The issue of Eretz Yisrael is the most common topic in the Torah; no other issue is discussed as much. R. Yerucham of Mir writes in his work, Da'at Torah, that the entire Torah revolves around this issue of Eretz Yisrael; it begins with this issue and ends with it. Rashi writes in the beginning of Bereishit that the Torah should have begun with "Hachodesh hazeh lachem" (Shemot 12:2), which is the first mitzvah given to the Jewish nation, but instead begins with the story of Creation because of "Koach ma'asav higid le'amo." If the nations will claim that we are thieves, who stole the land of Israel from the seven Canaanite nations, we can respond that G-d created the world, and chose to give the Land of Israel to us. (The pasuk says, "The strength of His deeds He told to His nation," even though Chazal state that the other nations will say, as they could not imagine that Jews themselves will say, "You are thieves." But apparently this lesson is necessary for Israel as well.)

But why is the rest of Bereishit necessary? In Parshat Noach we learn of the seventy nations of the world, which were dispersed into seventy lands. In Parshat Lech Lecha we read of the covenant with Avraham, that Israel will be given to Avraham's descendents.

Why the remainder of Bereishit? This is because the Land of Israel was promised "lezar'acha" – "to your descendents." It is necessary to identify who are the descendents with whom the covenant sealed – only those that descended to exile in Egypt and returned four generations later. Thus, Yishmael – who did not go into exile and was granted other portions – is not included.

Yitzchak, as well, had two children. However, it says about Esav, "He went to a land [Edom] because of his brother Yaacov" (Bereishit 36:6) – and thus also is not included. He settled in his own land, and thus has no claim to the Land of Israel. Yaakov then thought he would settle in the land of his anscentors, but G-d said that he first needed to descend to exile and then be brought back. Thus, the entire Torah until "Hachodesh" is necessary in order to establish the right of the Jewish People to Eretz Yisrael.

At the end of the Torah, G-d shows Moshe the entire Land, and tells him: "This is the land which I swore to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Yaakov, saying, 'I will give it to your offspring.' I have let you seen it with your own eyes, but you shall not cross over to there." (Devarim 34:4) Why did G-d do this? Was he taunting Moshe? Rashi explains: So that Moshe would go and tell the patriarchs that G-d fulfilled His promise.  I.e., for hundreds of years the promise was waiting to be fulfilled. Now, as Am Yisrael is at the border of Israel, go and tell the patriarchs that it is being fulfilled. Thus, the entire Torah aims towards this point of reaching Israel.

On the hashkafic level, Chazal emphasize this mitzvah, which nothing else compares to. The Midrash relates that a group of Amoraim were about to leave Israel. They thought of the pasuk, "You shall inherit it and settle in it. Observe to do" (Devarim 11:30-31) – Settling the Land of Israel is comparable to all the mitzvot of the Torah." (Yalkut Shimoni I:885) Why did they specifically mention this pasuk? Rav Kook zt"l, in Shabbat Ha'aretz, explains that this pasuk shows that even though the Land is still in the hands of non-Jews, it still has special status. This emphasizes its extreme importance. "A person should live in the Land of Israel in a city which is mostly non-Jewish, and not outside of Israel, even in a city which is mostly Jewish." (Ketuvot 110b) It is better to live in an irreligious city in Israel than in Brooklyn. "'They have chased me away from the heritage of G-d' – This teaches that whoever lives outside of Israel it is as if he has no G-d." (ibid.) For this reason Israel is called, "nachalat Hashem" (the heritage of G-d).

The importance of Eretz Yisrael is anchored in Halacha, according to the Ramban, which is the fundamental piece for all discussions of this topic. The Rambam does not enumerate the settlement of Israel as one of the 613 mitzvot. The supercommentary Megillat Esther writes that he must hold that there is no mitzvah nowadays; it was only a mitzvah upon Yehoshua to capture the Land. The Ramban, in ommision #4, adds the settlement of Israel as a mitzvah. He defines the mitzvah as follows: "We should not leave it in hand of any other nation, nor leave it desolate." In modern terms, the first element means that it is not enough just to capture it, but we also need to have sovereignty and political control of it; we cannot allow another nation to control it. The second aspect is that we must settle it and not leave it unpopulated and barren. The Ramban continues on to cite various Midrashim of Chazal. He concludes: Don't mistakenly think that this mitzvah was incumbant only upon Yehoshua. He proves that it applies in all times, even during the exile, and is incumbant upon each and every individual, not only the nation as a whole. This is the mitzvah aseh.

