Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 5

Alright, partner, let's dive into some Maimonides. We're going to explore a section of Mishneh Torah that, at first glance, seems like a rapid-fire list of rules about kings, wars, and where to live. But what if these seemingly disparate topics are actually deeply interconnected, revealing a profound vision of Jewish national and individual identity?

Hook

Maimonides here presents a king's right to plow through private fields for war and the spiritual danger of leaving Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora, almost in the same breath. What's the unifying thread in these seemingly disparate dictates, and what does it tell us about the ideal Jewish polity and individual life?

Context

To fully appreciate this passage, it's crucial to understand the monumental scope of Maimonides' project, the Mishneh Torah. Composed in the 12th century, it wasn't just another legal code; it was an attempt to organize the entirety of Jewish law, both current and future, for a people largely without a sovereign state or a functioning Temple. Maimonides' inclusion of detailed laws concerning a king, wars, and national boundaries, even in a time of exile, underscores his belief in the ultimate restoration of Jewish sovereignty. These laws aren't just historical curiosities; they are blueprints for a redeemed future, providing a comprehensive vision of a Jewish society living according to Torah law, not merely adapting to gentile rule. This vision of a complete, ideal halakhic society is the backdrop against which we read these specific regulations.

Text Snapshot

"A king should not wage other wars before a milchemet mitzvah... What is considered as milchemet mitzvah? The war against the seven nations... the war against Amalek, and a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them." (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." (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.'" (Kings and Wars 5:12)

[Sefaria URL: https://www.sefaria.org/Mishneh_Torah%2C_Kings_and_Wars_5]

Close Reading

Insight 1: Structure – From National Imperative to Personal Piety

Maimonides structures this chapter in a fascinating way, transitioning from the grand, national scope of warfare and governance to the deeply personal and spiritual realm of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. This isn't just a random collection of laws; it's a deliberate progression that underscores the holistic nature of Torah living.

The chapter opens with a focus on the king and the nation – establishing the hierarchy and types of war. We learn about milchemet mitzvah (obligatory wars) versus milchemet reshut (discretionary wars). The former, against the Seven Nations and Amalek, or defensive wars, requires no court approval, emphasizing its existential necessity. The latter, for expansion or glory, requires the Sanhedrin's approval, highlighting a check on royal power. Immediately following this, we get practical, almost jarringly mundane, details about the king's right to cut through fields, overriding individual property rights for the sake of national security and war. This initial segment paints a picture of a proactive, sovereign Jewish state, with its own military and legal infrastructure, capable of defending and expanding its borders, all under halakhic guidance. The individual's property rights, while important, are shown to be subservient to the higher national good in the context of milchemet mitzvah.

Then, Maimonides shifts gears. After detailing the mitzvah to obliterate the Seven Nations and Amalek, he moves to the prohibition of returning to Egypt, a national historical trauma and a spiritual warning. This section acts as a bridge, moving from the active national defense and conquest to a more passive but equally potent national identity tied to specific territories. The rules on Egypt are not about waging war, but about where not to dwell. This introduces the concept of the sanctity of specific lands and the spiritual implications of residence.

Finally, the chapter culminates in a comprehensive exposition on the profound significance of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. Here, the focus shifts from the king's actions to the individual Jew's choices. Maimonides outlines not only the mitzvah to reside in the land but also the severe spiritual consequences of leaving it, famously equating it to idol worship under certain circumstances. He lists specific, limited exceptions for departure (Torah study, marriage, dire economic straits) and then contrasts the spiritual benefits of living in Eretz Yisrael (atonement, merit in the World to Come) with the lesser merit of simply being buried there. He even emphasizes dwelling in a gentile-majority city in Eretz Yisrael over a Jewish-majority city in the Diaspora. This progression from the king leading national wars to the individual's spiritual obligation to reside in the holy land demonstrates a complete vision of Jewish existence, where national sovereignty and individual piety are inextricably linked and flow from the same divine imperative. The land is not just a territory to be conquered; it is a sacred space that defines and elevates the Jewish individual. The structure suggests that the ultimate goal of the national enterprise (wars, conquest) is to enable and facilitate a life of deep spiritual connection for the individual within the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael.

