Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

The words, milchemet mitzvah, mean “a war which is a mitzvah.” Waging each of the three wars mentioned in this halachah fulfills one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
Sifri, Ekev, relates that God criticized David for conquering Syria before he conquered the totality of Eretz Yisrael. The conquest of Eretz Yisrael is a milchemet mitzvah, while the conquest of Syria was not. God rebuked him, “You did not drive out the Jebusites living close to your own palace and yet, you found it necessary to conquer Aram.”

See Halachah 4.

See Halachah 5.

In his commentary to the Mishnah, Sotah 8:6, the Rambam differentiates between the two wars previously mentioned and the war that follows. He describes the previous two wars as chovah, an obligation and the latter as mitzvah, fulfilling God’s command. See also Sotah 44b.

Leviticus 19:16 commands “Do not stand still over your neighbor’s blood.” Sefer HaMitzvot (neg. command 297) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 237) interpret this verse as a mitzvah to protect a Jew’s life when he is in danger. As an extension of that principle, Numbers 10:9 obligates us to “go to war against an enemy who attacks you...,” promising that “you will be remembered by God and delivered from your enemies.” See also Eruvin 45a.
This principle applies in the Diaspora, as well as in Eretz Yisrael. Accordingly, the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 229:6, relates that if gentiles attack Jews, even on the Sabbath, it is a mitzvah to organize a defense force and mount a counter-attack.
The Ramah adds that even if the enemy have not mounted their attack, but it is well known that they desire to attack the Jews, war should be waged against them. This concept has contemporary relevance as well. For example, based on this principle, many of the Rabbinic leaders in Eretz Yisrael declared the 1982 war in Lebanon a milchemet mitzvah, for the Palestinians made no secret of their desire to attack the Jews.

Once the totality of Eretz Yisrael has been conquered, Amalek annihilated, and there is no danger posed to Jewish settlements.

I.e., to conquer additional territory.

Also implied is the acquisition of wealth through plunder as obvious from Berachot 3b.

This also has a certain military value. Enhancing Israel’s reputation will make other nations less eager to attack her.

The Sanhderin, Israel’s highest court, composed of 71 judges.
This Halachah is derived by analysis of the wording used in Sanhderin 2a and 20b. In both places, the Mishnah states that the king needs the approval of the Sanhderin to wage a milchemet hareshut, implying that their approval need not be sought for a milchemet mitzvah.

The Ramban (Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 17) adds that it is also necessary for the king to consult the urim vitumim as oracles before embarking on any war, even a milchemet mitzvah.
Berachot 3a states explicitly that David would consult the urim vitumim before a milchemet hareshut. Similarly, the commentaries (Ramban, Rashi) on Numbers 27:21 explain that Joshua would consult the urim vitumim regarding the conquest of Eretz Yisrael which is a milchemet mitzvah.
Although here, the Rambam does not mention the urim vitumim in regard to either of these wars, in Hilchot Klei HaMikdash which describe the consultation of the urim vitumim, he mentions inquiring of them before setting out to wage war.

As explained in Halachah 7:4, the entire nation, even a groom from his marriage chamber, may be mustered for a milchemet mitzvah.

From the Rambam’s words, it appears that after the nullification of the Sanhderin, the Jewish people are only able to fight defensive wars.

The bracketed additions are based on Rashi’s commentary, Sanhderin 20b.

To allow for passage of his troops. Significantly, Rashi, loc. cit., appears to interpret the Talmudic passage as referring to the king’s right to requisition property to provide food for his troops.

On the contrary, a person who does so is considered as rebelling against the king and is liable to be punished accordingly.

To the width or length.

Bava Batra 100b relates that normally a public thorough-fare is 16 cubits wide; the highways leading to the cities of refuge, 32 cubits; and “there is no limit to the road a king may make.”

Though, as explained in Chapter 6, Halachot 8-10, we are prohibited from wantonly destroying fruit-bearing trees, the king is allowed to proceed to his battle field without making any deviation. See also Bava Kama 60b.

Apparently, this Halachah applies both in regard to a milchemet mitzvah and a milchemet hareshut (Lechem Mishneh).

See Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 187), Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 425).

The Canaanites, Chittites, Amorites, Girgishites, Perizzites, Chivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1).

In Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.), the Rambam explains that these nations were to be destroyed because they were "the essence of idol-worship." Otherwise, God feared that Israel would learn from their behavior. As related frequently in the Book of Judges, Israel's hesitation in fulfilling this command showed how well-founded these fears were.

The use of the expression “anyone” has significant implications. At the conclusion of the section of Sefer HaMitzvot dealing with positive commandments, the Rambam explains that certain commandments are incumbent on the nation as a whole and others, on each person as an individual.
The commentaries explain that the mitzvah to annihilate the seven nations is incumbent on the nation as a whole. In contrast, the prohibition against allowing a Canaanite to live is an individual responsibility.

See Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 49, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 528.

See also the commentary to Chapter 6, Halachah 4.

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 187) states that David completed the destruction of these nations except for a small remnant who became assimilated among the other nations without preserving their identity.
In his description of this mitzvah, the Rambam touches on a point of debate. When he defined the governing principles for including a command as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah, the Rambam specified that a mitzvah must be a command for eternity and not for a specific time period alone. On that basis, a number of commands, for example, the command to wage war against Midian (Numbers 7:2), were excluded from this reckoning.
The Rambam explains that the command to annihilate the Canaanites should be considered a mitzvah, though it can no longer be fulfilled, because a time limit was never placed on the mitzvah itself. Had these nations’ identity not been obliterated in the previous generations, we would still be obligated to destroy them today. In contrast, the mitzvah to wage war against the Midianites was only an immediate proposition. There was no mitzvah to continue this struggle in the coming generations.

See Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 188, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 604.

In his explanation of the mitzvah to annihilate the seven nation in Sefer HaMitzvot, the Rambam writes that, in contrast to the seven nations, Amalek still exists today.

The mitzvah to obliterate Amalek is more inclusive than that destroy the seven nations. AII traces of Amalek’s identity must be wiped out. Even their herds and cattle must be slain. In contrast, spoil could be taken from the seven nations. (See Sifri, Ki Teitzei and the commentary of Rav Yosef Caro on the Tur, Orach Chayim 690).

See Sefer HaMitzvot, positive commandment 189, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 603.

Exodus 17:8-16 describes how Amalek attacked Israel at the beginning of the journey through the desert. Deuteronomy (loc. cit.) explains that Amalek did not attack Israel head on. Rather, they ambushed the stragglers who tarried behind the entire camp.
Amalek’s attack had a particularly negative aspect. After the miracles of the ten plagues and the splitting of the Red Sea, no other nation would have dared to attack the Jews. Undaunted, Amalek challenged them in battle. Although they were severely beaten, they reduced the awe with which the nations had regarded the Jews.

Megillah 18a explains that we are obligated to make a verbal statement recalling Amalek’s attack. Therefore, each year before Purim, the passage from Deuteronomy mentioning Amalek is read from the Torah. This time was chosen because Purim commemorates the downfall of Haman, who was a descendant of Amalek. In addition, certain communities follow the custom of reciting this passage every day.
However, by using the term “constantly” above, the Rambam implies that these readings do not represent a complete fulfillment of the mitzvah. Rather, the remembrance of Amalek must always be in our minds.

This is also counted as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot (Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 59, Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah 605).

As mentioned in Halachah 2, the approval of the court is necessary, for these wars are milchamot hareshut.

Hilchot Terumah 1:2 states:
Eretz Yisrael as referred to at all times is defined as lands conquered by a king of Israel or a prophet with the backing of the majority of Israel. This is referred to as a “conquest of the people at large.”
However, if an individual, family, or tribe of Israel go and conquer a place on their own, even if it is within the land promised to Abraham, it is not considered Eretz Yisrael with regard to the observance of the mitzvot.

The Sifri, Ekev derives this principle as follows:
Deuteronomy 11:24 states: “Every place upon which your feet tread shall belong to you.” Why is this verse necessary?
Its purpose cannot be the definition of the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael, for the same verse continues “Your boundaries shall extend from the desert [to] the Lebanon, from the river, the Euphrates...” Thus, we must conclude that it teaches that every place which you conquer beyond these boundaries is yours... and the mitzvot [applicable to Eretz Yisrael] must be kept there.

