English translation — מסעי ב

1.

On the verse¹

"And you shall possess the land and dwell in it, for to you I have given the land to possess it,"

the Ramban says: "In my opinion this is a positive commandment, that He commanded them to dwell in the land and possess it, for He gave it to them ..

And what our Rabbis greatly emphasized regarding the commandment of dwelling in the Land of Israel and that it is forbidden to leave it ..

here we are commanded with this commandment."

Furthermore: in his Hasagos and Completion to Sefer HaMitzvos of the Rambam, the Ramban counts it in the count of the commandments²

as a separate commandment

(not like the method of the Rambam).

And he elaborates on this and says,

that this is the reason why the Gemara³

says "Whoever leaves⁴

it

(from the Land of Israel)

and dwells outside the land should be in your eyes like one who worships idols, as it is said⁵

for they have driven me today from attaching to the inheritance of the Lord, etc.'"

And although the Rambam does not count settling the land etc. in the count of the commandments,

and he does not say at all that this is a commandment⁶,

nevertheless, we find in the Rambam several laws⁷

regarding the prohibition of leaving the Land of Israel to the diaspora⁸,

and among them also the law⁹

: "A person should always dwell in the Land of Israel, even in a city that is mostly gentiles, and let him not dwell outside the land, even in a city that is mostly Israelites,

for whoever goes out to the diaspora is as if he worships idols,

as it is said: 'For they have driven me today from attaching to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go serve other gods.'"

B.

To understand the opinion of the Rambam, one must first explain the continuation and conclusion of the Rambam's words in the aforementioned halacha:

"Just as it is forbidden to leave the Land [of Israel] for outside the Land, so too it is forbidden to leave Babylonia for other lands, as it is said¹⁰

To Babylonia they shall be brought, and there they shall be."

The source of the halacha is

(as the Kesef Mishneh notes)

in tractate Ketubot where the Gemara brings two statements of R. Y.: "Said R. Yehuda: Whoever ascends from Babylonia to the Land of Israel transgresses a positive commandment, as it is stated: 'To Babylonia they shall be brought, and there they shall be until the day I remember them'"¹¹

; and afterwards it is brought there¹²

: "Said R.

Yehuda said Shmuel: Just as it is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for Babylonia, so it is forbidden to leave Babylonia for other lands."

are known¹³

the questions in this:

a)

How does the Rambam include both statements of the Gemara together — the proof from the verse

(“in Bavel etc.”)

does indeed R’ Yosi bring in the first statement regarding the prohibition of leaving Bavel to <b>Eretz Yisrael,</b>

and the Rambam brings it by the prohibition of leaving Bavel <b>to other lands</b>

(which this is the second statement of R’ Yosi¹⁴)?

According to this, it becomes difficult from whichever angle: If with his language "It is forbidden to leave Babylonia for the other lands" the Rambam means to include also Eretz Yisrael&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

(as the Kesef Mishneh says),

because he learns that "To Babylonia they shall be brought, etc." comes to exclude &lt;b&gt;all &lt;/b&gt;lands - it is not understood what is the point in the Gemara of the second statement of R. Y.

(in the name of Shmuel)

which prohibits "to leave ..

&lt;b&gt;to the other &lt;/b&gt;lands" upon the first statement of R. Y.

(anonymously)

who derives the prohibition to leave Babylonia &lt;b&gt;for Eretz Yisrael &lt;/b&gt;from the verse "To Babylonia, etc." - since the plain meaning of the verse includes both Eretz Yisrael and the other lands&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;?

And if the teaching from "To Babylonia, etc." in the first statement of R. Y. excludes only the ascent from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael and not leaving for the other lands, and the second statement,

which deals with the prohibition "to leave Babylonia &lt;b&gt;to the other &lt;/b&gt;lands",

means only the other lands and not Eretz Yisrael&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

- then the Rambam should have said: either

(the language of the first statement of R. Y.)

