Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5

Sugya Map

• Issue: Categorization of wars (milchamot) in Jewish law, the king's authority in waging them, the unique sanctity and halachic status of Eretz Yisrael, and the prohibition of leaving it or dwelling in Egypt.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Requirement for Sanhedrin approval for war (or lack thereof).
  • King's prerogative to commandeer private property for military purposes.
  • Halachic status of newly conquered territories (i.e., whether they achieve kedushat HaAretz).
  • Conditions under which it is permissible or forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael.
  • The specific prohibition against dwelling in Egypt and its legal parameters.
  • The meta-halachic value of yishuv Eretz Yisrael (settling the Land of Israel) and its spiritual benefits.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5.
  • Tanakh: Devarim 20:17 (seven nations), 25:19 (Amalek), 17:16 (not return to Egypt), 28:68 (not see it again); Shemot 14:13 (never see them again); Vayikra 18:3 (ways of Egypt); Yeshayahu 33:24 (sins forgiven); Tehillim 102:15 (cherish her dust); Amos 7:17 (impure land); Shmuel I 26:19 (serve other gods); Yechezkel 13:9 (not come to Israel); Yirmiyahu 27:22 (return to Babylon).
  • Talmud/Midrash: Ketubot 111a-b; Sifrei Devarim Piska 333; Torat Kohanim Behar Parasha 5 Brita 4; Tosefta Avodah Zarah 5.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam, in Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamot Perek 5, delineates the various categories of war and the unique spiritual status of Eretz Yisrael:

"A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah. What is considered as milchemet mitzvah? The war against the seven nations who occupied Eretz Yisrael, the war against Amalek, and a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them." (MT, Kings and Wars 5:1)

"There is no need to seek the permission of the court to wage a milchemet mitzvah. Rather, he may go out on his own volition and force the nation to go out with him. In contrast, he may not lead the nation out to wage a milchemat hareshut unless the court of seventy one judges approves." (MT, Kings and Wars 5:2)

"It is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora at all times except: to study Torah; to marry; or to save one's property from the gentiles. After accomplishing these objectives, one must return to Eretz Yisrael." (MT, Kings and Wars 5:9)

"At all times, a person should dwell in Eretz Yisrael even in a city whose population is primarily gentile, rather than dwell in the Diaspora, even in a city whose population is primarily Jewish. This applies because whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols as I Samuel 26:19 states 'They have driven me out today from dwelling in the heritage of God, saying 'Go, serve other gods.'" (MT, Kings and Wars 5:12)

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

• "מלחמת מצוה" vs. "מלחמת הרשות": The Rambam's precise categorization of wars is foundational. A milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war) is divinely commanded or existentially defensive, requiring no human sanction for the king to initiate. A milchemet reshut (optional war), aimed at territorial expansion or enhancing national prestige, requires the Sanhedrin's approval. This distinction is critical for understanding the scope of monarchical power and national priorities.
• "לֹא יֵצֵא" (should not wage) vs. "אֵין צָרִיךְ" (there is no need): The phrasing regarding milchemet mitzvah (5:1-2) highlights that it's not just permitted, but a priority (לא יצא... קודם מלחמת מצוה) and grants the king unilateral authority (אין צריך רשות). This contrasts sharply with the explicit requirement for Sanhedrin approval for milchemet reshut.
• "כאלו עובד ע"ז" (as if he worships idols): The stark and hyperbolic comparison of leaving Eretz Yisrael to idolatry (5:12) underscores the profound spiritual significance and unique sanctity ascribed to the land. This is not a literal claim of idolatry but a powerful rhetorical device to convey the severity of the act.

