There is a short, somewhat strange Tosafot at the end of Ketubot, which seems to undermine everything, but in doing so, it completes the structure of our partzuf/model that corresponds four opinions regarding the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel with the four letters of God’s essential Name, Havayah, which we will shortly see. This is a small yet very significant Tosafot. It cites one of the great Ba’alei HaTosafot, Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen, who argues that there is no mitzvah of dwelling in the Land of Israel in our time—neither from the Torah nor from rabbinic law. Why? Because there are many mitzvot of the land that cannot be fulfilled properly, and due to the near-certain risk that a person will fail in fulfilling these mitzvot, the mitzvah of settling the Land is nullified in our time:
He says to go up [to the Land of Israel], etc.: It is not practiced in our times, as there is danger on the roads. And Rabbeinu Chaim says that today, it is not a commandment to live in the Land of Israel, as there are several commandments that are dependent upon the land—and several punishments—that we are not able to be careful about and to be cognizant of.
This is not just anyone making such a statement, but since this opinion is so peculiar, everyone—as we mentioned earlier, such as the author of Pe’at HaShulchan—makes various efforts to explain it as a textual error and that in the Mordechai, for example, there is a different version of his opinion, which clarifies that it was Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen who mentioned the issue of the dangers of the journey, and that the argument regarding the lack of a mitzvah due to the complications with the land-dependent mitzvot is incorrect. Pe’at HaShulchan further advises that if someone wishes to fulfill the land-dependent mitzvot, they should purchase a parcel of land in the Land of Israel and fulfill the commandments tied to the land. In any case, it is very difficult to accept the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen.
In that same Tosafot, before presenting the opinion of Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen, another explanation is offered—namely, that the mitzvah to ascend to the Land of Israel is not applicable in our time, not because there is no mitzvah, but due to the dangers of the journey. All the halachot concerning a husband compelling his wife or a wife compelling her husband to ascend to the Land of Israel—“whether men or women”—do not apply now because of the danger involved in traveling to the Land. The principle at play here is “danger is more severe than a prohibition” (סַכָּנְתָּא חֲמִירָא מֵאִסּוּרָא). Thus, the obligation to make aliyah is suspended according to this opinion due to the perilous nature of the journey, rather than the inapplicability of the mitzvah.
So, essentially, we have four opinions regarding the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel in our time. The four opinions correspond to the four letters of God’s essential Name, Havayah in a straightforward way:
- That settling the Land of Israel is a mitzvah from the Torah, a de’orayta, corresponds to the letter yud (י) and the sefirah of wisdom. This is held by Ramban and reflects the wisdom that comes directly from Divine command—the Written Torah, as in the verse, “Listen, my son, to the discipline of your father,” representing the unchanging, essential Torah command.
- That it is a rabbinic mitzvah without any weakening of the obligation corresponds to the second letter, hei (ה), and to the sefirah of understanding. The strong obligation can be seen in the ruling that compels someone to make aliyah, “whether men or women,” found in Rambam. Being rabbinic (perhaps due to the issue of the Three Oaths mentioned earlier) is connected to the Oral Torah, the “Torah of your mother,” which reflects the deep reasoning and understanding within halachic framework employed by the rabbis.
- To cancel the mitzvah because of concern for failure in keeping other mitzvot corresponds to the letter vav (ו) and the six sefirot from loving-kindness to foundation, which constitute the core of Zeir Anpin (the small countenance). This is Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen’s plain opinion in Tosafot—the idea that the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel is nullified because one would likely fail in other mitzvot tied to the Land. This act of weighing pros and cons based on success and failure is typical to the considerations made in the realm of Ze’er Anpin.
- Finally, suspending the mitzvah altogether because of danger corresponds to the second hei (ה) in Havayah, and to the sefirah of kingdom. The idea that one cannot coerce another to make aliyah to the Land of Israel due to the dangers of the journey reflects the sefirah of kingdom about whom it is said, “Her feet descend down unto death” (מָוֶת תּוֹרְדוּ רַגְלֶיהָ). Kingdom is practical and aware of the dangers of the physical world were “living in them” (בָּהֶם וָחַי) takes precedence, meaning that a major consideration in performing every mitzvah is its physical safety.
Together, all four opinions regarding the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel form a holistic understanding, which can be summarized as a partzuf, as follows:
- An obligation from Torah (mitzvah de’orayta) absolute duty (בָּחוֹבָה)
- A rabbinic obligation (mitzvah de’rabbanan) an obligation (מִצְוָה)
- No obligation because of concern for failure transgression (עֲבֵרָה)
- No obligation because of dangers of the journey danger (סַכָּנָה)
As soon as we recognize the complete structure—the complete partzuf—everything has its place and there is a state of peace between the different opinions. The apparent conflict between the opinions transforms into a coherent system, and all is pleasant. The tension that Rabbeinu Chaim HaKohen caused is resolved once we see his view as part of the broader picture, contributing to the completeness of the partzuf. In fact, it turns out that we need his opinion regarding the danger in order to complete the partzuf. Notice that both the opinions brought in the Tosafot find their place in this model and contribute to the overall balance, bringing clarity and harmony to the differing views.
