In class we looked at different ways of understanding why the Rambam did not list living in Israel in his Sefer HaMitzvot. Which way of understanding the Rambam do you find most persuasive? Why? Which explanation do you find least persuasive? Why?
One reason for why living in Eretz Yisrael is not listed in Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot is that it is, in fact, a Torah mitzvah, but it is not listed as it's own mitzvah. This is because it is already included in a few mitzvot - korbanot, conquering the land from the seven nations, and Mitzvot Hateluyot Ba'aretz. I find this reasoning to be the most logical and persuasive, because then the mitzvah is already there, and there is no need to repeat it as its own. On the other hand, I think that saying it’s not listed because it’s temporarily suspended makes the least amount of sense, because there are other mitzvot depending on time in Rambam’s list.
The question we rose in class was: It sounds like Rambam believes that living in Israel by the wording of his commentary. Well, if this is so, then why doesn't he list it as one of the 613 mitzvot? The answer I found most applicable and most sensible was the Chiyuv vs. Kiyum opinion. This opinion is saying that it is a mitzvah, but not an obligation. In that, if you want to live in Israel, then you get a mitzvah, but if not, you still don't lose anything. I agree with Lily, I think the one that makes the least sense is that it is a temporarily suspended mitzvah because it is bound to a specific time. We found contradictions in the reasoning: that there are other time-bound mitzvot listed.
In class, we discussed the Rambam's perspective on living in Israel as a Torah commandment. We delved into different sources and came up with four ways to understand the Rambam's position.
I agree with Lily in the sense that I think that the most persuasive outlook we learned was that living in the land is not a direct obligation. It is implied in many other mitzvot such as Mitzvot Hatluyot Ba'aretz, korbanot, and conquering the land from the other nations. When it is implied, it really helps us understand the sanctity of the land because so many mitzvot stem from it. This makes us appreciate the land and want to live in it, for we can fulfill so many mitzvot by dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. This is what the commentators seem to be agreeing about; the land of Israel should be appreciated and everyone should want to live in it.
I agree with both Lily and Shani that the least persuasive view is that living in the land is mentioned as a Torah mitzvah, it is just not written in the Sefer Hamitzvot. This doesn't seem so persuasive because if it seems as if it is not regarded as a mitzvah that relates to us now. There are other time related mitzvot that do not apply nowadays. The Mitzvot Hatluyot Ba'aretz cannot be performed without the land. The Jewish state has been established. The mitzvah does apply to us. Perhaps, when the Jewish state was not under Jewish sovereignty, Rambam may have wanted to inform the other Jews that even though it was a suspended mitzvah at the time, it is still a Torah obligation, and one day, we will have the opportunity to fulfill it.
One reason for why living in Eretz Yisrael is not listed in Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot is that it is, in fact, a Torah mitzvah, but it is not listed as it's own mitzvah. This is because it is already included in a few mitzvot - korbanot, conquering the land from the seven nations, and Mitzvot Hateluyot Ba'aretz. I find this reasoning to be the most logical and persuasive, because then the mitzvah is already there, and there is no need to repeat it as its own. On the other hand, I think that saying it’s not listed because it’s temporarily suspended makes the least amount of sense, because there are other mitzvot depending on time in Rambam’s list.
ReplyDeleteThe question we rose in class was: It sounds like Rambam believes that living in Israel by the wording of his commentary. Well, if this is so, then why doesn't he list it as one of the 613 mitzvot? The answer I found most applicable and most sensible was the Chiyuv vs. Kiyum opinion. This opinion is saying that it is a mitzvah, but not an obligation. In that, if you want to live in Israel, then you get a mitzvah, but if not, you still don't lose anything. I agree with Lily, I think the one that makes the least sense is that it is a temporarily suspended mitzvah because it is bound to a specific time. We found contradictions in the reasoning: that there are other time-bound mitzvot listed.
ReplyDeleteIn class, we discussed the Rambam's perspective on living in Israel as a Torah commandment. We delved into different sources and came up with four ways to understand the Rambam's position.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lily in the sense that I think that the most persuasive outlook we learned was that living in the land is not a direct obligation. It is implied in many other mitzvot such as Mitzvot Hatluyot Ba'aretz, korbanot, and conquering the land from the other nations. When it is implied, it really helps us understand the sanctity of the land because so many mitzvot stem from it. This makes us appreciate the land and want to live in it, for we can fulfill so many mitzvot by dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. This is what the commentators seem to be agreeing about; the land of Israel should be appreciated and everyone should want to live in it.
I agree with both Lily and Shani that the least persuasive view is that living in the land is mentioned as a Torah mitzvah, it is just not written in the Sefer Hamitzvot. This doesn't seem so persuasive because if it seems as if it is not regarded as a mitzvah that relates to us now. There are other time related mitzvot that do not apply nowadays. The Mitzvot Hatluyot Ba'aretz cannot be performed without the land. The Jewish state has been established. The mitzvah does apply to us. Perhaps, when the Jewish state was not under Jewish sovereignty, Rambam may have wanted to inform the other Jews that even though it was a suspended mitzvah at the time, it is still a Torah obligation, and one day, we will have the opportunity to fulfill it.