Insight 2: Key Term – Milchemet Mitzvah and its Unpacking

The term milchemet mitzvah is central to the first half of this chapter, and Maimonides' precise definition unpacks a complex legal and theological concept. He explicitly lists three categories: "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." (5:1)

Let's break down the implications of these categories. First, "the war against the seven nations" refers to the original conquest of Canaan by Joshua. This isn't merely a historical event; it's a foundational mitzvah that established the Jewish people's claim and presence in their land. Maimonides, as clarified by Steinsaltz, understands this as a war of conquest (מלחמת כיבוש ארץ ישראל מיד שבעת עמי כנען שישבו בה). The continuation of this mitzvah to "annihilate the seven nations" (5:4) is tied directly to Deuteronomy 20:17 ("You shall utterly destroy them"), emphasizing its divine imperative and non-negotiable nature. This isn't about expansion; it's about fulfilling a divine mandate tied to the very establishment of Eretz Yisrael as the Jewish homeland.

Second, "the war against Amalek" is another unique, perpetual mitzvah. The Torah commands us to "obliterate the memory of Amalek" (Deuteronomy 25:19) and to "constantly remember their evil deeds... to arouse our hatred of them" (5:5). This war is not about territory or defense in the conventional sense, but about spiritual warfare against a primordial evil that attacks Israel without provocation, representing a profound opposition to God's presence in the world. The Oral Tradition (5:5) clarifies the remembrance: "with your mouths" and "in your hearts," indicating both public declaration and internal, visceral commitment. This category highlights a spiritual battle that transcends geopolitical boundaries and is rooted in an eternal command.

Third, "a war fought to assist Israel from an enemy which attacks them" (5:1) is a defensive war. Steinsaltz explicitly defines this as "מלחמת הגנה מפני תוקפים" – "a defensive war against attackers." This category broadens milchemet mitzvah beyond specific historical enemies to any situation where the Jewish people or their land are under threat. It establishes a standing obligation for self-preservation and protection. Crucially, for all these categories of milchemet mitzvah, "There is no need to seek the permission of the court... Rather, he may go out on his own volition and force the nation to go out with him." (5:2). This lack of a requirement for Sanhedrin approval elevates these wars beyond standard governmental decisions; they are divine imperatives that fall under the king's direct responsibility, reflecting their existential or foundational importance. The king acts as God's agent in these matters, symbolizing the direct link between divine will and national action when the very existence or spiritual purity of the nation is at stake. The term milchemet mitzvah thus encompasses wars of foundational conquest, spiritual annihilation, and immediate defense, all characterized by their divine mandate and the king's inherent authority to prosecute them without external human approval.

Insight 3: Tension – National Sovereignty vs. Personal Holiness

A profound tension permeates this chapter, specifically between the robust assertion of national sovereignty and the intense emphasis on individual holiness connected to Eretz Yisrael. On one hand, Maimonides paints a picture of a strong, independent Jewish state: a king who can wage wars, expand borders, and even override private property rights for the national good. This is a vision of political power, military might, and the pragmatic realities of statecraft. The king's ability to "burst through the fences surrounding fields or vineyards to make a road and no one can take issue with him" (5:3) is a powerful assertion of eminent domain, a necessary function of any sovereign entity. The establishment of "milchemet reshut" (discretionary wars) to "expand the borders of Israel or magnify its greatness and reputation" (5:1) further solidifies this image of a nation concerned with its geopolitical standing and influence. This aspect of the chapter speaks to the collective, external face of the Jewish people, their role in the world as a distinct national entity.

On the other hand, the chapter then shifts dramatically to an almost ascetic focus on individual spiritual purity and the sanctity of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. The prohibition against returning to Egypt, though historically national, is framed as a personal restriction on dwelling there, with Alexandria specifically included (5:8). This prohibition isn't about national security, but about avoiding the "depraved" ways of a particular land (5:8), a spiritual contamination. The pinnacle of this tension is reached with the declaration that "whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols" (5:12). This is an incredibly strong, almost shocking statement, attributing a fundamental spiritual transgression to a geographical relocation. The chapter then lists myriad spiritual benefits of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael – forgiveness of sins, merit in the World to Come, atonement upon burial – and even places dwelling in a gentile-majority city in Israel above a Jewish-majority city in the Diaspora (5:12). These are not laws of statecraft; they are laws of personal spiritual growth, identity, and the individual's relationship with the Divine, mediated through the land.