There is also a prohibition: "Lo techanem" (Devarim 7:2)– do not give them chanaya (settlement); it is prohibited to sell land to non-Jews in Israel. (Avoda Zara 20a) There is a dispute amongst the Rishonim to whom it is prohibited to sell. Some say only to idolators, but to non-idolators it is allowed. However, from the Ramban it sounds like the prohibition extends to all non-Jews. The major practical ramification is to Muslims who are not idolators. (Christianity includes some elements of idolatry.)

These are the foundations, and from this the dispute emanates.

Some twenty years ago, Rav Ovadia Yosef shlita met with the Egyptian president and told him that if there would be true peace, then there is no halachic impediment to returning land. This caused a big commotion. Even if it is true – why reveal it to the Arabs? Furthermore, the issue is not so clear halachically. At a Rabbinic convention shortly afterwards Rav Ovadia explained his position at length, based primarily on the concept of pikuach nefesh, which supersedes all mitzvot except for three. The problem is that some military analysts said that if we don't return the territory – there is danger of war. Others said, though, that if we return it – there is a greater danger of terrorist. So the conclusion was that if it were clear that there would be peace – we can return land.

What about the Ramban, though? There is a mitzvah to conquer the country, which entails war, and possible danger to life! [Similarly, the Sefer Hachinuch writes that any Jew who meets an Amaleiki has to kill him if there is no danger involved. The Minchat Chinuch asks: There is a mitzvah to go out to war against them, so how can one claim pikuach nefesh? War, unfortunately, entails causalties. The answer is that the mitzvah of war is on the nation as a whole, but the individual only needs to kill Amalek if there is no danger.]

Rav Ovadia responded: First, there is the opinion of the Rambam (according to the Megillat Esther) that there is no mitzvah de'oraita in our time. Thus, the consideration of pikuach nefesh returns. And, since there is a dispute whether the mitzvah applies nowadays – safek nefashot lehakel.

In addition, war is supposed to be led by the king and urim v'tumim, which we do not have nowadays. Others, as well, raised this argument regarding the wars of Israel. Despite the gains of the wars, who allowed to go out to war?!

Moreover, even if the Ramban is correct, there are the "three oaths" mentioned in Ketuvot 111a, that the Jewish People will not return to Israel with force. This Gemara is the basis of the Satmar Rebbe, as explained at length in his work, "Vayo'el Moshe." (The name is an allusion to the pasuk in Shemot 2:21 and Rashi there, that Moshe swore to Yitro that he would not leave him without permission.) Thus, we cannot take land without permission. Furthermore, even according to Ramban the current political circumstances are not considered control anyway – to do as you wish, which we cannot do. For example, there is mitzvah to destroy Avoda Zara; can we destroy the churches?! We are not allowed to leave non-Jews in Israel; can we transfer them, or even travel in security?! Thus, we are not fulfilling the mitzvah properly anyway, and thus we should consider pikuach nefesh – if indeed it will lead to peace.

This ruling led to a wave of Rabbinic literature. Rav Shaul Yisraeli responded that he respects Rav Ovadia Yosef greatly, but the Ramban writes explicitly that the mitzvah applies even in the time of galut, even though was aware of the "three oaths." It is true that the Avnei Nezer writes that due to the "three oaths" there cannot be a mitzvah to settle Israel even on the individual, since if it were incumbant on each individual – they form the group! This is not clear, though, since Rashi explains the oath precludes returning with force in battle. But if an individual goes – this is not through force!

In addition, the Balfour Declaration, and, afterwards, the League of Nations addressed the division of the world after the World War. The major representatives of the Leauge of Nations decided in the San Remo Conference that Israel belongs to Jewish People as a national homeland, and meanwhile awarded the mandate to England to capture it from the Turks, who had sided with Germany, and ultimately return it to the Jews. Amongst the great majority of Jews there was great joy. In Agudat Yisrael, there were many enthusiastic calls. In a letter on behalf of KKL, the Ohr Sameach writes after the San Remo Conference "the fear of the oaths is removed." I.e., the oath is not that Jews will not leave Poland with force to go to Israel, but that they should not battle against the nation that is in control of Israel. But if the League of Nations grants the Land to the Jewish People – we are no longer bound.

