Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5

Hey, great to see you! Ready to dive into some Maimonides? This chapter of Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5, offers a really fascinating, perhaps even jarring, pivot. We begin with the gritty realities of war and royal authority, only to find ourselves deep in the spiritual significance of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. What gives?

Hook

It's not everyday you see a legal code seamlessly transition from the rules of military road-building to the spiritual merits of kissing the dust of the Holy Land. This passage masterfully weaves together the practicalities of sovereignty with its ultimate spiritual purpose.

Context

To truly appreciate this section, it helps to remember Maimonides' overarching project with the Mishneh Torah. He sought to create a comprehensive, logical, and accessible codification of all Jewish law, drawing from the entire corpus of rabbinic literature. This wasn't just a dry list of rules; it was a blueprint for an ideal Jewish society, grounded in halakha. The laws of kingship and war, therefore, aren't just about governance; they're about establishing the framework within which the Jewish people can fulfill their spiritual destiny, which, as we'll see, is deeply tied to the land itself. His meticulous approach often means he's very precise in his language and sources, as we'll explore.

Text Snapshot

Let's look at a few lines that highlight this journey:

• "A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah." (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:1)
• "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." (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:9)
• "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.'" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:12)

[Full text available on Sefaria: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Kings_and_Wars_5]

Close Reading

Insight 1: Structural Juxtaposition – From Battlefield to Holy Ground

The most striking feature of this chapter is its structure. Maimonides begins by meticulously detailing the categories of war (milchemet mitzvah vs. milchemet hareshut), the king's authority to commandeer land for military roads, and the commandments regarding the annihilation of specific enemies like Amalek and the seven nations (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:1-5). These are practical, often harsh, laws of establishing and defending sovereignty. Then, almost without warning, the text pivots sharply around verse 9 to discuss the profound spiritual importance of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael, the prohibitions against leaving it, and the immense spiritual rewards for those who remain or even are buried there (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:9-12).

Why this sudden shift? It’s not accidental. Maimonides is implicitly articulating a fundamental purpose of Jewish sovereignty: not merely self-preservation or territorial expansion for its own sake, but the creation of a sacred space where the Jewish people can live a life saturated with mitzvot and spiritual connection to God. The wars are a means to an end – securing the land – and the end itself is dwelling in that land. The very act of war, especially milchemet mitzvah, is framed as a prerequisite for establishing the conditions necessary for a complete Jewish life, a life best lived within the spiritual confines of Eretz Yisrael. The laws of war set the stage; the laws of dwelling explain the play.

Insight 2: Key Term – Milchemet Mitzvah vs. Milchemet Hareshut

Maimonides opens by distinguishing between two types of war: milchemet mitzvah (a commanded war) and milchemet hareshut (an optional war). He defines milchemet mitzvah as the war against the seven nations, the war against Amalek, and a defensive war to assist Israel from an attacking enemy (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:1, clarified by Steinsaltz on 5:1:1 and 5:1:2). These wars are so critical that they do not require court permission; the king can "go out on his own volition and force the nation to go out with him" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:2). In contrast, a milchemet hareshut – a war to expand borders or magnify Israel's greatness – requires the approval of the Sanhedrin (court of seventy-one judges).

This distinction is crucial for understanding the nature of Jewish statehood and authority. Certain actions, particularly those commanded directly by the Torah (like conquering the land or destroying Amalek) or essential for national survival (self-defense), transcend normal political or judicial processes. They are non-negotiable divine imperatives. The king's power in these cases is absolute because he is executing a divine command. For other, more discretionary matters, even a king's authority is constrained by the collective wisdom and approval of the Sanhedrin. This highlights a foundational principle: Jewish sovereignty, even in its most potent form, is always ultimately subservient to divine will and, for non-commanded actions, to the checks and balances of religious law. The very purpose of the king's power, even for war, is to facilitate the divine commands, especially those concerning the land.

Insight 3: Tension – Permitted vs. Pious

A fascinating tension emerges in Maimonides' discussion about leaving Eretz Yisrael. He lists specific circumstances under which one may leave: "to study Torah; to marry; or to save one's property from the gentiles" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:9). He even permits leaving for commercial enterprises or due to severe famine (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:9). However, he immediately introduces a caveat: "Though it is permitted to leave Eretz Yisrael under these circumstances, it is not pious behavior" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:10). To underscore this, he cites the tragic example of Machlon and Kilyon, who "left Eretz Yisrael only out of great distress. Nevertheless, they were found worthy of death by God."