Readings

Steinsaltz on MT 5:1:1 and 5:12:1 - Definitional Clarity and Contextualization

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz's commentary offers crucial definitional clarity and contextualization for the Rambam's terse statements. Regarding the initial definition of milchemet mitzvah, Steinsaltz clarifies: "מלחמת שבעה עממין. מלחמת כיבוש ארץ ישראל מיד שבעת עמי כנען שישבו בה." (Steinsaltz on MT, Kings and Wars 5:1:1). This translates to: "The war of the seven nations. The war of conquering Eretz Yisrael from the hand of the seven nations of Canaan who dwelled therein." His chiddush here is to emphasize that the milchemet mitzvah against the seven nations is specifically for the conquest of Eretz Yisrael, framing it as an essential act for the establishment of the Jewish nation in its divinely designated homeland. Similarly, for the third category, "ועזרת ישראל מצּר שבּא עליהן," Steinsaltz provides the straightforward definition: "מלחמת הגנה מפני תוקפים." (Steinsaltz on MT, Kings and Wars 5:1:2), meaning "A defensive war against attackers." This highlights the inherent defensive nature of this type of milchemet mitzvah, distinguishing it from offensive expansion. Later, when the Rambam states that leaving Eretz Yisrael is "כאלו עובד ע"ז" (as if he worships idols), Steinsaltz contextualizes the supporting verse from David: "כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת יי לאמר לך עבוד אלהים אחרים. כך אמר דוד על הרדיפות שרדפו שאול שהן גורמות לו לצאת לחוץ לארץ." (Steinsaltz on MT, Kings and Wars 5:12:1). This means: "For they have driven me out today from dwelling in the heritage of God, saying 'Go, serve other gods.' Thus David said regarding Saul's persecutions, which caused him to leave Eretz Yisrael." Steinsaltz's chiddush clarifies that David's lament is not an accusation of literal idol worship, but rather an expression of how being forced out of Eretz Yisrael severs one's connection to God's heritage, metaphorically akin to being pushed towards idolatry due to the loss of a direct relationship with the Divine Presence associated with the Land. These comments, while seemingly simple, lay the groundwork for a deeper understanding by establishing the precise meaning and context of the Rambam's foundational statements.

Tziunei Maharan on MT 5:11:1 and 5:12:1 - Sourcing and Nuance in Rambam's P'sak

The Tziunei Maharan offers two critical insights into the Rambam's methodology and sources.

Rambam's Ruling on Atonement in Eretz Yisrael (MT 5:11:1)

The Rambam states, "Whoever dwells in Eretz Yisrael will have his sins forgiven as Isaiah 33:24 states: 'The inhabitant shall not say 'I am sick.' The people who dwell there shall be forgiven their sins.'" The Tziunei Maharan notes that the Kesef Mishneh identifies this as the opinion of R' Eliezer in Ketubot 111a. However, a significant kushya arises: "ועי' בלח"מ שהקשה ע"ז דהרי רבא פליג שם וקאמר דאנן בסובלי חלאים קמתנינן לה ואמאי פסק רבינו כר"א." (Tziunei Maharan on MT, Kings and Wars 5:11:1). This translates to: "And see the Lechem Mishneh who raised a difficulty on this, for Rava disputes there and says that we teach it regarding those suffering from ailments. So why did our master (Rambam) rule according to R' Eliezer?" Rava explicitly rejects R' Eliezer's interpretation, arguing the verse refers to those who endure suffering in Eretz Yisrael, not simply those who dwell there. The Tziunei Maharan's chiddush is his resolution of this kushya: "ונראה שטעם רבינו לפסוק כר"א דבספרי דברים פיסקא של"ג איתא היה ר"מ אומר כל היושב בא"י א"י מכפרת עליו שנאמר העם היושב בה נשוא עון ודריש לה גם ר"מ לענין הדר בא"י ולא בסובלי חלאים ומש"ה פסק גם רבינו כן." (Tziunei Maharan on MT, Kings and Wars 5:11:1). He explains that the Rambam's ruling is not based solely on the R' Eliezer-Rava debate in Ketubot, but on an independent tradition found in Sifrei Devarim (Piska 333), where R' Meir explicitly states that "Anyone who dwells in Eretz Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael atones for him," interpreting the same verse in Isaiah. Thus, the Rambam follows R' Meir, whose view aligns with R' Eliezer, providing a stronger, independent source for his psak. This reveals Rambam's extensive use of Tana'itic Midrashim as primary halachic sources, not merely as aggadic embellishments.

Rambam's Precise Language on Leaving Eretz Yisrael (MT 5:12:1)

