For purposes of clarity and source reference, it is required that authoritative Jewish texts be summoned to demonstrate the position stated above. To begin this exploration, the topic of a Jewish homeland and its natural consequence, a Jewish polity, are to be examined.

The Rambam (Mimonides) writes:

It is forbidden at all times to leave Eretz Yisrael for the Diaspora except: to study Torah; to marry; or to save [one's property] from the gentiles [lit. the worshippers of the stars and signs]. [After accomplishing these ends,] one must return to Eretz Yisrael.

Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 9.1

Maimonides continues in the same halakha:

Similarly, one may leave Eretz Yisrael to do business. However, it is forbidden [to leave with the intent] of settling permanently in the Diaspora unless the famine in [the land] is so severe that a dinar's worth of wheat is sold at two dinars. When do these conditions apply? When one possesses financial resources and food is expensive. However, if food is inexpensive, but a person cannot find financial resources or employment and has no money available, he may leave and go to any place where he can find relief. Although it is permitted to leave [Eretz Yisrael] under these circumstances, it is not pious behavior. Behold, Mahlon and Kilyon were two of the great men of the generation [of Ruth] and they left [Eretz Yisrael] only out of great distress. Nevertheless, they were considered by G-d to be worthy of death. [2]

Source for Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 9:

Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra, 91a, Our Rabbis taught: It is not permitted to go forth from the Land of Israel to a foreign country unless two se'ahs are sold for one sela'. R. Shimon said: [This is permitted only] when one cannot find [anything] to buy, but when one is able [to find something] to buy, even if a se'ah cost a sela' one must not depart. And so said R. Shimon b. Yohai: Elimelekh, Mahlon and Kilyon were [of the] great men of their generation, and they were [also] leaders of their generation. Why, then, were they punished? Because they left Eretz Yisrael for a foreign country; for it is written, And all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: Is this Naomi? What [is meant by] 'is this Naomi?' -- R. Yitzhak said: They said, 'Did you see what befell Naomi who left Eretz Yisrael for a foreign country?'

Talmud Bavli, Bava Batra, 91a, R. Hanan b. Raba said in the name of Rav: Elimelekh and Salmon and Peloni Almoni and the father of Naomi all were sons of Nahshon, the son of Aminadav [Sh'mot 5:23]. What does he come to teach us [by this statement]? -- That even the merit of one's ancestors is of no avail when one leaves the Land for a foreign country.

Rational thought dictates that a man not leave his household in most circumstances and especially in times of difficulty. At the moment in which desperation is at hand, the virtuous display fortitude, strength and most of all presence. The act of leaving, to be conceived of as moral, would require great benefit for the whole of the family and its purposes. When the nation of Israel is understood as the obligation of all its members it is easier to make the comparison to a family and household. As to the reverence placed upon the meaning of holiness ascribed to the Land is, of course, parabolic and intended to draw our attention to the overall significance of Eretz Israel to the purposes of the Jewish people. Without the Land the polity could not exist. Just as without a dwelling place a family is but more individuals in a group, not significant or unique in their identity or culture, mores or habits. A very often quoted reference to this idea is the following halakha.

Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 10.

Great Sages would kiss the borders of Eretz Yisrael, kiss its stones, and roll in its dust. Similarly, it says: Behold, your servants hold her stones dear and cherish her dust. [Tehillim 102:15][3]

Source for Halakha 10:

Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 112a, R. Hisda stated: What [was meant] by the Scriptural text, I give thee a pleasant land, the heritage of the deer? Why was the Land of Israel compared to a deer? -- To tell that as the skin of a deer cannot contain its flesh so cannot the Land of Israel contain its produce. Another explanation: As the deer is the swiftest among the animals so is the Land of Israel the swiftest of all lands in the ripening of its fruit. If [one should suggest that] as the deer is swift but his flesh is not fat so is the Land of Israel swift to ripen but its fruits are not rich, it was explicitly stated in Scripture, Flowing with milk and honey [thus indicating that they are] richer than milk and honey.

When R. Zera went up to the Land of Israel and could not find a ferry wherein to cross [a certain river] he grasped a rope bridge and crossed. Thereupon a certain Sadducee sneered at him: 'Hasty people, that put your mouths before your ears [Na'ase V'nishma' -- Sh'mot 24:7], you are still, as ever, clinging to your hastiness.' 'The spot,' the former replied, 'which Moshe and Aharon were not worthy [of entering], who could assure me that I should be worthy?' R. Abba used to kiss the cliffs of Acco. R. Hannina used to repair its obstacles. R. Ammi and R. Assi used to rise [from their seats to move] from the sun to the shade and from to the shade to the sun. R. Hiyya b. Gamda rolled himself in its dust, for it is said in the Scripture, For Thy servants take pleasure in her stones, and love her dust. [Tehillim 102:15]

The parabolic reference to the Land is very clear. The reason for the Land is its existence as place, not just any place, but the place in which revelation is to be actualized. The meaning of the deer and of the milk and honey becomes obvious when understood as it was intended by the Sages. That is, as the place in which the maturation of the true polity is possible only through the use of the laws that instruct the taking of the Land in the first place. The polity dictated by the law exceeds the otherwise and commonly accepted use of the Land. The concepts as articulated by the authentic Jewish polity once actualized indeed exceed the physical borders of the Land and have universal consequences.