"So it is forbidden to leave Babylonia &lt;b&gt;for Eretz Yisrael&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;,

or,

since he says "to the other lands" like the second statement,

he should not have brought the teaching from the verse "To Babylonia, etc."&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;?

b)

There is seemingly a contradiction in the Rambam's own words: from the beginning of the law "&lt;b&gt;Just as &lt;/b&gt;it is forbidden to leave the Land for outside the Land &lt;b&gt;so &lt;/b&gt;it is forbidden to leave Babylonia etc." it implies that the prohibition of leaving Babylonia is based on the reasoning — based on the same reasoning as "it is forbidden to leave the Land" — afterwards he concludes "as it is said 'to Babylonia they shall be brought',"

d.

e.

that the prohibition is not based on a reasoning

(Just as — so),

but based on the verse,

which has no connection to the leaving of the Land of Israel for outside the Land.

In the essence of the matter: how does the Rambam bring from "to Babylonia they shall be brought" a proof that Jews may not go out from "Babylonia to the other lands" when the verse speaks entirely about the &lt;b&gt;vessels of service,&lt;/b&gt;

and as is also evident from the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

why therefore does R. Y. bring a second verse&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

c)

3.

Also one must understand several nuances in the language of the Rambam where he changes from the language of the Gemara:

a)

In the Gemara the language is "just as it is forbidden to leave the land of &lt;b&gt;Israel&lt;/b&gt;",

and the Rambam writes "from the land".

And one cannot say that this is due to brevity of language,

because in the halacha²²,

and likewise in the previous halachos²³,

he says several times the phrase <b>Eretz Yisrael.</b>

b)

In the Gemara it says "just as it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael <b>to Bavel</b>",

and the language of the Rambam is "from the land <b>to outside the land</b>".

3)

The Gemara also brings the continuation of the verse "

(To Babylon they shall be brought, and there they shall be)

until the day I remember them, says the Lord",

And the Rambam brings only the beginning of the verse "To Babylon they shall be brought, and there they shall be".

4.

The explanation of all this:

In the reason for the prohibition of leaving Bavel for other lands one finds two opinions: The Rambam brings on this the verse "Bavlah yuvau",

and Rashi says "because there are yeshivos there that disseminate Torah constantly"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;.

The practical difference between them is: According to the opinion of Rashi the prohibition of leaving applies only as long as there are yeshivos in Bavel,

but when the yeshivos there become nullified one may leave from there; in contrast according to the opinion of the Rambam,

that this is because of the verse "Bavlah yuvau",

it implies that the prohibition exists always.

One must however understand,

the verse speaks indeed about the time of the first exile,

when then the Jews were driven into the exile of Bavel,

but the exile at the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash was indeed not to Bavel - so why should the prohibition of Bavlah yuvau apply also regarding that exile,

which is entirely the exile of Edom?

Tosafot²⁵

answers on this: "It can be said that also in the second exile the verse is particular."

But this very thing requires explanation: at first glance,

from where is the proof that also in the second exile

(although it is not "in Babylonia")

also the verse is particular²¹?

Moreover, it is not understood according to the commentary of the Kesef Mishneh,

that with the prohibition "to leave Babylonia for other lands" the Rambam also means the Land of Israel — we find indeed that several Amoraim²⁶

ascended from Babylonia to the Land of Israel²⁷

That the teachers of R' Y.

(the author of the statement),

Rav and Shmuel&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;,

had previously studied in Babylon,

from there ascended to the Land of Israel and later returned to Babylon&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;,

which, at first glance,

according to the above,

they should not have been allowed to ascend from Babylon to the Land of Israel earlier,

and afterwards should not have been allowed to leave the Land of Israel for Babylon.

It is difficult to say that all those who ascended to the Land of Israel,

and especially Rav and Shmuel,

do not hold like R' Y.

(or like R' Y. said &lt;b&gt;Shmuel&lt;/b&gt;)&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

and also - that nevertheless the Rambam rules&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

"Just as it is forbidden to leave the land for outside the land, so it is forbidden to leave Babylon for other lands."

5.

The point of the explanation in this:

In that Eretz Yisrael is distinguished from all lands, there are here <b>in general</b> two matters: a)

That which the Midrash³²

says: "Beloved is Eretz Yisrael <b>that</b> the Holy One, blessed be He, <b>chose</b> in it"; b)

That which Eretz Yisrael is a land <b>holy,</b>

as he says in the Mechilta³³

that "Until Eretz Yisrael was chosen, all lands were fit <b>for divine speech,</b> once Eretz Yisrael was chosen, all lands were disqualified"³⁴.