The tension lies in how these two spheres – national power and individual holiness – interact. Is the robust national sovereignty presented in the first half merely a means to an end, with the end being the optimal spiritual existence for the individual within Eretz Yisrael? Or are they two equally vital, yet distinct, expressions of a complete Jewish life? The king's power to wage war and expand borders, while crucial, is ultimately constrained by the spiritual imperative to enable the individual's connection to the land and its unique holiness. The very purpose of a strong Jewish state, Maimonides implies, is to create the environment where the individual can fulfill the profound spiritual mitzvah of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael, a place where one's sins are forgiven and one's connection to God is intensified. The tension is resolved by understanding that the national enterprise serves the spiritual destiny of the individual, and the physical land is the crucible for that destiny.

Two Angles

Maimonides' statement, "Whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora is considered as if he worships idols" (5:12), is one of the most striking and challenging pronouncements in this chapter. It's a passage that invites deep scrutiny into its source and intent. We can explore two angles here: one emphasizing the stark, unqualified severity of the prohibition as presented, and another, informed by Maimonides' own sources and later interpretations, that introduces nuance and context.

Angle 1: The Absolute Spiritual Peril of Departure

From one perspective, Maimonides' psak (halakhic ruling) here is presented in the Mishneh Torah without immediate qualification in the main text itself, suggesting an absolute and severe spiritual consequence for leaving Eretz Yisrael. The comparison to idol worship (avodah zarah) is not a light one; it signifies a complete spiritual abandonment, a severing of the most fundamental connection to God. The verse from I Samuel 26:19, "They have driven me out today from dwelling in the heritage of God, saying 'Go, serve other gods,'" is used by Maimonides as a direct proof-text. This interpretation, as explored by commentators like the Kessef Mishneh and further elaborated by the Tziunei Maharan on 5:12:1, points to Maimonides' reliance on Midrashic sources such as Torat Kohanim (Behar, Parshata 5, Baraita 4) and Tosefta Avodah Zarah 5. These sources explicitly state that "all of Israel who dwells in Eretz Yisrael accepts upon himself the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, and all who leaves the land of Israel is as if he worships idols." This angle underscores the belief that the very act of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael is an affirmation of God's unique sovereignty and a direct acceptance of the Divine Presence (Shechinah), which is uniquely manifest there. To abandon this land is, therefore, to implicitly reject that unique relationship, to turn away from God's chosen domain, which is tantamount to seeking other gods. This reading emphasizes the inherent spiritual sacredness of the land itself, making residence within it a fundamental act of faith, and departure a profound transgression against that faith. It leaves little room for mitigating circumstances, framing the act as a direct affront to the divine.

Angle 2: Nuance and Context in the Prohibition

A second angle acknowledges the severity but introduces crucial nuance, primarily by examining the full context of Maimonides' sources and his own exceptions. The Tziunei Maharan (5:12:1) points out that while the Torat Kohanim and Tosefta indeed make this strong statement, the Tosefta specifically adds a critical qualifier: "כל המניח את א"י בשעת שלום ויוצא כאלו עובד כו'" – "whoever leaves Eretz Yisrael in a time of peace and goes out is as if he worships idols." This suggests that the severity of the prohibition, particularly its equation with idol worship, applies most acutely when one leaves Eretz Yisrael without compelling reason and when the land itself is in a stable, peaceful state.