This creates a nuanced ethical framework. Halakha often defines the minimum acceptable standard, the line between permissible and forbidden. But Maimonides, here, clearly articulates a higher ideal, a standard of chassidut (piety) that goes beyond mere permissibility. While certain practical necessities might allow one to leave, true devotion and commitment to the spiritual value of the land would lead one to resist even these permitted departures, or at least to return as soon as the objective is met (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:9). This tension reveals that Jewish law isn't just about rules; it's about cultivating a certain spiritual disposition and striving for an elevated relationship with God, often expressed through an unwavering connection to Eretz Yisrael, even at personal cost. The Sages' practice of "kissing the borders of Eretz Yisrael, kiss its stones, and roll in its dust" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:10, see Steinsaltz on 5:10:1) exemplifies this higher piety.

Two Angles

One of the most provocative statements in the text is: "Whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols" (Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5:12). This is a strong claim, seemingly equating leaving the land with the gravest sin.

The Talmud in Ketubot 111b states, "Whoever dwells in the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols." However, Maimonides, in his precise codification, phrases it as "whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora." The Tziunei Maharan on Mishneh Torah 5:12:1 highlights this textual difference. He notes that Maimonides' source for this specific phrasing is not the Gemara in Ketubot, but rather the Torat Kohanim (Parshat Behar, Brita 4) and the Tosefta in Avodah Zarah (5:4). These earlier sources explicitly state, "every Israelite who dwells in Eretz Yisrael accepts upon himself the yoke of Heaven, and whoever leaves to the Diaspora is as if he worships idols." The Torat Kohanim further explains that King David's lament, "They have driven me out today from dwelling in the heritage of God, saying 'Go, serve other gods'" (I Samuel 26:19), wasn't meant literally that he would serve idols, but rather that leaving Eretz Yisrael is tantamount to idol worship because it distances one from the purest form of divine service achievable in the land.

This nuance is significant. The Gemara's statement ("whoever dwells in the Diaspora") could be read as a blanket condemnation of all those living outside Eretz Yisrael, regardless of their intent or origin. Maimonides, by relying on the Torat Kohanim and Tosefta with the phrase "whoever leaves," emphasizes the act of abandonment, particularly by one who had the opportunity to remain or return. This perspective softens the judgment on those born and raised in the Diaspora, or those who left for halakhically permitted reasons and perhaps cannot return, while maintaining a strong theological stance against a deliberate, unnecessitated departure. It shifts the focus from a state of being to an active choice, reinforcing the idea that dwelling in Eretz Yisrael is a fundamental, active acceptance of the yoke of Heaven.

Practice Implication

This chapter profoundly shapes Jewish decision-making regarding aliyah (immigration to Israel) and remaining in the Diaspora. While Maimonides provides legitimate reasons for temporarily leaving Eretz Yisrael (Torah study, marriage, saving property, even commerce or famine), he immediately qualifies these as not being "pious behavior." This means that for a Jew seeking to live the most elevated spiritual life, the default and ideal state is to dwell in Eretz Yisrael, and any departure, even if permissible, should be temporary and for a compelling reason.

This teaching compels individuals to weigh practical considerations (financial opportunity, family proximity, educational options) against the spiritual imperative of residing in the Holy Land. It's not a simple legalistic calculation but a call to align one's life choices with a higher spiritual aspiration. For many, it frames aliyah not just as a political or nationalistic act, but as a deeply personal religious obligation and an ultimate expression of yirat Shamayim (fear of Heaven), to be pursued when circumstances allow, and to return to when the temporary necessity passes.

Chevruta Mini

1. Maimonides permits leaving Eretz Yisrael to "save one's property from the gentiles" or for commercial enterprises, but deems it "not pious behavior" to leave even for great distress. Where do we draw the line between practical necessity and spiritual ideal? How much personal sacrifice is demanded by the "pious behavior" standard when faced with economic hardship or threats to livelihood in Eretz Yisrael?
2. The text states, "one 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." What are the tradeoffs here? What value is Maimonides prioritizing (the sanctity of the land itself vs. the communal support of Jewish society), and what might be the practical and spiritual challenges of living in a primarily gentile city in Eretz Yisrael versus a thriving Jewish community in the Diaspora?

Takeaway

The pursuit of Jewish sovereignty through war, as detailed by Maimonides, finds its ultimate purpose in enabling a life of profound spiritual connection to Eretz Yisrael, which is presented as the ideal dwelling place for the Jewish people, far surpassing any other location in spiritual merit.