And in these two matters consists the connection of Jews with Eretz Yisrael: a)

From the aspect of the <b>choice</b> of the Holy One, blessed be He — and as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: "He chose the Land of Israel, etc., and He chose Israel as His portion, etc. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let Israel, who came to My portion, come and inherit the land that came to My portion."³⁵

From the aspect of the <b>holiness</b> that exists in both,

in Eretz Yisrael and in the Jews,

who are a "holy people."³⁶

The difference between these two matters also expresses itself

(among other things)

in the name of the land: from the aspect of holiness it is called specifically "Eretz Yisrael,"

to the exclusion of "the land of <b>Canaan</b>" and the like,

for holiness has no connection to the land of <b>Canaan</b>; in contrast, from the aspect of the <b>choice</b> of the Holy One, blessed be He, of the Land of Israel, it need not necessarily be called "Eretz Yisrael,"

one may call it also "the land of <b>Canaan</b>,"³⁷

and the like,

for the <b>choice</b> of the Most High was "when He created

(the Holy One, blessed be He)

<b>the world</b>, He apportioned the lands to the other nations, <b>and chose</b> the Land of Israel."

According to this it comes out that also in the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael there are two matters: a)

From the aspect of the holiness of the land³⁸

(which this also pertains to the fulfillment of the commandments dependent on the land³⁹),

b)

b)

From the aspect of the choice of the Most High in Eretz Yisrael that He gave it to Jews⁴⁰.

6.

According to this are understood the words of the Rambam "Just as it is forbidden to leave the land for outside the land, so it is forbidden to leave Bavel for the other lands":

The prohibition of leaving that is connected with the holiness of the place,

from the aspect of its holiness,

applies only in Eretz &lt;b&gt;Yisrael; &lt;/b&gt;but not so the prohibition of leaving that comes from the aspect that the Almighty chose the place as a dwelling place for Jews,

in this it is equal

(at a specific time)

Bavel with EY: just as the Almighty chose EY for Jews as the place of complete freedom and redemption from the exile of Egypt*&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;,

and afterwards - for years in their proper order

(and Jews in their proper order),

so did the Almighty choose Bavel as the place of exile&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

for Jews&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;,

for the time of exile

(and Jews are related to "our sins")

And therefore the Rambam is precise "just as it is forbidden to leave &lt;b&gt;the land &lt;/b&gt;etc." - not "Eretz Yisrael",

but "the land"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;

with a definite article: &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;land that is from always designated and chosen from all lands by that which the Holy One, blessed be He, &lt;b&gt;chose &lt;/b&gt;it,

with which he emphasizes that the prohibition of leaving that he speaks &lt;b&gt;here &lt;/b&gt;is not from the aspect of &lt;b&gt;the holiness &lt;/b&gt;of Eretz Yisrael,

but from the aspect that the Almighty chose it as a land for Jews; and in the time of exile the same rationale applies to leaving Bavel just as to leaving EY.

7.

On this the Rambam brings the verse "as it is said, 'To Babylon they shall be brought, and there they shall be'" — a proof that the Almighty chose Babylon as the place of exile for Jews.

And although the verse speaks about the vessels of service,

and the Maharsha⁴⁴

says that according to this it is not a "language of command,"

rather "Jeremiah prophesies that it will be so,"

the Rambam does not learn thus,

rather even regarding the vessels of service this is also a <b>command,</b>

4.

5.

that one may not take out the vessels of service from Babylon even if there will be a possibility for it⁴⁵,

rather "there they shall be."

And from this one also understands regarding Jews,

that Babylon the Most High chose as their place of the place of exile,

and they may not go out from there⁴⁶.

And consequently it is understood,

that in this there is no difference between the time of the first exile and the time of the second exile,

since one finds that specifically Babylon the Most High chose as a place of exile in a manner of "there they shall be" of permanence,

in the manner of the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in the Land of Israel in a manner of permanence before the time of the redemption and the years in their proper order⁴⁷.

