[Avodah] [Areivim] Is it ..Galus

[Moshe Feldman]

R. Mike has suggested a novel idea regarding the mizvah of yishuv
ha'aretz—that even when there is no p'tur to an individual of making
aliyah (i.e., there is no pikuach nefesh, and it is possible to make a
living in EY), the Jewish people as a whole must keep a she'eris
ha'pleita out of EY—to have two machanos.  The only precedent he
brings is that of the *family* of Yaakov when he was in *chutz
la'aretz*.  I submit that this precedent has no relevance to the
Jewish nation living in EY for the following reasons:

1)	Yaakov was facing imminent destruction in his fight with Eisav, who
was approaching with a force many times the size of his family.  That
was a true case of pikuach nefesh, which is not the case today in EY.
(RYBS says that pikuach nefesh is docheh yishuv EY—see
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n053.shtml#13 and
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n059.shtml#01 ).  The fact is
that completely non-religious Jews come to live in Israel and do not
believe that they are "risking their lives."  (Compare to
RMFeinstein's tshuva about smoking: if many people engage in a
somewhat risky activity and consider it a reasonable risk, Hashem does
not judges those people based on their z'chuyos and chovos and does
not cause them to die simply because they have entered a makom
sakanah.  See what I wrote at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n162.shtml#02   While I
disagreed with Rav Moshe with regard to individuals, I believe that
the tzibbur in EY has more of a right to rely on hashgacha pratis.  In
any case, the risk of the tzibbur in EY getting completely wiped out
c"v is much lower than the risk of cancer to smokers).
2)	It is true that if one diversifies one's assets, one lowers the
overall risk.  (See
http://www.investorguide.com/igu-article-543-asset-allocation-diversifying-your-portfolio.html
.)  Therefore, even at the time of Yehoshua and Ezra, one could have
argued that the Jews should have some outpost in Chu"l, so as to
reduce the chances of the Jewish people being destroyed, c"v.
Nevertheless, it is quite clear from Chazal and Rishonim (and chumash
as well) that when mitzvah of yishuv haaretz is in effect, the entire
Jewish people is supposed to be living in EY.  Therefore, it is clear
that Hashem does not want us to be making "she'eris ha'pleita"
cheshbonos.
3)	If you think about it, any nation could enhance the chances of its
survival by sending colonists to live abroad.  But did any sovereign
nation (e.g.--Belgium or Holland--both small, weak countries) ever
think that way?  Hashem wants us to live as a sovereign nation in EY.
Thinking about she'eris ha'pleita in the current context comes from a
mindset of those who do not live in a sovereign nation.

In addition, the gemara states that there will not be a further galus
once the Jews return to their land and the land gives forth its fruits
((Sanhedrin 98a--ein l'cha ketz megula m'zeh).  The idea that there
will be just two exiles from our land (Bavel, Rome) is pervasive in
gemaras and rishonim.  This means that there is a promise with regard
to the *community* as a whole and there is no need to maintain a
second yishuv in America.

In answer to specific comments:
<torahmike at gmail.com> wrote:
>       You do not just ignore all realities on the
> ground and move to Israel no matter what.

I never said that.  On the contrary, I wrote that people as
individuals may have good reasons not to make aliyah (e.g., those with
teenagers or those who will not have a good klitah).  I was responding
specifically to your argument that it is important to maintain a
strong Jewish *community* outside of EY.

> You are accusing, ipso facto, all of the
> gedolim from bayis sheini until now, who lived in galus, including Rambam,
>  Rashi, the Ba'alei Tosfos, Everyone! of violating 'Behadi Kavshei...";

Actually not.  I said that before the UN vote (or maybe Balfour
Declaration), it was quite possible that the 3 shevu'os were
applicable, and that Hashem wanted all but yechidei segula to remain
in galus because of our sins.  The Mishneh Halachos writes that that
changed as a result of the Balfour Declaration/UN vote, as well as the
Holocaust in which Hashem kicked us out of Europe (implying that the
galus is ending).  In addition, the dangerous conditions of living in
EY (as well as the difficulty of parnassa) constituted a ptur of
yishuv haaretz.  So I have no taanos against the rishonim.

Also, the Avnei Nezer (tshuva at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/Avnei_Neizer_YD_454.pdf ) explains
why all the gedolim did not make aliyah (their sustenance would derive
from their followers in chutz la'aretz, and that would not constitute
yishuv haaretz, which requires deriving one's sustenance from EY), and
those reasons do not apply today.

> I do not remeber  any of the Rishonim starting Zionist movements and encouraging mass aliyah.

Actually, 100 Baalei Tosfos, as well as Ramban, made aliyah, and R.
Yehuda HaLevy tried to do so.  And that was when there was most
probably a ptur of living in EY.

>    Hyou can possibly compare us to those who violated the
> words of the Navi Ezra. Ezra is not around telling US to move to Israel!
> It's the difference between violating and not violating divrei navi.

See Kuzari 2:21-22 (I can send this as an attachment) who specifically
states that in his time, he was ashamed for the Jewish people who did
not return to their Land and did not learn from the their mistakes in
the time of Ezra.

If you believe that there's a chiyuv and that this is a central focus
of Judaism (see Rambam Hil. Melachim--and note that RMFeinstein was
explicating the Rambam),  then rejecting Hashem's gift to us of the
opportunity to return home is not that different than what happened
with Ezra (when conditions were much worse than they are now).  (See
my explanation of RMFeinstein at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol25/v25n002.shtml#07 ).

Moreover, I don't think that it says in Ezra that *Ezra* told the Jews
in Bavel that they should return to EY.  It simply says that *Koresh*
gave the Jews permission to go to EY (which is analogous to the UN's
announcement--see Gra on Zohar Chadash p.27 who says that the second
galus will end with a governmental announcement just like that of
Koresh).  It is just the gemara (that I quoted in the name of Resh
Lakish) that the second Bais Hamikdash was destroyed because the
majority of Jews stayed behind.  Returning was the *obvious* thing to
do when galus is over.  See also
http://www.lookstein.org/resources/ravandreligiouszionism.htm and
Sefer Eim HaBanim S'maicha (summary at
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/hungary/document/57.htm ).

>     The meraglim -
> were challenging an explicit one-time havtacha from Hashem. There
> is no comparision to nowadays, when clearly people are killed in Israel all
> the time, unfortunately.

According to Ramban, the mitzvah of yishuv EY today is the same one
that applied at the time of the meraglim.  The mitzvah of yishuv
haaretz is independent of any promise that the Jews will conquer the
Land without any opposition from the inhabitants.  And in fact, in
Sefer Shoftim, the navi blames the Jews for not conquering certain
parts of EY (due to their encountering opposition from the
inhabitants).

Hashem has not promised *individuals* that they will not be killed in
Israel.  But that is not an excuse for individual Jews not to come to
EY.  Living in most parts of EY does not constitute halachic pikuach
nefesh, and therefore there is no ptur not to come.

Your argument, however, was not about individuals but about the
tzibbur.  And I have shown that there is no makor that the tzibbur
should be concerned for she'eris ha'pleita when there is no pikuach
nefesh.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Areivim at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org