these twentieth century rabbinic figures. After that, I will deal with the question "if I'm not obligated, is it nevertheless something I really should do?"