The prohibition against leaving the Land of Israel is well known and it is based upon several sources. However, the details of the prohibition, and the circumstances in which it applies (and in which it does not), are less well known.
We take the opportunity this week, as we complete the Book of Bamidbar and find the nation of Israel ready to enter the Holy Land, to discuss the prohibition against leaving the Land of Israel—an issue that is often relevant in the summer vacation period.
What is the nature of this prohibition? What are the different reasons given for it? Does it apply to even to a short trip abroad? Under which circumstances does the prohibition not apply at all?
These questions, among others, are discussed below.
Prohibition Against Leaving Israel
The best known source for the prohibition against leaving the Land of Israel is the Rambam (Melakhim 5:9), who writes: “It is forever forbidden to leave the Land of Israel for the Diaspora.” (An alternative reading of the Rambam is that it is only forbidden to leave if one does so forever.)
The Rambam lists several exceptions: It is permitted to leave the Land to study Torah, to marry, to save oneself from attacks of non-Jews, to earn a living and to avoid famine. It is forbidden to leave for any other reason.
The prohibition is derived from a number of Talmudic sources. One source is Gittin (76b), where the Gemara says that the rabbis living in Israel would escort their Babylonian colleagues as they left to return home. They escorted them until Akko, but stopped there at the border to avoid leaving Israel.
Another source for the prohibition is Kiddushin (31b), where Rabbi Yochanan is reported to have forbidden Rav Assi from leaving Eretz Yisrael even to honor his mother. According to the simple interpretation of the passage, the implication is that a prohibition applies—though according to Tosafos Ri ha-Zaken a prohibition is not the passage’s final conclusion.
A third source is the Gemara in Kesubos (111a), which relates that a childless man living outside Israel passed away without children, requiring his brother to perform Yibum—to marry the widow. The brother, who lived in the Land of Israel, asked Rabbi Chanina whether he may leave the Land in order to perform the mitzvah. Rabbi Chanina prohibited the action, exclaiming, “His brother married a gentile woman and died. Blessed be G-d who killed him! And he should now descend after him?”
Rabbi Chanina implies that marrying a woman outside Israel is considered “marrying a gentile woman,” and that this sin was the cause of the brother’s death. He therefore forbade the living brother to leave the Land in order to marry the widow, in spite of the mitzvah involved.
Still another Gemara is in Moed Katan (14A) which discusses one who arrived in Eretz Yisroel on Chol Hamoed and wished to shave since he was not able to do so in the course of his journey. The Gemara says according to all opinions he can shave if he went to Chutz La’aretz in order to earn a livelihood since that was permitted. But he may not shave if he went on a pleasure trip since he was not permitted to go. There is a dispute if he went in order to earn money if he already had enough for his livelihood.
Reasons for the Prohibition
A number of reasons are suggested for the prohibition against leaving the Land of Israel.
The Ramban (Bamidbar 33:53) explains the prohibition as based on the mitzvah to settle in Eretz Yisrael. According to the Ramban there is a mitzvah to settle the Land and therefore it is forbidden to leave the Land. If there is an obligation to settle the Land, it follows that it is forbidden to leave it.
A different explanation is offered by the Rashbam (Bava Basra 91b). He explains that the problem is that by leaving the land, he is actively removing himself from fulfilling the mitzvos that are dependent upon being in Israel. While living in the Land, he has more mitzvos. It is forbidden to exempt himself from these mitzvos by leaving the Land.
A similar rationale might emerge from Rav Chaim Cohen (as cited in Tosafos, Kesubos 111), who writes that the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel does not apply today, since there are several mitzvos that we do know how to be fulfill properly. It appears that he, too, maintains that the mitzvah is contingent on the upkeep of the special mitzvos of the Holy Land (though there is room to defer this proof).
The Lechem Mishnah (Melachim 5:12) gives another explanation. He says that the Land of Israel is holy, so that it is forbidden to leave it.
Torah or Rabbinic Prohibition?
Is leaving the Land of Israel a Torah or a rabbinic prohibition?
Based on the Ramban’s explanation, it seems that the prohibition is a Torah offense, since it transgresses the biblical injunction to live in the Land of Israel. However, according to the other rationales, there is room to argue that the prohibition will be rabbinic. Any poskim have discussed this issue
The rabbinic nature of the prohibition is highlighted by Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum (Va-Yoel Moshe, Yishuv Eretz Yisrael 133, Ikkarim 7), who notes that although the Rambam rules that it is prohibited to leave Eretz Yisrael (unless one is doing so for very specific reasons, as noted above), this prohibition is not found in the Rosh, Tur or Shulchan Aruch.
He suggests that according to these authorities, the prohibition applies only when the majority of the Jewish People live in the Land of Israel. Today, this may not be the case, so that the restriction may not be in force. Because the restriction is only rabbinic, he writes that one can follow the lenient opinions who do not record this prohibition.
Ruling of the Shulchan Aruch
Although Rabbi Teitelbaum writes that this prohibition is not mentioned by the Rosh and the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, it seems that the halachah does appear in some of these works.
As we mentioned earlier, the Gemara rules that if one left Eretz Yisroel to tour, all agree that he is forbidden to shave upon his return during Chol Ha-Mo’ed. But if he left to seek a basic livelihood, all agree that he is permitted to shave.
The Rosh (Mo’ed Kattan 1), citing the Ra’avad, explains that the central issue in this matter is the prohibition against leaving the Land of Israel. Because it is forbidden to leave the Land, somebody who transgressed in leaving is not entitled to shave during Chol Ha-Mo’ed upon his return.