According to this, there may be another practical difference between the opinions of Rashi

(and Meiri)

and Rambam: according to Rashi,

that the reason for the prohibition is "because there are yeshivos that disseminate Torah" it is understood that in a case when the yeshivos that disseminate Torah are

(not in Babylonia,

but)

in another country,

the prohibition of leaving to other lands must apply there&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

; according to Rambam however,

that this is because of the Holy One, blessed be He's choice of Babylonia as the place of exile,

it is understood that the prohibition remains only regarding leaving Babylonia

(and not regarding leaving another place of Torah)&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;,

which is similar to the departure "from the Land to outside the Land."

8.

Based on this, the other nuances are explained: a)

Why the Rambam does not say "just as it is forbidden to leave the Land &lt;b&gt;to Babylonia&lt;/b&gt;".

b)

Why he does not say "so it is forbidden to leave Babylonia &lt;b&gt;to the Land of Israel&lt;/b&gt;"

(according to the Kesef Mishneh).

c)

Why he does not conclude - as in the Gemara - "until the day I attend to them, says the Lord."

In the prohibition of leaving the Land,

from the aspect of His choice by the Holy One, blessed be He,

Babylon is equal and is included in "outside the Land"; so too in the prohibition of leaving <b>Babylon,</b>

from the aspect of <b>the choice</b> of the Holy One, blessed be He

(as a place of exile),

is

(according to the Kesef Mishneh)

the Land of Israel equal to the rest of the lands; and accordingly it is also understood,

that here only "<b>To Babylon they shall be brought, and there they shall be,"</b> applies

that the Most High chose Babylon as a fixed place for exile,

but not the end of the verse⁵⁰.

In contrast, Rabbi Yosei in the Gemara indeed brings the end of the verse,

for he says "Whoever ascends from Babylon <b>to the Land of Israel</b> transgresses a positive commandment",

and in connection with ascending to the Land of Israel this is also

(and primarily)

emphasized in the end of the verse "until the day I remember them, says the Lord",

that one should not return to the Land of Israel "until the day I remember them".

9.

According to this, the continuation of the halachot in the Rambam is understandable: after the halachot⁵¹

and details of laws in the prohibition to dwell in the land of Egypt, and concluding that the prohibition "to dwell in it etc." is "because its deeds are <b>corrupt</b> more than all the lands etc." — he continues in halacha 9 with the opposite extreme: "It is forbidden to leave the Land of Israel to the Diaspora forever," which is <b>primarily</b> due to the <b>holiness</b> that exists in Eretz Yisrael relative to other lands.

And in this matter of the holiness of Eretz Yisrael, the Rambam continues in the subsequent halachot: "The great among the sages would kiss the borders of the Land of Israel etc.,

The sages said: Whoever dwells in the Land of Israel, his sins are forgiven etc."⁵²

And afterwards, first in halacha 12 he states the law "A person should always dwell in the Land of Israel even in a city that is mostly idolaters and should not dwell outside the land ..

for whoever goes out of the land is as if he worships idolatry, as it is said 'For they have driven me out today from attaching to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go serve other gods' and regarding punishment it says 'And to the land of Israel they shall not come'" -

What in this there is no determination from which matter this is,

There are both reasons: because of the unique holiness that is in the Land of Israel from the aspect of the indwelling of the Divine Presence,

As it is implied from the wording that "one who goes out of the land <b>is as if he worships idolatry</b>"⁵³,

Because of that which the Most High <b>chose</b> the Land of Israel

(And as it is implied in the "as it is said",

That he calls it

(And states the reason)

"Inheritance of the Lord")

And gave it to the Jews⁵⁴

(Opposite of the choice),

Not as in the Gemara⁵⁵

"That <b>whoever dwells in the Land of Israel</b> is comparable to one who has a God and <b>whoever dwells outside the land</b> is comparable to one who has no God"⁵⁶

(And so in this halacha <b>itself</b>),

And afterwards he hints also the second reason and elaborates and concludes "And to the land of <b>Israel</b>"].

And therefore the Rambam writes this at the end of all the laws of the virtue of Eretz Yisrael,

not

(as the order ostensibly should have been)

at the beginning of the laws of Eretz Yisrael — before the “<b>It is forbidden </b><b>to leave </b>Eretz Yisrael”⁵⁷,

because here he speaks

(also)

the virtue of the choice of Eretz Yisrael.

