THE PRIMACY OF THE DIASPORA
to the Land of Israel. The numbers mentioned were probably vastly exaggerated, but a significant number of scholars did settle there.” Their motivation may have been a desire to fulfill the commandments dependent on the Land or the Messianic prophecy. Yet the same Tosafists who had moved later commanded their sons to leave Israel and return to France , where they could study Torah more readily.” In any case, there was nothing like it earlier or later. Interestingly enough, a Tosafist, R. Haim Cohen, provided a rationale for the Diaspora by stating that the dangers of the journey relieved all Jews from the mitzvah of aliyah. Furthermore, Jews did not need to go to the Land of Israel because of the present dangers and because we could not execute those mitzvot dependent upon the Land that could not be fulfilled until the Temple was restored (Tosfot to Ket 110b). This statement commented on a Talmudic section that dealt with the right of a husband to force all the members of his household to settle in Jerusalem . Later, R. Shelo
moh b. Aderet, while acknowledging the importance of aliyah, listed all the reasons for not following this mitzvah, as other factors were more important. He listed Torah study, various family reasons, and other serious problems for not making aliyah.** Other
tenth-century Tosafists agreed with R. Cohen.”
The first medieval scholar to make resettlement in the Land of Israel primary among all mitzvot was Nahmanides (1194-1270). He vigorously denounced Maimonides ’ failure to include this mitzvah aniong the 613; for him it was more important than all the rest.”* He stressed this mitzvah as well in other writings, most forcefully in a lengthy lecture for Rosh Hashanah . Despite these feelings, Nahmanides himself settled in the Land of Israel only at the end of his life, living his last three years there. A major controversy followed, partially about this issue but more about
156