This may certainly be the understanding of the Shulchan Aruch, who rules the halachah that somebody who left Israel to tour cannot shave during Chol Ha-Mo’ed upon his return.
The Rambam (Shevisas Yom Tov 7:17-18), however, explains that the central issue is not the prohibition against leaving the Land, but rather different levels of duress, which impact the allowance to shave during Chol Ha-Mo’ed (see also Chiddushei Ha-Griz, who understands that the issue is limited to the prohibition against a Kohen leaving the Land of Israel).
Leaving for a Temporary Visit
Does the prohibition against leaving Israel apply even for a temporary visit, or does it only apply to somebody who wishes to leave to make his permanent residence outside the Land?
It would seem from the Gemara about shaving on Chol Hamo’ed that there is a prohibition against leaving temporarily, because that was the issue under discussion.
The Gemara in Avoda Zara (13a) states that a Kohen is permitted to leave for Chutz La-aretz, even though he thereby contracts ritual impurity, in order to learn Torah or to take a wife. Tosafos writes that this allowance exists only when he intends to return, for then there is no prohibition against leaving the Land of Israel. The issue discussed by the Gemara relates exclusively to the problem of a Kohen contracting the impurity decreed on the lands of the nations.
According to Tosafos, it thus seems that the prohibition to leave the Land of Israel applies only when the intention is to make one’s permanent residence outside the Land. This proof can be deferred, however.
This is also a possible understanding of the Rambam, who writes that it is forbidden to leave the Land “le’olam”—which can be interpreted to mean “forever.” However, the Rambam can also be understood to mean that it is “always” forbidden to leave the Land, with the exceptions he later notes.
This ruling is used by Shut Sedei Haaretz (Even Ha’ezer 11) in permitting a person to leave the Land to visit graves of the righteous. He explains that the principal prohibition of leaving the Land of Israel applies to somebody leaving for the long term, and not to somebody leaving only for a short visit abroad. In addition to this, he writes that visiting graves is a mitzvah (see also Sedei Chemed, Aleph, Eretz Yisrael; Shut Mishpetei Tzedek, no. 74).
Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner (Shut Shevet Halevi 5:173) likewise writes that the primary prohibition of leaving the Land applies only when one intends to establish his residence outside of Eretz Yisrael, but leaving temporarily is more lenient. Yet, he qualifies this leniency and writes that there must be some sort of concrete need for the person to leave. It is not permitted to leave the Land if the trip does not serve a constructive purpose.
Accordingly, it would be prohibited to leave Eretz Yisroel for a vacation if the trip does not serve a constructive purpose. It would be permitted if it serves a constructive purpose such as seeing the wonders and beautiful parts of Hashem’s creation, resting (where this cannot be easily achieved in Israel), and so on.
Allowances for Leaving Israel
The Rambam mentions a number of reasons for which it is permitted to leave the Land of Israel: To get married, for business, and for Torah study.
These reasons are expanded by later authorities. The Magen Avrohom (531:7) goes so far as to write that it is permitted to leave the Land to visit relatives or close friends.
Interestingly, Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss (Minchas Yitzchak 3:26, 7) writes that this halachah should not be followed in practice, since it contradicts the ruling of the Tashbatz (3:288), who implies that honoring parents is a sufficient reason, but not visiting relatives. However, if one is only leaving for a temporary visit, one may be lenient, based on the opinions that the prohibition does not apply in these circumstances.
Different authorities adopt different approaches to the matter. One question discussed by modern authorities is whether one should visit Chutz Lo’oretz to participate in a relative’s bar mitzvo. For practical guidance, one should consult one’s Rabbi and halachic authority.
I’m not a Halachic authority by any means but it seems clear to me, on a visceral level, that one who has never left the Land of Israel is depriving him/her self of opportunities to expand one’s horizons and perspective on life and what it means to be a Jew. Only by personally experiencing other cultures by visiting them can one appreciate the uniqueness of being a Jew in this world, in my opinion. It behooves the authors of this article to explain to me how exactly can a person undertand fully his Jewish identity if he has never set foot out of the Jewish Land and culture. It seem so me to be a very inward and limited way of looking at life and Judasim if one only stays in the Land of Israel.
I understand what you are saying that when one sees other people and their cultures, that it can give him a better appreciation of the uniqueness of his culture. On the other hand it is very risky, because people are naturally pulled to “the other side” and into thinking that other people’s lives are better etc. “the grass is greener on the other side”. Therefore for this very reason the torah tells us not to explore other religions, because by seeing them on the surface we might understand the fallacy of them, and become enticed by some of their ideas. This is the reason why the Rambam (Hilchos Avodah Zara 2-2,3) says that we are biblically forbidden to investigate into other religions.
We can enrich our Jewish identity by looking at our society in a deeper way; by concentrating on the richness of our tradition, an unbroken one for over 3,000 years. We have a tradition that started with a divine revelation by G-d Himself talking to us on Mount Sinai, by our exodus for Egypt with tremendous miracles, we have a torah and mitzvos and a lifestyle that are packed with meaning and significance. The more one studies into the reasons behind the mitzvos and the Jewish customs, the more depth and significance he will see in everything he does. The Jewish people have felt more attached to their identity than any other nation or religion, as we have gone through a lot more difficulties than any other nation, and nevertheless, throughout the generations the Jew was willing to sacrifice his life for this rich tradition. After one studies more about our rich tradition he will surely appreciate it more, realize its depth, its spiritual satisfaction, and he will not have any need to bolster it by looking elsewhere.
Leave a comment