Furthermore, Maimonides himself lists clear exceptions where it is permissible to leave Eretz Yisrael: "to study Torah; to marry; or to save one's property from the gentiles" (5:9). He even permits leaving for commerce, or in cases of severe famine or economic distress, though he qualifies the latter as "not pious behavior" (5:10). These exceptions demonstrate that the prohibition against leaving, and by extension the "idol worship" accusation, is not absolute. It is not intended to trap individuals in impossible situations but rather to prioritize residence in Eretz Yisrael as the ideal, spiritually elevated choice. This angle interprets the "idol worship" statement not as literal idolatry, but as a hyperbolic expression of the immense spiritual loss and profound disconnect one experiences by voluntarily abandoning the unique spiritual environment of Eretz Yisrael when there is no pressing need. It suggests that leaving, especially in times of peace and prosperity, reflects a failure to appreciate the land's spiritual power and a potential turning away from the direct, palpable presence of God that is most accessible within its borders. It’s a spiritual warning against complacency and spiritual laziness, rather than a blanket condemnation of all who must, for legitimate reasons, reside elsewhere. These two angles highlight the ongoing tension between the absolute ideal and the practical realities, both reflected in Maimonides' monumental work.

Practice Implication

This chapter, particularly its latter half on dwelling in Eretz Yisrael, has profound implications for daily practice and decision-making, even for those living in the Diaspora today. It fundamentally shapes one's perspective on geography, community, and spiritual priorities.

Firstly, it establishes a clear halakhic and hashkafic (philosophical) hierarchy: dwelling in Eretz Yisrael is not merely a preference or a nice idea, but a profound mitzvah with immense spiritual benefits, and leaving it without specific, compelling reasons is a serious spiritual detriment. This doesn't mean every Jew must immediately move to Israel; Maimonides himself provides exceptions. However, it means that the default ideal is to reside there. For someone making long-term life decisions – where to settle, where to raise a family, where to pursue a career – this text acts as a powerful guiding principle. It compels introspection: are my reasons for living outside of Eretz Yisrael truly falling within the permissible exceptions (Torah study, marriage, saving property, economic distress), or am I prioritizing comfort, convenience, or other worldly concerns over a fundamental spiritual imperative? The passage about Machlon and Kilyon (5:10), who left out of distress but were still "found worthy of death by God," serves as a stark warning against even justifiable departure if it's not accompanied by a deep longing to return. This instills a sense of spiritual accounting for one's geographical choices.

Secondly, for those who do reside in the Diaspora, this text cultivates a deep sense of longing and connection to Eretz Yisrael. Even if one cannot move, the constant remembrance of the land's sanctity, its spiritual benefits ("sins forgiven," "merit the world to come," "atonement"), and the piety of great sages who "would kiss the borders... kiss its stones, and roll in its dust" (5:10) encourages a mental and spiritual orientation towards Israel. It transforms the land from a distant political entity into a living, breathing spiritual homeland that informs one's prayers, aspirations, and even daily actions. Decisions about supporting Israeli institutions, visiting the land, or advocating for its security and well-being become imbued with a greater sense of mitzvah and spiritual urgency. It also challenges the notion that any Jewish community is equally valuable regardless of location, subtly urging one to consider the unique spiritual climate that Eretz Yisrael provides. The strong comparison of leaving Israel to idol worship, while nuanced, serves as an enduring reminder of the land's unparalleled spiritual significance and the profound spiritual risk of disconnecting from it without due cause.

Chevruta Mini

1. Maimonides permits leaving Eretz Yisrael for "saving one's property from the gentiles" but also states that even in severe famine, leaving, while permitted, is "not pious behavior," citing Machlon and Kilyon. How do we reconcile the permissibility of saving property with the lack of "piety" even in the face of famine? What tradeoffs are being highlighted here between material preservation and spiritual fortitude?
2. The text moves from a king's right to override private property for war to an individual's spiritual obligation to reside in Eretz Yisrael. If the state's very purpose is to facilitate individual spiritual life in the land, what ethical tension arises when state actions (like war or land development) might displace or harm individuals, even if ultimately for the national good? Where does the individual's spiritual welfare intersect with the collective's strategic needs?

Takeaway

Maimonides' vision intertwines national sovereignty and individual holiness, portraying Eretz Yisrael as the indispensable crucible where the Jewish people fulfill both their collective destiny and their personal spiritual potential.