Introduction
In the global
society that we live in, for many it is hard to come to terms with a
prohibition which may 'imprison' us in one country. Even among those who were
born in Eretz Yisrael, there are few who have never left.
In addition, for
most of the last 2,000 years, for most of Jewry there was little practical
ramification to this prohibition, and as a result the halachic literature on
the topic was limited. Here I will try to clarify what exactly is included and
why. There are apparent contradictions in this regard between at least three
different passages in the gemara, which will need to be resolved.
1) Making a Living
– Bava Basra 91a
The gemara quotes
a Beraisa which says that we may not leave Eretz Yisrael unless there is a
famine so bad that two se'ah (roughly 16 litres) of flour costs a sela (a
silver coin weighing roughly 19g). R' Shimon argues that if one is able to buy,
he must not leave even under these circumstances. Elimelech, Machlon and
Chilyon all were punished for not heeding this requirement.
Later on, the
gemara qualifies that those who are not able to earn money may leave, however
cheap food may be. This 'leniency' is possibly the primary justification for
living outside Eretz Yisrael to this day, as many of those who were educated
outside of Israel would find it difficult to find a job here.[1]
Most of the
rishonim assume that the halacha is not in accordance with the strict view of
R' Shimon, and in times of severe famine it is permitted to leave, if strongly
discouraged.[2]
However, even according to this, from this gemara, the only dispensation that appears
to be given is for those in some kind of financial difficulty.
2) Mitzvos
versus Impurity – Avoda Zara 13a
Elsewhere it
seems clear that there are some other reasons for which it is permitted to
leave the country. Kohanim have an additional problem with being outside Eretz
Yisrael – Chazal decreed that all of Chutz La'aretz is impure.[3]
This would normally mean that kohanim cannot leave Eretz Yisrael,[4]
although a beraisa gives 3 reasons for
which a kohen is allowed to become 'contaminated' with this kind of impurity:
- To learn Torah.[5]
- To get married.
It seems rather strange that these reasons are not mentioned at all by
the first gemara quoted. Furthermore, the implication here is that these
special circumstances are only necessary in order to allow a kohen to leave
Eretz Yisrael. The impression given is that a regular Jew could leave even
without such a pressing need.
3) Deserving of Death – Kesuvos 111a
A person once asked R' Chanina if he should leave Eretz Yisrael in order
to perform the mitzvah of yibum, after his brother died there leaving a widow
and no children. R' Chanina answered rhetorically in the third person: "His
brother married a Kuthean[6] and
died, Baruch Hashem who killed him! Now he (the questioner) should follow
him?!"[7]
Here R' Chanina warns someone (not specifically identified
as a kohen) not to leave Eretz Yisrael even for the purpose of marrying and performing
the extra mitzvah of yibum.
To summarise,
the different impressions one gets from the 3 sections of the gemara are:
1) It is
permitted to leave only out of financial necessity.
2) One may leave
in order to perform one of various important mitzvos, including getting
married.
3) One may not
leave in order to get married.
Gemara 2) seems
to be contradicted by both 1) and 3).
Resolution
Tosfos[8]
raise the issue of the contradiction between 2) and 3), and are forced to
explain that the dispensation to leave Eretz Yisrael to marry in 2) is only
temporary – the plan must be to return after the mitzvah is done. In 3), the
enquiry was about leaving permanently.
This explanation
appears rather difficult, as in neither 2) nor 3) does the gemara specify
whether the intention was to return or not. As in both places the gemara is
dealing with someone wanting to leave in order to perform a specific task, I
believe it is fair to assume that in both instances the leniency is only
regarding leaving temporarily. Furthermore, getting married would not appear to
justify leaving Eretz Yisrael permanently, as the halacha entitles either
spouse to insist on moving to Eretz Yisrael.[9]
The Rambam makes
the same distinction as Tosfos, although he seems to do this based on 1) and 2)
above as opposed to 2) and 3). He writes that while it is permitted to leave
Eretz Yisrael temporarily in order to learn, marry etc., (2), leaving
permanently can only be justified out of severe financial need (1).[10]
The grounding for this approach in the gemara is clearer to me – the global
conditions such as famine and economy described in gemara 1) have no clear
endpoint and one who leaves for this reason cannot usually make clear plans to
return.