A Jew who dwells in the Land ultimately is a reference to the Jew that not only subsists in Eretz Israel, but lives according to the statues defining life in the Land. Therefore, even one who transgresses is afforded forgiveness within the scope of the law of the Jewish polity. It is the system of law that gives definition to habitation in the Land and as a consequence, meaning to the Land. The halakha relating to this issue is the following.

Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 11.

The Sages said: The transgressions of one who dwells in Eretz Yisrael are forgiven, as it says: The inhabitant shall not say, 'I am sick.' The people who dwell there shall be forgiven for their transgressions. [Isaiah 33:24]

Even one who walks four cubits there will merit the World to Come and one who is buried there receives atonement as though the place in which he is were an altar of atonement, as it says: His land will atone for his people. [D'varim 32:43] [In contrast, the prophet, Amos [Amos 7:17], used the expression] You shall die in an impure land -- a prophecy of retribution.

There is no comparison between [the merit of] a person who lives in Eretz Yisrael and one brought there after death [for burial]. Nevertheless, great Sages would bring their dead there. Take an example from our Fathers, Ya'akov and Yosef, the righteous.

Source for Halakha 11:

Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 111a, R. Eleazar said: Whoever is domiciled in the Land of Israel lives without transgression, for it is said in Scripture, And the inhabitants shall not say, 'I am sick'; the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity. [Isaiah 33:24] Said Raba to Rav Ashi: we apply this to those who suffer from disease.

R. Anan said: Whosoever is buried in the Land of Israel is deemed to be buried under the altar; since in the latter it is written in Scripture, An altar of earth shalt thou make for me, [Sh'mot 20:21] and in respect to the former it is written in Scripture, And his land doth make expiation for his people. [D'varim 32:43]

. . . And the spirit to walk therein [Isaiah 42:5], of it, said R. Yirmeyahu b. Abba in the name of R. Yohanan, that whoever walks four cubits in the Land of Israel is assured a place in the World to Come.

As a participant in the making of the Jewish polity, the individual Jew has assumed upon himself certain fundamental understandings of self and nation. Within this context is the presupposition of revelation as true (i.e., the laws of the Torah transcend time and that human nature remains constant). The notion of Torah as a time transcending document is exhibited in the previous halakhot while the idea of unchanging human nature is first addressed with the halakha that follows and secondly discussed in the following subsection of this work.

Mishne Torah, Sefer Shoftim, The Laws of Kings and Their Wars, Chapter 5, Halakha 12.

At all times, a person should dwell in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city whose population is primarily of worshippers of idols, rather than dwell in the Diaspora in a city whose population is primarily Jewish.

In that all who leave [the land] for the Diaspora is as though he worships idols, as it is says: They have driven me out today from dwelling in the heritage of G-d, saying, 'Go serve other gods.' [Shmuel I 26:19] Similarly, [Ezekiel's (13:9) prophecies of] retribution state: They shall not come to the Land of Israel.

Just as it is forbidden to leave the Land for the Diaspora, so it is forbidden to leave Bavel for other lands, as it is written: They shall be brought to Bavel and there they shall be [until I take notice of them . . . and restore them to this place, i.e. the Land of Israel]. [Jeremiah 27:22][5]

Source Halakha 12:

Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot, 110b, Our Rabbis taught: One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, but let no one live outside the Land, in a town most of whose inhabitants are Israelites; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel may be considered to have a G-d, but whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who has no G-d. For it is said in Scripture, To give you the Land of Canaan, to be your G-d. [Vayikra 25:38] Has he, then, who does not live in the Land, have no G-d? But [this is what the text intended] to tell you, that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. Similarly it was said in Scripture in [the story of] David, For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the L-rd, saying: Go, serve other gods. [Shmuel I 26:9] Now, whoever said to David, 'Serve other gods'? But [the text intended] to tell you that whoever lives outside the Land may be regarded as one who worships idols. [Tosafot,'Avoda Zara, 5]

The Jew living outside the Land, constitutes the worshipping of idols because doing so denies the foundations of the Torah, i.e., the enactment of the Torah, and the living by the statutes of the Law. The project of enacting the Torah can only be legally accomplished in the Land as defined by the Law. The goal of Jewish practice is a single idea that can be dissected into three interrelated and independent subsections. The single idea is to know G-d, that is, to love G-d since the limits of human knowledge subject man's knowing of G-d to the loving of Him. Subsection one of the idea deals with individual development; subsection two, with national development; and subsection three impacts upon universal development of mankind. Each subsection is dependent on the precepts of the Law, for it is the Law that elucidates these subsections and places definitional perimeters of their understanding. Development of self begins with adherence to all commandments which, in turn, lead to the national responsibility and finally its universal ramifications. Again, it is the participation in the project and what that participation says about the belief in the endeavor itself that is so central. There is such a notion in Jewish law because the foundation of Jewish practice is founded upon the creation of an autonomous Jewish political entity in the Land of Israel. At certain points in Jewish study the simplicity of this idea is overwhelming.