The Rambam asserts, "כל היוצא לחוץ לארץ כאלו עובד ע"ז" (whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols). The Tziunei Maharan points out a subtle but crucial divergence from the Gemara in Ketubot 111b, which states: "כל הדר בחו"ל כאלו עובד עכו"ם" (whoever resides in the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols). The Tziunei Maharan quotes Pe'at HaShulchan (Siman 1) noting this linguistic shift. The Tziunei Maharan's profound chiddush is to trace Rambam's precise phrasing to earlier, authoritative Tana'itic sources: "אבל באמת מקור דברי רבינו הללו אינו מגמ' זו רק הם נובעים מהתו"כ פ' בהר פרשתא ה' ברייתא ד' דאיתא שם לתת לכם את ארץ כנען להיות לכם לאלהים מיכן אמרו כל ב"י היושב בא"י מקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים וכל היוצא לחוץ לארץ כאלו עובד עכו"ם... ומכאן הוא מקור דברי רבינו וכ"ה בתוספתא דע"ז פ"ה רק שבסוף איתא כל המניח את א"י בשעת שלום ויוצא כאלו עובד כו' ע"ש" (Tziunei Maharan on MT, Kings and Wars 5:12:1). He identifies Torat Kohanim (Behar, Parasha 5, Brita 4) and Tosefta Avodah Zarah (5:4) as the true sources. These texts indeed use the phrase "כל היוצא לחוץ לארץ" (whoever leaves for the Diaspora), and specifically the Tosefta adds the qualifier "בשעת שלום" (in a time of peace). This meticulous sourcing by the Tziunei Maharan demonstrates that Rambam is not merely paraphrasing the Gemara but drawing from a broader, often earlier, corpus of Tana'itic literature. The distinction between "leaving" and "residing" implies a more active transgression of abandoning the land, particularly "in a time of peace," underscoring the severity of the act as a repudiation of the spiritual covenant tied to Eretz Yisrael.

Friction

The Atonement Debate: R' Eliezer vs. Rava

The strongest kushya arises from the Rambam's ruling in MT 5:11:1, "Whoever dwells in Eretz Yisrael will have his sins forgiven," citing Yeshayahu 33:24. As noted by the Lechem Mishneh and highlighted by the Tziunei Maharan, this statement directly aligns with R' Eliezer's position in Ketubot 111a. However, the Gemara immediately presents Rava's opposing view, who interprets the verse "The inhabitant shall not say 'I am sick.' The people who dwell there shall be forgiven their sins" not as a general guarantee of atonement for all residents, but specifically for "סובלי חלאים" (those suffering from ailments). Rava argues that the verse promises forgiveness to those who endure suffering while dwelling in Eretz Yisrael, implying that the suffering itself, coupled with residence, brings atonement, not merely the act of dwelling. The kushya is profound: Why does Rambam, the codifier of halacha, rule against Rava, whose opinion often carries significant weight in the Babylonian Talmud, and whose interpretation seems to be the Gemara's preferred reading, or at least a highly respected dissenting opinion? In many instances, the halacha follows Rava against R' Eliezer. The Rambam's silence on this internal Talmudic debate, presenting R' Eliezer's view as a straightforward halacha, requires explanation.

Terutz: Sifrei and R' Meir's Independent Authority

The Tziunei Maharan offers an excellent terutz by demonstrating that the Rambam is not necessarily taking sides in the R' Eliezer-Rava debate as presented in Ketubot. Instead, the Rambam relies on an alternative, equally authoritative Tana'itic source: Sifrei Devarim (Piska 333). In this Midrash Halacha, R' Meir explicitly states: "היה ר"מ אומר כל היושב בא"י א"י מכפרת עליו שנאמר העם היושב בה נשוא עון" (R' Meir would say: Anyone who dwells in Eretz Yisrael, Eretz Yisrael atones for him, as it is stated, 'The people who dwell there shall be forgiven their sins'). This terutz is compelling for several reasons:

1. Independent Authority: Sifrei, as a Tana'itic text, holds a primary halachic authority on par with the Mishna and Tosefta. The Rambam frequently draws directly from such sources, sometimes even when the Babylonian Talmud presents a different line of reasoning or conclusion.
2. Consistency in Interpretation: R' Meir's interpretation in Sifrei directly aligns with the plain reading of the verse as understood by R' Eliezer, i.e., that dwelling in Eretz Yisrael itself brings atonement. This provides a clear and unambiguous Tana'itic source for the Rambam's psak, circumventing the need to resolve the R' Eliezer-Rava machloket in Ketubot directly. The Rambam is not choosing R' Eliezer over Rava in the context of the Gemara's discussion, but rather following a different Tana, R' Meir, who happens to share R' Eliezer's view on this specific issue.
3. Rambam's Methodology: This terutz illuminates a crucial aspect of Rambam's codification methodology. He often synthesizes halacha from across the entire corpus of Chazalic literature (Mishna, Tosefta, Yerushalmi, Bavli, Midrashei Halacha), prioritizing what he considers the most authoritative or widely accepted tradition, rather than being bound solely by the final conclusion of a specific Talmudic debate if other strong sources exist. In this case, R' Meir's statement in Sifrei provided that strong, clear, Tana'itic precedent.