Hilchot Terumah 1:7 defines the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael as conquered by Joshua and the subsequent leaders as follows (see the map on page 41):
[The southern border runs] from Rekem in the east... to the Mediterrean Sea. [The western border] is the Mediterranean Sea from Ashkelon, in the south... to Akko in the north. From Akko, one proceeds [northeastward to Kziv. The area to one’s right, on the east, can generally be assumed to be of the Diaspora unless it is specifically known that it was part of Eretz Yisrael. The area to one’s left, to the west, can generally be assumed to be part of Eretz Yisrael unless it is specifically known to be part of the Diaspora. From the slopes of the Umenum Mountains and to the south is Eretz Yisrael,... to the north, the Diaspora.

Hilchot Terumah 1:3 states: “The lands which David conquered outside of Eretz Canaan... are not considered Eretz Yisrael... even though he was a king and his deeds were approved by the Sanhderin....
“Why were they given a lesser status than Eretz Yisrael, because David conquered them before he conquered all of Eretz Yisrael.”
See also the commentary to Halachah 1 and the Sifri quoted there.

As explained in Halachot 9-12, there is a great advantage in living in Eretz Yisrael. However, a Jew is not obligated to dwell there and may settle in other lands as well.

A parsah is a Persian measure of distance (parsang) approximately 4 kilometers in modern measure.

Modern day Ethiopia, according to most commentaries. Similarly, Ezekiel 29:10 places Kush as Egypt’s southern border. Shmot Rabbah 10:2 relates that there were frequently border squabbles between Kush and Egypt.

The Sahara. Its eastern border is the lake of Alexandria (Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 46).

Sefer HaMitzvot (ibid.) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 500) include this prohibition as one of the Torah’s 613 mitzvot. AII of the three admonitions are considered as one negative commandment.
The Kaftor ViPerach, Chapter 8, relates that frequently, the Rambam would sign his correspondence: “The writer who transgress three prohibitions every day.”

Sukkah 51 b relates that Alexander the Great massacred millions of Jews in his conquest of that city. This punishment came as retribution for their violation of this prohibition.

Both to buy and sell merchandise.

See the Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhderin 10:8.

The Hagahot Maimoniot notes that throughout the ages, Jews have settled in Egypt. Frequently, the Egyptian Jewish community was large, wealthy, and influential. Even the Rambam himself lived there.
The Radbaz offers a number of explanations for this phenomenon. Firstly, he mentions the opinion of the Yereim (309), although he rejects it as insufficient, that the prohibition consists of "returning on this way," i.e. from Eretz Yisrael to Egypt.
Secondly, he mentions that most of the people who settled in Egypt did not originally come for the purpose of settling there. Rather, they came to engage in trade, but economic and social pressures elsewhere caused them to make their stay permanent. Hence, their initial entry was not forbidden. In regard to the continuance of their stay, it is possible that their Torah authorities had a more lenient view than the Rambam.
In regard to the Rambam himself, the Radbaz explain that he was forced to stay in Egypt by the Sultan who appointed him as his personal physician and would not let him leave.
In the same statement, the Radbaz explains that he personally lived in Egypt for many years. He originally came for the purpose of studying Torah. He stayed to teach others and ultimately, made aliyah to Jerusalem.
The Kabbalistic Sage, Rabbi Isaac Luria, who also lived in Egypt, explains the concept from a mystical perspective (Pri Etz Chayim, Section 8, Chapter 3).
Every aspect of creation possesses a Godly spark which gives it life and maintains its existence. However, the material nature of the world conceals this inner Godliness and prevents its expression. The purpose of a Jew’s life is to elevate and refine the environment in which he lives, revealing the Godliness concealed in the world's physical substance.
When the Jews left Egypt after the years of bondage, they took with it all her material wealth, leaving it "as a granary without wheat, a net without fish" (Berachot 9b). Together with the country’s material assets, they also removed her spiritual possessions, the Godly sparks allotted to that land. A Jew was forbidden to go back to Egypt because there was nothing for him to do there. All the Godliness had already been elevated.
However, with the passage of centuries, people came to Egypt from other lands, bringing with them Godly sparks from their native countries. Accordingly, there was a need for Jews to elevate these Godly sparks and hence, the Egyptian Jewish community was renewed.