If my thesis is
correct, the Rambam does not accept the explanation of Tosfos regarding gemara
3). Here it was wrong to leave Eretz Yisrael even temporarily, even in order to
perform yibum. I believe that in 3) there was a special reason – the late
brother originally left Eretz Yisrael without any justification and bore the
consequences. To honour the memory of such a person by following in his
footsteps, even temporarily, is not recommended. The surviving brother may have
already had a wife, and even if he didn't he would do better finding one in
Eretz Yisrael.[11]
Business
Trips
The remaining
difficulty is the implication from 2) that a non-kohen may leave Eretz Yisrael
(albeit temporarily) for reasons other than the 3 listed. The Rambam resolves
this difficulty by adding a fourth reason that a non-kohen may leave Eretz
Yisrael temporarily – in order to do business.9
The probable
source for this leniency is a fourth gemara, dealing with the prohibition of
shaving during Chol HaMo'ed. This prohibition is waived for various people who
were not able to shave before Yom Tov; the tana'im dispute whether one who
returns from abroad is included in this leniency. The gemara explains that all
agree that for one who went on a pleasure trip there is no leniency and all
agree that one who goes in order to obtain sustenance may shave on his return.
The dispute is regarding one left in order to 'make a profit,' with R' Yehuda
ruling stringently and the Chachamim permitting.[12]
The halacha follows the Chachamim.[13]
The dispensation
given for one who returns from a business trip is a clear indication that such
trips are permitted. The Rambam uses the same language (לסחורה) to describe such trips,
both in reference to the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael and when quoting
the leniency during Chol HaMo'ed.[14]
Equivalent
Reasons
The rishonim
dispute whether the circumstances listed by the gemara allowing one to leave
are exhaustive. Tosfos quote the view of Rav Achai Ga'on, that the 3 reasons
listed in the gemara are relatively weak.[15]
It goes without saying that it is permitted to leave in order to fulfil other
mitzvos. Tosfos disagree, showing that elsewhere these mitzvos are given a
higher priority than other mitzvos.[16]
The Rambam
writes that the reasons listed above allowing a kohen to leave Eretz Yisrael
are examples, and the same applies for similar reasons.[17]
Regarding a regular Jew, the Rambam gives the four exceptions (litigation,
learning, marrying and business) and does not state explicitly that these are
mere examples. However, this is presumably because the leniency of leaving in
order to do business is by definition wide-ranging. It would be inconceivable
to suggest that leaving Eretz Yisrael temporarily is permitted for business,
but not in order to perform mitzvos.
The conclusion
is that for a non-kohen, leaving Eretz Yisrael temporarily is permitted for any
mitzvah purpose or for anything akin to 'business.'[18]
Leaving for pleasure alone would appear to be forbidden.
Rationale
Rashbam writes
that the reason that Chazal forbade leaving Eretz Yisrael is because leaving
absolves a person of the mitzvos connected to the land.[19]
Ramban explains differently, that all the hyperbole used by Chazal in relation
to Eretz Yisrael is part of the mitzvah of taking possession and living in
Eretz Yisrael.[20]
Following either
approach, it is hard to understand why it would be forbidden to take a short
trip to see some of the wonders of creation (or even the wonders of different
societies) outside of Eretz Yisrael while intending to return. It is likely
that the original reason that Chazal were so stringent was because in the past,
plans to return even after a short period of time would often not materialise. Nowadays
this seems far less relevant.
