"Not content with linking certain mitzvot with location, the Ramban contends that the halakhic regimen in its totality is geared to Eretz Israel which constitutes a metaphysical and yet natural habitat for its realization. Basing himself, in part, upon a comment of the Sifre that the mitzvot of tefillin and mezuzah should be observed even in the Diaspora as a propaedeutic device for maintaining a mindset which should ensure their observance upon return to our native land, he notes that the remark apparently applies even to chovot haguf , personal, as opposed to agricultural, obligations; and hence, he boldly draws the inference concerning the intrinsic bond between normative content and geographic context to Eretz Israel which constitutes a metaphysical and yet natural habitat for its realization. Basing himself, in part, upon a comment of the Sifre that the mitzvot of tefillin and mezuzah should be observed even in the Diaspora as a propaedeutic device for maintaining a mindset which should ensure their observance upon return to our native land, he notes that the remark apparently applies even to chovot haguf , personal, as opposed to agricultural, obligations; and hence, he boldly draws the inference concerning the intrinsic bond between normative content and geographic context.
This is, I repeat, a bold thesis, and one which, despite my enormous admiration and respect for the Ramban, I have great personal difficulty in digesting. Is it conceivable, we ask ourselves, that the
avodat Hashem (serving God) and kiyum mitzvot (fulfillment of mitzvot) of many gedolei
Israel kedoshim hasidei elyon (religious leaders, holy and of the highest piety), had only instrumental, but no intrinsic, value? And even if we circumscribe the comment to refer to specific acts but not to the totality of avodah, or if we suggest that the Ramban only delimits the rationale for Diaspora Halakhah but not its character, once commanded, does not this still demean the tefillin of the Rif or the Gra and diminish their significance?"
This is, I repeat, a bold thesis, and one which, despite my enormous admiration and respect for the Ramban, I have great personal difficulty in digesting. Is it conceivable, we ask ourselves, that the
avodat Hashem (serving God) and kiyum mitzvot (fulfillment of mitzvot) of many gedolei
Israel kedoshim hasidei elyon (religious leaders, holy and of the highest piety), had only instrumental, but no intrinsic, value? And even if we circumscribe the comment to refer to specific acts but not to the totality of avodah, or if we suggest that the Ramban only delimits the rationale for Diaspora Halakhah but not its character, once commanded, does not this still demean the tefillin of the Rif or the Gra and diminish their significance?"
[Rav Aharon Lichtenstein: Diaspora Religious Zionism - Some Current Reflections]