Intertext

Leaving the Land: Spiritual Exile and the Yoke of Heaven

The Rambam's stark pronouncement, "whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols" (MT, Kings and Wars 5:12), is a deeply resonant intertextual statement, drawing from Shmuel I 26:19. This verse, "They have driven me out today from dwelling in the heritage of God, saying 'Go, serve other gods'," is David's lament after being forced into exile by Saul. The Tziunei Maharan (on MT 5:12:1) meticulously traces the Rambam's precise language to Torat Kohanim (Behar, Parasha 5, Brita 4) and Tosefta Avodah Zarah (5:4), which clarify that this is not a literal accusation of idolatry but a profound spiritual consequence.

This concept finds powerful parallels in the broader corpus of Jewish thought. The Torat Kohanim explicitly links dwelling in Eretz Yisrael to "קבלת עול מלכות שמים" (accepting the yoke of Heaven): "לתת לכם את ארץ כנען להיות לכם לאלהים מיכן אמרו כל ב"י היושב בא"י מקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים וכל היוצא לחוץ לארץ כאלו עובד עכו"ם." (Torat Kohanim, Behar 5:4). The very act of dwelling in the Land is seen as an acceptance of God's sovereignty and a commitment to His laws in their purest form. Conversely, leaving the Land is interpreted as a symbolic rejection of this unique covenantal relationship, akin to severing oneself from God's direct presence, which is the essence of idolatry. The land itself is personified as "being your God" in the sense that it is the medium through which the relationship with God is most fully realized.

This metaphor extends to the concept of Tum'at HaAretz (impurity of the land) outside Eretz Yisrael. While Rabbinic literature distinguishes between the ritual impurity of non-Jewish lands (Tum'at Eretz HaAmim) and the inherent sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, the parallel with idolatry underscores a meta-halachic understanding. The Sages taught that the very air of Eretz Yisrael makes one wise (Bava Batra 158b), and that the Shechina (Divine Presence) rests more fully there. To voluntarily leave this sacred domain is to diminish one's connection to the Divine, thereby metaphorically entering a realm where "other gods" (i.e., foreign influences, spiritual distractions, or a diminished sense of divine presence) hold sway. David's lament resonates because, for a king, being driven from the heritage of God meant being stripped of the very ground upon which his spiritual and political authority, derived from God, could be fully exercised. Thus, the Rambam's statement, rooted in these foundational texts, serves as a powerful reminder of the unique spiritual ecology of Eretz Yisrael and the profound implications of choosing to reside outside its borders.

Psak/Practice

The Rambam's rulings in Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamot Perek 5, while rooted in the realities of a functioning Jewish monarchy, still carry significant weight in contemporary halachic discourse, especially concerning Eretz Yisrael.

The categorization of milchamot (wars) into mitzvah and reshut remains a foundational concept, though its direct application is largely theoretical without a king and Sanhedrin. However, the meta-psak heuristic—that existential defense (like "to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them") is a milchemet mitzvah requiring no prior human approval—is crucial for modern Israel's self-defense doctrines. The idea of "bursting through fences" (MT 5:3) for military necessity also informs the understanding of Pikkuach Nefesh (saving a life) overriding other halachic concerns, though applied in a different context.

The most practically relevant section is the prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisrael and the mitzvah of dwelling there. The Rambam's exceptions for Torah study, marriage, or property salvage (MT 5:9) are widely accepted, with the caveat that one must return. The economic exception (famine, lack of livelihood) is also recognized, reflecting a compassionate understanding of human needs. However, the ideal remains unwavering: to dwell in Eretz Yisrael is paramount, even in predominantly gentile cities, over dwelling in the Diaspora, even in Jewish ones (MT 5:12). This psak shapes much of modern Zionist-religious thought and practice, encouraging Aliyah and discouraging Yerida (emigration). The spiritual benefits of atonement and connection to God, as emphasized by the Rambam (MT 5:11), continue to be powerful motivators for religious Jews. The strict prohibition of dwelling in Egypt (MT 5:7), though specific, highlights the broader principle that certain places hold unique spiritual dangers, reinforcing the exceptional nature of Eretz Yisrael.

Takeaway

The Rambam masterfully codifies the intricate relationship between Jewish sovereignty, military conduct, and the profound spiritual centrality of Eretz Yisrael, establishing it not merely as a geographical location but as an active partner in the covenantal relationship with God. His meticulous sourcing, as illuminated by the Acharonim, reveals a deep, multi-layered halachic tradition that prioritizes dwelling in the Land as a fundamental expression of accepting the "yoke of Heaven."