Some poskim are
indeed more lenient nowadays based on this difference.[21]
However, without a Sanhedrin to rescind or alter the prohibition, this is far
from straightforward.[22] It is quite clear from cases in the gemara
that the prohibition applies even when stepping over the border for a minute.[23]
My conclusion
therefore is that one thinking about travelling out of Eretz Yisrael for
pleasure should consider carefully whether this is really necessary, and
whether he could not make alternative plans at one of the many potential
locations inside the country. Those who are uncomfortable with the perhaps
anachronistic nature of the prohibition could find comfort in the fact that nowadays
there is a new reason to limit travel – doing our bit for preserving the planet
by reducing carbon emissions.
[1] It is very difficult to define what level of effort a person must
put in in order to overcome this problem, although for those who do not
currently live in Eretz Yisrael it makes sense to be fairly leninent.
[2] Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 5:9; Yad Rama. See also Meiri.
[3] See Shabbos 15a-b for details of the various decrees. The main
reason for this enactment seems to have been practical – there were many
unidentified graves in Chutz La'aretz which a kohen may come in contact with
unintentionally. However, see Tosfos in Nazir 54b (ד"ה ארץ העמים) who give an additional purpose – Chazal wanted to discourage
us from leaving.
[4] The poskim discuss whether this applies nowadays, the Maharshal
claiming that now Eretz Yisrael is no less pure than the rest of the world
(commentary on the Tur, Yoreh Deah 369). See Shach, Taz and Pischei Teshuva to
Yoreh Deah 369:1.
[5] The tana'im dispute whether this applies when there are rabbis in
Eretz Yisrael from whom a person could learn. The halacha follows R' Yossi, who
allows one to go to learn outside Eretz Yisrael even in these circumstances.
The reasoning is that a person is not necessary capable of learning
successfully from anyone.
[6] See Maharsha in Chidushei Agados who explains why this term was
used here.
[7] Kesuvos 111a
[9] See Mishna and gemara, Kesuvos 110b.
[10] Hilchos Melachim 5:9
[11] See Chidushei Maharit on the gemara there, who explains similarly. The
mitzvah of yibum does not obligate him to travel – it is incumbent on the widow
to come to the place of the brother-in-law for yibum or chalitza (Sanhedrin
31b).
[12] Mo'ed Katan 14a
[13] See Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 531:4
[14] Hilchos Yom Tov 7:18
[15] See Yad P'shuta, Hilchos Avel 3:14 who explains that this is not
because learning and marrying are less important than other mitzvos, just that
it is far from certain that these objectives will be met by leaving.
[16] Avoda Zara 13a (ד"ה ללמוד). The proof is from the
prohibition of selling a Sefer Torah, which is only waived if the purpose is to
learn or marry. However, according to the Yad P'shuta this can be resolved.
Selling a Sefer Torah can raise the funds needed immediately, whereas
undertaking a long journey in order to do these mitzvos is far less assured of
being successful.
[18] As R' Shaul Yisraeli points out in Eretz Chemda 1:1:10, even Tosfos
only limited the leniencies given to a kohen and did not discuss the law of a
non-kohen. The conclusion of the gemara in Kidushin 31b also seems to be that
it is permitted to leave Eretz Yisrael in order to honour ones parents.
[19] Bava Basra 91a (ד"ה אין יוצאין). This reason requires
further explanation, as one is not usually obligated to ensure that he becomes
liable to perform mitzvos. Furthermore, Hashem decided that these mitzvos
should not apply outside Eretz Yisrael for a reason. Assuming that the reason
was to highlight the importance of Eretz Yisrael, it would appear that the
Rashbam has paradoxically made the means (the mitzvos) dependent on the end purpose
(living in Eretz Yisrael).
[20] Sefer HaMitzvos, 'forgotten' positive mitzvah 4
[21] See Peninei Halacha, "The People and the Land," 3:9
[22] I discussed this at length in Eternal
or Obsolete.
No comments:
Post a Comment