For one may enter for commercial purposes.

An earthly court cannot administer punishment whenever there is no deed involved in the violation of a Torah prohibition (Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:2). Thought is not considered a deed. Thus, once a person is already located in Egypt, his decision to stay does not warrant punishment. Nevertheless, it does constitute a violation of a Torah command.

This phrase introduces a conclusion reached by the Rambam that has no explicit source in previous. Rabbinic literature.

For then, it would no longer be considered Egypt, but rather, part of Eretz Yisrael.

Here, the word “individuals” implies people and communities other than the king and the Sanhderin who represent the people as a whole.

Many authorities (see Minchat Chinuch, Mitvah 500, Chayim Sha’al, Responsum 91) rationalize the existence of Jewish communities in Egypt as follows: The prohibition against dwelling in Egypt was instituted lest the Jews emulate the depraved behavior of the Egyptians. When Sannecherib conquered the world, he engaged in a process of mass population transfer, moving nations from one land to another to the point that none of Israel’s neighbors were able to preserve their national identities.
Thus, though Deuteronomy 23:8-9 forbids marriage with an Egyptian convert until three generations pass, the Rambam maintains that this prohibition is no longer applicable. For “the Egyptians presently dwelling in the land of Egypt are of a different nationality” than those who initially inhabited that land (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:5).
Similarly, these authorities maintain that the prohibition against dwelling in Egypt is also dependent on the presence of the original Egyptians. Hence, since they no longer live in Egypt, a Jew is not forbidden to live there.
(The commentaries note that this opinion appears to run contrary to Sukkah 51b quoted above which states that the massacre perpetrated by Alexander the Great, many years after Sannecherib’s conquest, took place as retribution for the Jews settling in Egypt.)
The Rambam also does not accept this view. He maintains that the prohibition stems from the land itself. As long as it is inhabited by gentiles, the nature of the land itself will impart depraved character traits to its inhabitants. (Note a similar concept in BaMidbar Rabbah 20:22.) Only when it will be conquered by the Jews and incorporated into Eretz Yisrael will this nature change.

There are three aspects to the uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael: a) the holiness of the land. Kelim (1:6, quoted by the R.ambam, Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 7:12) states that Eretz Yisrael is holier than all other lands. Note the Mishnah Achronah which explains that this holiness is a totally independent factor than the obligation to perform mitzvot there. b) There are many mitzvot that can be fulfilled only there. In his commentary to Bava Batra 91 a, the Rashbam writes that the prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisrael was instituted because by doing so, a person forsakes the mitzvot. (See also Tashbaytz, Responsum Vol. 111, 200; Maharit, Vol. 1, Responsa 47.) c) God’s choice of the land. “Eretz Yisrael is dear... for when God created the world he apportioned the other lands to the... nations, and chose Eretz Yisrael (Midrash Tanchuma, Re’eh).

In his Hosafot to Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 4), the Ramban counts the mitzvah of conquering and settling Eretz Yisrael as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
The Rambam does not subscribe to this view. Though this and the following three Halachot emphasize the great importance and dearness of Eretz Yisrael, as evident from Halachah 7, the Rambam does not consider a Jew obligated to live there.
To explain in greater detail. According to the Rambam, the mitzvah to annihilate the seven Canaanite nations also includes the mitzvah to conquer Eretz Yisrael. This mitzvah is incumbent on the people as a whole. There is no mitzvah incumbent on an individual to settle in Eretz Yisrael. The Raman, by contrast, maintains that every person has an individual obligation to settle Eretz Yisrael.
Although according to the Rambam, living in Eretz Yisrael is riot a mitzvah, a person is allowed to leave Eretz Yisrael only for the reasons mentioned below. The commentaries question whether the obligation to remain in Eretz Yisrael applies only to those who live there permanently or also, to those come as tourists or on business.