And therefore when he comes,

in continuation of this,

to the prohibition of leaving Bavel to other lands because of the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He,

he is precise “Just as it is forbidden to leave <b>the land</b>”,

which emphasizes that this prohibition of leaving is because of the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He,

in which the leaving of the land is equated with the prohibition “to leave Bavel etc.”,

as above.

10.

Based on this it is understood,

that we find several Amoraim who ascended from Babylonia to the Land of Israel,

and we do not have to say that they disagree with Rabbi Yehudah

(or with "Rabbi Yehudah said Shmuel")

Since the prohibition of leaving Babylonia for the Land of Israel

(and for other lands)

is like the prohibition of leaving the Land of Israel for Babylonia — from the aspect of the Holy One, blessed be He's choice

(not from the aspect of a specific reason — for example,

the desire of the kingdom — in Babylonia)

"Just as it is forbidden ...

so too it is forbidden",

it is understood

(and beyond this — all the more so and a fortiori)

that in this matter there are the same permissions as the prohibition of leaving,

i.

e.

exactly as regarding leaving the Land of Israel for outside the Land,

there are conditions when one may,

as the Rambam rules⁵⁸

"to study Torah etc. and likewise he goes out for business",

so too it is regarding ascending from Babylonia to the Land of Israel

(and leaving for other lands)

that if it is to study Torah⁵⁹

and for business

(and the like)

it is permitted to leave.

Since, however, that this is only a &lt;b&gt;permission&lt;/b&gt; for the sake of carrying out a purpose

(Torah,

merchandise),

so just as regarding the departure from Eretz Yisrael to outside the land according to the permitted conditions,

he also remains afterwards

(regarding our matter)

a son of Eretz Yisrael and he is obligated to return*&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;,

so too is it also regarding one who ascends from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael under the permitted conditions,

he also remains in Eretz Yisrael a son of Bavel

(from the aspect of the choice in Bavel as exile)

and he is obligated to return.

But there is a difference in the conditions and the purpose of the departure

(or the ascent)

: When he goes out &lt;b&gt;for merchandise,&lt;/b&gt;

there is in this a fixed term,

and when he earns he must return; in contrast, the one who goes out "to learn Torah",

which is without a fixed term,

then as long as he can still gain further in the study of Torah he may remain in Eretz Yisrael.

According to this, it is understood simply that several Amoraim ascended from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael,

because this was from &lt;b&gt;the &lt;/b&gt;permission; and those who remained there permanently, this was because so it was required from &lt;b&gt;their &lt;/b&gt;manner of Torah study&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;.

But by Rav and likewise by Shmuel,

although that also they ascended from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael,

in order to learn Torah,

but when they received there in Torah study from Rebbe etc. in a complete manner,

they had to return to Bavel&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;.

And furthermore: specifically in Bavel they later acquired that which they had learned in Eretz Yisrael,

in depth study and dialectic of Torah

(and dialectic of the students),

which in this was the advantage of Bavel over Eretz Yisrael⁶².

Yes.

Just as there are two virtues in Eretz Yisrael — that which the Holy One, blessed be He, chose it from all the lands and the holiness that is in it — so too are there both virtues also by Jews: that which Jews are those whom the Most High chose,

and that which Jews have in themselves holiness⁶³

by virtue of their connection with Torah and mitzvos.

And the difference between them: that which the Most High chose the Jews from other nations,

"And Your son You chose from every &lt;b&gt;nation and language&lt;/b&gt;",

is not connected with their virtue and holiness&lt;sup&gt;63&lt;/sup&gt;

from the side of Torah and commandments,

because then it is not a matter of choice; true choice applies in a manner where there is a similarity between two things from which one chooses&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;

- and with the power of choice one selects one of them.

And therefore,

since that from the side of the virtue of holiness and Torah and commandments there is no similarity between Jews and all the nations,

the matter of choice does not apply here.

One must say,

that the choice is not because of the holiness of Israel,

but on the contrary,

from the side of the choice of the Most High, holiness etc. was drawn into them.

According to this it turns out: that the connection of Jews with the Most High from the side of the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, is an essential one and touches the essence of Jews more than the connection from the side of their holiness and Torah and commandments,

which is,

as it were,

like an additional thing.

