18 Feb CONQUERING ERETZ YISRAEL: MITZVAH, HALACHA, HISTORY, AND THE THREE OATHS

Our parasha,
Mishpatim, is
perhaps the first
to clearly indicate
that Am Yisrael
should proceed to conquer and settle the
Land of Israel. The pasuk states (23; 20-
31):
“Behold, I send an angel before you to
protect you on the way and to bring
you to the place that I have made
ready. …Little by little shall I drive
them [the enemy] away from you until
you become fruitful and make the land
your heritage. I shall set your border
from the sea of Reeds to the sea of
Philistines, and from the Wilderness
until the River, for I shall deliver the
inhabitants of the Land into the your
hands and you shall drive them away
from before you”
The Torah reiterates the commandment
of settling the land in various places,
emphasizing its significance as a
divine directive.
The Ramban (Nachmanides) and the
Megillat Esther commentary on the
Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot have
differing views on whether there is a
Torah obligation to conquer the Land
of Israel in all generations.
Ramban’s Opinion
The Ramban, in his Hasagot (glosses)
on the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot,
criticizes the Rambam for not including
yishuv Eretz Yisrael (settling the Land
of Israel) as one of the 613 mitzvot.
The Ramban argues that there is a
positive Torah commandment to
conquer and settle the land, (derived
from Bamidbar 33:53): “V’horashtem
et ha’aretz v’yishavtem bah” (“You
shall take possession of the land and
dwell in it”).
He maintains that this mitzvah applies
in all times, even in exile, and is not
limited to the time of Yehoshua or the
era of the kings. According to the
Ramban, failing to conquer and settle
Eretz Yisrael is a neglect of a Torah
obligation.
Megillat Esther’s Opinion
The Megillat Esther, a commentary on
the Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot, rejects
the Ramban’s claim that conquest of
the land is a Torah obligation in all

generations. He argues that the mitzvah
of conquering Eretz Yisrael was only
applicable during the conquest under
Yehoshua and King David, but later
became dependent on the presence of
Jewish sovereignty in the land. Since
exile was decreed upon the Jewish
people, the obligation to conquer the
land is no longer binding.
He supports the Rambam’s omission of
this mitzvah, explaining that after the
destruction of the Temple and the
exile, the obligation to conquer the
land is no longer relevant as an active
commandment. However, settling the
land remains a value but not a binding
obligation.
One of the claims of the Megillat
Esther that there is no mitzvah today to
conquer the Land of Israel involves
what is famously known as the Three
Oaths. The Gemara (Ketubot 111a)
states that Am Yisrael was sworn:
1.Not to ascend to Eretz Yisrael
b’choma (as a mass movement or by
force).
2.Not to rebel against the nations.
3.That the nations should not oppress
Israel excessively.
The Megillat Esther argues that since
these oaths prohibit forced conquest
before the arrival of Mashiach, the
Ramban’s assertion that there is a
mitzvah to conquer the land in all
generations cannot be correct.
It seems that most poskim did not agree
with the Megillat Esther regarding his
understanding of the Three Oaths.
They explain for various reasons why
the oaths do not apply.
a. Rav Shlomo Kluger explained that
since the nations did not keep their
side of the deal, and by violating their
oath not to oppress Am Yisrael
excessively, the entire agreement is
nullified.
b. The Avnei Nezer wrote that if the
nations permitted the creation of the
Jewish state, it was not be a violation
of the oath, which only prohibits
conquering the land against the
nations’ will. And indeed, the creation
of Israel was through a vote in the
United Nations.
c. Rav Chaim Vital, the student of the

Arizal, wrote that the oaths expire after
one thousand years, and thus the
creation of Israel occurred well past
that time.
Besides these answers and many more,
some explain that the Gemara
mentioning the oaths is not a halachic
ruling but rather aggadah. There are
also many different and contradictory
opinions on this topic.
For example, the Zohar (Naso) writes
that Hashem said He will not enter
Yerushalayim shel Ma’alah—meaning
the spiritual Jerusalem—until Am
Yisrael enters Yerushalayim shel
Matah, the earthly Jerusalem. This,
along with many other statements of
Chazal, seems to indicate that Am
Yisrael must take the first step in
conquering and settling the land before
Hashem fulfills His role.
Many oppose the creation of the State
of Israel because they oppose Zionism.
Without getting into the long debate
over whether the state’s creation was
justified, we can focus on the present
reality. Today, there are hardly any
hardcore Zionists; most people simply
want to live their lives and go about
their day safely. Soldiers who go to
fight a war do not have any Zionist
idealism; all they aim to do is ensure
their right to live against those who
want to harm them.
Moreover, anyone who studies Jewish
history can see that although Israel
constantly faces nowadays terrorism
and Arab threats, this is nothing
compared to the ongoing pogroms that
Jewish communities endured on a
yearly basis throughout our long exile.
Some believe the myth that Middle
Eastern Jewry lived in harmony in
Arab countries, but this is far from the
truth. Just as European Jews suffered
constant pogroms, so too did Sephardic
Jews (read in length in the book Hazon
U’Pigyon).
Some claim that Arabs started
terrorizing Jews because the land is
occupied, but they are ignorant of
basic historical theology. Long before
the establishment of the Jewish state,
the Zionist movement, and even the
Balfour Declaration, Muhammad
already massacred many Jewish towns
while enslaving their Jewish wives and

daughters. Since then, Jews have been
regularly killed and harassed by
Muslims who followed their leader
footsteps.
The State of Israel may not be a perfect,
but it is far better than what the Jewish
people faced throughout history—
without even mentioning the
Holocaust.
Another point that is undebatable is the
rise of Torah learning in Israel, which
is overwhelmingly greater than
anywhere else in the world. Torah is
flourishing there, with the number of
rabbinical students and scholars at
levels never seen in history. This
bracha cannot be ignored or dismissed.
Thus, if one sees things they don’t like
in the Jewish state, they should either
try to help fix them or, if they can’t,
they should close their eyes and ignore
them.
Summary of the Dispute
• Ramban: There is an eternal
mitzvah to conquer and settle Eretz
Yisrael, applicable even in exile.
• Megillat Esther: The obligation of
conquest was only in specific
historical periods and does not apply
after exile.
• The halacha seems to side with the
Ramban, and even those who take
the other approach may still agree
for many reasons that today, the
halacha allows for Jewish
sovereignty.
This dispute has significant
implications for discussions on aliyah,
Jewish sovereignty, and the role of the
modern State of Israel in fulfilling
Torah obligations.
Those who want to learn more about
this topic and the lengthy discussion
can refer to what I wrote in my sefer
Shaf Veyativ.