Permission is granted to leave Eretz Yisrael to study Torah because of its fundamental importance in Jewish life. One’s entire Jewish practice depends on one’s study.
This license is even granted when there are qualified teachers in Eretz Yisrael for each person’s nature differs and it is necessary to find a teacher with whom he feels comfortable (Avodah Zarah 13a).
Many authorities grant license to leave Eretz Yisrael for the purpose of teaching others Torah (Siddur Ya’avetz, Sulam Bet El 6)

Marriage endows a person with stability and personal equilibrium. Similarly, it allows one to fulfill the mitzvah of “be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, it was considered sufficiently important to allow one to leave Eretz Yisrael.
The Shialtot D’Rabbenu Achai Gaon maintain that Torah study and marriage are only mentioned as examples and a person may leave Eretz Yisrael in order to perform other mitzvot as well. However, this view is not accepted by most commentaries. They maintain that leniency was granted in these two instances alone because of their paramount importance.

On a number of occasions, the Talmud grants leniencies because “a person becomes overly agitated when his property is at stake.” For example, because of this tendency, Shabbat 120a relaxes certain facets of the prohibition against moving objects from one domain to another to allow a person to save his property from fire. Based on the same principle, Avodah Zarah (ibid.) allows an individual to temporarily leave Eretz Yisrael to sue gentiles or rescue one’s property in other ways.

Rav Chaninah forbade a Torah scholar from going from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to fulfill the mitzvah of yibbum (marrying the widow of his childless brother) because the marriage would require him to settle in the latter place (Ketubot 111a).

Mo’ed Kattan 14a explains that leaving Eretz Yisrael to do business is equivalent to leaving to obtain food. For through this commercial activity, one will be able to sustain himself and family.

When inflation has reached the point that basic living necessities are being sold at double their normal price, one can permanently leave Eretz Yisrael. It can possibly be inferred that one may leave temporarily under less severe conditions.

Bava Batra 91a mentions one opinion which allows a person to leave Eretz Yisrael in the face of inflation only if he cannot purchase his basic necessities. Since the Rambam does not make this qualification, we may assume he does not accept it (see Kessef Mishneh).

Eruvin 82b relates that once food was being sold at half the market price in Tiberias and yet, the city was filled with people starving from famine because there was no money available.

Pikuach Nefesh, risk of life, supercedes observance of all the mitzvot of the Torah. However, if there is no danger to life, it is pious to remain in Eretz Yisrael though a certain degree of privation is involved.

The husband and brother-in-law of Ruth.

Though they left in a year of severe famine (Ruth 1:1), they were punished by death for abandoning Eretz Yisrael. The Alshich explains that they were punished because they were the only family that left. Though the rest of Israel also suffered severely from the famine, none considered leaving Eretz Yisrael.

Acre is on the northern border of Eretz Yisrael. Before he left the land or when he entered, Rav Abbah would kiss its stones as a sign of endearment (Ketubot 112a).
The Talmud continues, relating that “Rabbi Chaninah would lift up its stones.” Rashi explains that he would remove obstacles from the streets of that city so that people coming to Eretz Yisrael would not receive a bad impression.
Tosafot, basing its commentary on Midrash Tanchuma, Shelach, relates that when Rabbi Chanina made aliyah from Babylonia, he frequently asked whether he had already entered Eretz Yisrael. No one could answer him.
To clarify the matter, he would pick up the stones and weigh them in his hands. When the stones were light, he was sure that he had not left the Diaspora. However, when he felt that the stones were heavier, he lifted them to his mouth and kissed them. “These are the stones of Eretz Yisrael,” he exclaimed. Afterwards, he recited the verse from Psalms quoted above.

Rav Chiyah bar Gamda would follow this practice out of his love for the land (Ketubot 112b).

Commenting on this verse, Rashi relates that the exiles carried with them stones from Jerusalem to Babylon to build a synagogue there.

Metzudat David interprets this verse as follows: The inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be sick because of difficulties and troubles. They will not be plagued with these for all their sins will be forgiven.