We should also take note of the phrase, "the fear of the oaths." What does he mean by fear? Is it permissible or not? He should have said that the prohibition is over. Rav Zvi Yehuda explained that there is no real prohibition, since an oath cannot be superimposed upon a prior oath, and since we are under oath to settle Israel – we cannot be put under oath not to! If, according to the Ramban, there is a mitzvah for generations – there cannot be a prohibition!

The Rambam explains: "I have put you under oath." The Jews will want to come to Israel before the time on account of the troubles of galut. G-d warns them against this as if they were put under oath.

Thus, the oaths are no longer relevant. Even if later the nations were to retract their consent, once they granted permission – it is too late for them to retract. Thus, the argument of the three oaths is no longer valid.

In addition, there is counter–oath to the nations of the world not to overly subjugate and persecute Israel. After the Holocaust, when the nations certainly violated their oath, we also are not bound. In any case, though, the establishment of the State was not by rebellion.

As for the need for a king and urim v'tumim, although it is proper to have them, they are not absolutely required. If there is no king – then we go out to battle without. Otherwise, how did they go out to battle in the days of the Chashmonaim?! In fact the Rambam (Hil. Melachim 5:1) writes that nowadays, as well, there is milchemet mitzvah – "ezrat Yisrael miyad tzar sheba aleihem" – defending Israel against their enemies. We don't say that because there is no king and urim v'tumim we should sit defenseless.

As for the argument that anyway we cannot do with land what we want: Throughout the world it is accepted to respect different religions, and international law recognizes the rights of minorities and each religion. This does not impinge in any way on our sovereignty. The Gedolim already said that nowadays we shouldn't attempt to enforce the abolishment of other religions in Israel because of the impact on Jews elsewhere. Moreover, the Rema writes in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 156) that non-Jews are not warned against idolatry of shituf. Thus, we don't have the responsibility nowadays to uproot churches.

As for the claim that we cannot travel safely and securely, Rav Yisraeli points out that this existed also in the times of the judges, as it says in Shirat Devorah: "In the days of Shamgar b. Anat, in the days of Yael, highway travel ceased, and those who traveled on paths went by circuitous roads." (Shoftim 5:6) So because of this the sanctity of the Land is revoked?! There is a Pitchei Teshuva, (E.H. 75) that all poskim, Rishonim and Achronimm, agree with the Ramban, and even the opinion of Rambam is not clear. It is very possible that although there is a mitzvah, the Rambam was following his methodology that general mitzvot, which entail other specific mitzvot, are not enumerated.

In addition, Rav Eliyahu mentioned the pasuk in Shoftim in which the King of Amon demanded, "and now return them in peace." Yiftach answers, "Now, Hashem, the G-d of Israel, has driven out the Amorite because of His people Israel – yet you would possess it? ... Whichever [people] G-d drives away before us, that [land] we shall possess." (Shoftim 11:23-24) The Malbim writes that all the nations recognized that Israel did not simply captured the land, but rather they were guided by G-d. The same it true for the areas captured in the Six-Day War. No parallel victory exists in modern history! The headlines at that time proclaimed: "Once again, David defeats Goliath." And now we will belittle this gift?! This is ingratitude to Hashem.

Thus, the three oaths are not an impediment, and we pasken like the Ramban that the mitzvah continues even today.

Conversely, Rav Ovadia was asked a few years ago whether a student learning in Israel can refuse his parents' request to return. In his discussion there he writes that despite the opinion of the Megillat Esther, we follow the Ramban.

As far as lo techonem: Rav Ovadia cites many sources and responsa that gedolei Yisrael from previous generations sold lands in Israel to Muslims. Others responded that this is not comparable. Perhaps an individual Jew can sell to an individual Arab. Here we are dealing with sovereignty, though, and this is exactly what the Ramban talks about. The Heter Mechira also relies on selling the land to Muslims. (Incidentally, the heter mechira began long before Rav Kook zt"l. The first one was done with the approval of R. Yizchak Elchanan in 5680.) However, it is not applicable at all here. First of all, some maintain that the prohibition is only if sold forever, but not for a year. Moreover, Rav Kook emphasized that the sale during the shemitta year was necessary for the purpose of settling the land. If the Jewish farmers would not work land, there would be no food, and people would die or leave. Therefore, he relied on the opinions that the prohibition does not apply to Muslims, or for a single year – but this was all for the goal of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. How can apply these considerations, though, to the destruction of Jewish settlements in Israel?