In clearer words: the connection of Jews with the Supreme One from the aspect of choice is like His essence and being connects with the essence and being of a Jew; the connection of Jews from the aspect of their holiness,

which comes through Torah and commandments which are His wisdom and will, blessed be He -

(for a commandment is indeed a term of joining and connection&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;,

he becomes thereby connected with the Supreme One; and so too through Torah,

that Israel are connected with the Torah and the Torah with the Holy One, blessed be He&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;)

it is then not in a manner that the essence of a Jew connects

(from the outset)

with His essence and being, blessed be He,

but rather this is through the Torah,

Torah and commandments.

And based on this is understood the precision in the words of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed: "&lt;b&gt;Three &lt;/b&gt;bonds&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;

are connected one with the other: Israel are connected with the Torah and the Torah with the Holy One, blessed be He" - for seemingly there are here only two bonds

(between Israel and the Torah and between the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He)?

Rather, the explanation is that besides the connection through the Torah, there is a bond which binds them, the Jews, with the Supreme One without any intermediary,

from the aspect of His choice, blessed be He&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;

and therefore it is three bonds

(in the likeness of a ring).

12.

Previously, the difference between the opinion of the Rambam and the opinion of Rashi was explained

(and the Meiri)

according to the Rambam, the prohibition to leave Babylonia for other lands is because of the Holy One's choice,

and according to Rashi — "because there are yeshivas there that spread Torah";

However, since there is a principle⁶⁹

that "we do not increase dispute,"

it can be said that also according to Rashi and the Meiri there is a matter of choice in Babylonia,

only the choice itself is connected with the holiness of the Torah that is in Babylonia,

and consequently, when in Babylonia the spreading of Torah ceases,

its choice is also nullified; but regarding the Land of Israel it is different,

and its choice is not because of the holiness that is in it

(on the contrary, the holiness comes because of and after the choice),

because since the Holy One's choice in the Land of Israel is an intrinsic choice

(- when He created the world),

it is the heritage of God,

and He gave it to Jews with an eternal covenant as the <b>intrinsic</b> place of Jews

(not like in Babylonia which is because of exile),

therefore there the choice is an eternal one,

and the matter of holiness etc. that is in the Land of Israel also effects the revelation of this choice.

It will be understood from this how the matter is among Jews:

Even though there is an advantage in the connection of Jews from the aspect of choice,

Israel and the Holy One, blessed be He,

which is from the aspect of His Essence, as above,

there is however also an advantage in the connection from the aspect of their holiness,

from the aspect of Torah and commandments:

In the connection from the aspect of choice alone,

since this is only from the aspect of the choice of <b>the Holy One, blessed be He</b> and not because of a certain virtue,

is even after the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, this is not seen in the chosen one in a revealed manner.

But not so the connection from the aspect of their holiness in Torah and mitzvos,

is indeed this a virtue in itself and revealed,

this itself is G‑dliness and revealed⁷⁰,

And consequently, through the connection that is through the Torah and mitzvos, thereby is also revealed the deeper bond of Jews with the Above,

the connection from the aspect of choice⁷¹.

Which according to this it is understood why one must arrive at that which Yisrael are connected to the Torah and the Torah to the Holy One, blessed be He,

although Jews are connected with G‑dliness itself from the aspect of His choice,

but this is because the revelation in the unity of choice among Jews comes through the bond with the Torah⁷².

13.

Based on this, it is understood also regarding Eretz Yisrael: Even though the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, is an eternal matter,

which becomes the essence of the chosen thing,

nevertheless,

since it comes from the aspect of the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He,

the revelation thereof is connected with the actual holiness that exists in Eretz Yisrael.

And it can be said that this is the reason why when the Rambam speaks about the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael and the like,

he does not distinguish explicitly between the two virtues — the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, and its holiness

(he emphasizes this only when he speaks regarding the prohibition of leaving Bavel,

as above),

because also the virtue of choice is connected,

regarding its revelation — with the holiness of Eretz Yisrael⁷³

And the ultimate perfection in this will be in the future,

which very soon "Yisrael, who are called nachalah, will come to the land that is called nachalah, and will build the Beis HaMikdash, which is called nachalah, in the merit of the Torah, which is called nachalah"⁷⁴.

(From sichos of Yud Shevat and Shabbos Parshas Beshalach 5736)