Ketubot 111a relates that being buried in Eretz Yisrael is like being buried under the Temple altar.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 9:5) relates that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi bar Keria saw coffins being brought to Eretz Yisrael. The latter commented: “Why bother to bring them now? Why didn’t they live in Eretz Yisrael? The verse (Jeremiah 2:7): ‘You have come and made My land impure’ applies to them.”
Rebbi Eliezer answered: “As soon as they enter Eretz Yisrael and its dirt is placed on their coffins, they are granted atonement. The land atones for them.”
The Hagahot Maimoniot explains that it is also customary to place earth from Eretz Yisrael in the graves of people buried in the Diaspora.

The Sages decreed that the earth of any country outside Eretz Yisrael is ritually impure (Gittin 8b).
Amatziah, priest of Bethel, wanted to banish Amos from Samaria. Amos responded to him harshly, prophesying “Your wife will be a harlot in the city. Your sons and daughters will die by the sword. You shall die in an impure land and Israel will be exiled from her land.”

The Sage, Ulah, would frequently visit Eretz Yisrael. However, he died in the Diaspora. When his students informed Rav Eliezar of his passing, the latter exclaimed: “Ulah! Why was it fitting for the fulfillment of the prophesy ‘you shall die in an impure land’ to befall you?”
The students protested that he would be buried in Eretz Yisrael. However, Rav Eliezer did not accept that rationalization, replying as quoted by the Rambam (Ketubot 111a).

Who commanded Joseph to bury him in Eretz Yisrael (Genesis 47:30).

Who made the Jews swear to take his coffin with them from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael when they would be redeemed (Genesis 50:25). Note the comments of Ketubot 111a.

Certain authorities maintain that living in Eretz Yisrael is only significant when the Temple is standing. Tosafot, Ketubot 110b explains that at present, when we are unsure of how to fulfill many of the agricultural laws of Eretz Yisrael, there is no obligation to live there. With the expression, "at all times," the Rambam negates both these views.

The Tosefta, Ketubot writes that generally a high priority is placed on living in a Jewish environment. Similarly, in Hilchot De’ot 6:1, the Rambam writes:
It is human nature for a person’s... behavior to resemble that of the inhabitants of his country. Therefore, a person should always associate with the righteous and dwell among wise men, so that he will learn from their behavior... Similarly, if he is in a country whose ways are bad and whose inhabitants do not follow a straight path, he should go to a place whose inhabitants are righteous....
Nevertheless, these factors are of lower priority than living in Eretz Yisrael.

Ketubot (ibid.) quotes the same principle as the Rambam, but uses the expression: “Whoever lives in the Diaspora...” rather than “whoever leaves...” (The exact expression employed by the Rambam is also used by Torat Kohanim, Behar.) By choosing the word “leave,” the Rambam emphasizes that the criticism is directed at someone who departs from Eretz Yisrael and forsakes the land chosen by God.

These statements were made by David to King Saul. He asked the king if his decision: to pursue him was inspired by God or if men had urged him to that step. He continued: If they be men: "Cursed be they..., because they have driven me out..."
The commentaries declare: Saul’s advisors would never have thought of having David worship idols. However, his forced departure from Eretz Yisrael could be equated to that sin.

Ezekiel prophesied against the false prophets who consoled Israel with vain visions of grandeur rather than warn them to repent and return to God. Among his curses was: "They shall not come...."
When Rav Eliezar made aliyah, he offered thanks to God for preventing this curse from befalling him (Ketubot 112a).

Rather than use the expression Eretz Yisrael as previously in the chapter, in this statement, the Rambam uses the expression,” the land.” He chose the terminology to emphasize the aspect of God’s choice for, as will be explained, a parallel to this quality exists in regard to Babylonia...

The source for this law is Ketubot 111a. Rashi, in his commentary on that passage, explains that one is prohibited from leaving Babylon because “it is a place of Torah and yeshivot are located there.”
By quoting the above verse as the source, the Rambam implies that the Jews should remain in Babylon, for that is the place God choose for them to be exiled until He “takes heed of them... and restores them” to Eretz Yisrael. Hence, just as there is a prohibition to leave Eretz Yisrael because it is God’s chosen land, similarly, there is a prohibition to leave Babylon for that land was chosen for the Jews while in exile.