Another distinction is that before the establishment of State, the sale of lands didn't make a difference, but now every tract of land makes big difference. In short, we are not dealing here with private transactions.

The whole idea of pikuach nefesh is only relevant if there is no mitzvah to capture the Land. However, if there is a mitzvah – there is no consideration of pikuach nefesh since there is a requirement of war, and the Rambam writes (Hil. Melachim 7:15) that one cannot consider personal issues during war: Anyone who fears – the blood of all Israel is on shoulders. One has to take risks!

Even if according to the Rambam there is no mitzvah, what is already in our hands – we cannot give back. He writes that for a border city, even if non-Jews come to steal, we desecrate the Shabbat to fight, since if they succeed in this – they will continue on to the next step. If we conceded Gush Katif, many cities in Israel will be within range of missiles.

Thus, the conclusion of many Gedolim is that since there is a mitzvah to control the Land, once it is ours – there is mitzvah to fight and repel enemies who attack, and there is no issue of pikuach nefesh.

There is talk by Jewish people to return land, even forcibly, for all kinds of reasons. Rav Avraham Shapiro shlita writes that nobody – even a king or government – has a right to tell anyone to violate a mitzvah. We find this with Avner and Nov, where Avner refused King Shaul's orders to kill the priests. Many commentators offer explanations for the twenty cities that King Shlomo gave to Hiram, King of Zor, but no one says that a king is allowed to do as he pleases. The only basis to give away land in Israel is if military experts claim that if we don't return the land, we will be killed and lose the land anyway. However, on account of world opinion we cannot violate a mitzvat aseh, nor for the threat of war – then this what we have to do! If a soldier is ordered to give land over, even by the government – he cannot obey the order!

Moreover, there could be an element of yeherag ve'al ya'avor, since the order comes as a decree to violate the halacha. We should clarify: Yeherag ve'al ya'avor does not mean to kill or hit the one who threatens, but rather to be passive and not cooperate; not to participate actively in the prohibition. This law is usually said regarding a non-Jew who forces a Jew to violate. Rav Kook writes, though, that this also applies by Jews. In the early 1900's, many of Jewish lands in Israel belonged to Baron Rothschild. In Mazkeret Batya, some people wanted to uphold shemitta, but the managers threatened to stop support if they wouldn't sign to follow the heter shemitta. Rav Kook wrote that this also was considered hamarat dat.

Rav Zvi Yehuda wrote many letters after the Six Day War that yeherag ve'al ya'avor applies also to this issue of giving over land. It is true that when a non-Jew coerces violation of a mitzvah for his personal benefit we do not say yeherag ve'al ya'avor, such as with Esther, or when he demands to reap his aspasta crop on Shabbat. Presumably, here the Arabs are demanding the land for their own benefit, not to cause us to violate. However, the cases are not comparable. There, the non-Jew's goal is to have food, and he is not at all concerned with Shabbat. Here, however, the struggle is: To whom did G-d grant the land? When they demand the Land, it is not because they simply want the territory, but because they claim that the land is rightfully theirs. Others argue that at least coercion by a Jewish government is considered hana'at atzmo. However, the Meiri writes that there is no leniency of hana'at atzman for Jews. Also, many leftists see in the disengagement plan an anti-religious expression.

In the current State of Israel, there are certain laws that go against the Torah, such as interest. However, there is no law that forces an individual to violate halacha. If a Jew is ordered to throw another Jew out of his house – he cannot violate. Some claim that it is not good that Rabbis talk about this and get involved in political matters. This, however, is the Christian view – separation of Church and state. This is not so in Judaism; Torah has what to say about everything! We may not have ability to force halacha on others, but not to say the halacha?!

Others mention the concept of halacha ve'ain morin kein. (Shabbat 12b) However, this concept is usually used in the context of not publicizing a heter. But to withhold teaching an issur – we don't find. We do find mutav sheyihu shogegin, though. (Beitza 35b) However, this rule is limited in its application.

We also find: "Just as it is a mitzvah for a person to say something that will be listened to, it is a mitzvah for a person not to say something that will not be listened to." (Yevamot 65b) However, this is only if one knows that they will not listen. This it not true, here. Many Jews are waiting to hear from the Rabbis what to do. The Rivash writes about a certain issue: "I said it twice, but they don't listen. I will not repeat it." But if people are asking to hear – this rule doesn't apply!

Do you have a comment or question on the shiur?
Comment below and we'll join the discussion