Medieval philosophers and mystics continued the discussion of the special status of the Land and its intrinsic holiness; some saw it as the center of the earth." A Talmudic statement considered prophecy to be limited to the Land(M.K. 25a), as did Yehudah Halevi (Kuzari 1.12).
The Talmud had already questioned whether the Land of Israel retained its sanctity after the destruction of the Temple; for the Babylonian Talmud , Babylonia was a legitimate center for Jewish life. The Shekhinah was seen as moving with the people of Israel wherever they went(Sifrei B'haalotkha 84; Meg 29a). Whether the Shekhinah favored one center of learning over another was discussed; there was general agreement that It was present in the synagogue. Some moved the entire question to the distant future, so Eleazar Hakaffar stated that“in time[Italics mine] the schools and synagogues of Babylonia would be planted in Israel ”(Meg 29a). Other Talmudic statements insisted on the centrality of Israel by claiming that those who lived outside Israel had no God (Ket. 110b). The discussion continues through the centuries, often modified to refer only to the period of the Temple but not to the present (as Rashi[Gen. 17:8]) or to refer only to those who left Israel (as Maimonides [Yad Hil. Melakhim 5.12]).
The theological position already taken by the prophetic literature of the Bible was echoed in the rabbinic writings. Some scholars saw exile from the Land of Israel as divine punishment for Israel ’s sins. God would decide when redemption became possible, and God would bring us back; action on the part of the community was unnecessary and not to be encouraged. In other words, the condition of Diaspora was considered normal until the“end of days.