This week’s article explores the mitzvah of yeshivas Eretz Yisroel from multiple angles. May one leave Eretz Yisroel, and under what circumstances? What is the reason for such a prohibition? Why is it not mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch, and what is the source for it?
We will also examine whether this prohibition applies also to those residing outside the Land, and whether it is an absolute issur or a matter of middas chassidus. Another central question: why is living outside Eretz Yisroel described by Chazal as being equal to serving idols? And finally, is there a positive mitzvah to settle Eretz Yisroel?
Of this and more in this week’s article.
Leaving Eretz Yisroel
In this week’s parasha, we read that when famine struck, Yitzchak wanted to travel to Egypt just as his father had. Hashem, however, commanded him to remain in Eretz Yisroel. Rashi cites Chazal, explaining that Yitzchak possessed a unique level of sanctity: having been placed on the altar at the Akeidah, he was consecrated as an olah and thus could not leave the consecrated land of Israel. Avraham and Yaakov, though exceedingly holy, were permitted to leave temporarily in times of distress: Avraham because of famine, and Yaakov who fled from Eisav.
This distinction raises the question of leaving Eretz Yisroel: What is the prohibition, and when does it apply? Under what conditions may one leave? These questions will be explored in the following article.
The Prohibition
The prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisroel is somewhat obscure. The Shulchan Aruch does not mention it at all, despite being composed in Tzfas. One explanation for this omission is structural: the Shulchan Aruch follows the Tur’s framework, and since the Tur devoted only limited attention to the laws of Eretz Yisroel (as they were largely irrelevant to most of the Jewish nation who resided outside the holy land), the Beis Yosef’s commentary and the Shulchan Aruch also omitted it.
Despite its absence as an independent section, the halacha does appear in several places, scattered across various topics. As we will see, these sources form the basis for contemporary halachic discussion.
The Gemara itself refers to the issue explicitly, and the Rishonim debate how to interpret them: Which statements form an outright prohibition, and which describe a middas chassidus? Which are still applicable today, and which no longer apply under present-day circumstances? There is also a dispute regarding the conditions under which one may leave Eretz Yisroel — an issue with significant practical implications.
Gemara Sources
Several passages in the Gemara address the issue of leaving Eretz Yisroel for chutz la’aretz:
The most explicit source appears in the Gemara (Bava Basra 91a), which states that it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisroel unless there is a famine so severe that the price of two se’ah of grain rises to a sela. In other words, the price doubles (see Kesef Mishneh, Hilchos Melachim 5:9). Translated into modern terms, leaving Eretz Yisroel is permitted only when roughly 24 kg of grain cost an average week’s salary.
Another Gemara (Kesubos 110b) discusses the positive: “A person should always dwell in Eretz Yisroel, even in a city mostly populated by idol-worshippers, rather than dwell outside the Land, even in a city mostly populated by Jews. For one who lives in Eretz Yisroel is like one who has a G-d, while one who lives outside the Land is like one who has no G-d, as it says: ‘To give you the land of Canaan, to be your G-d.’”
The Gemara immediately challenges this statement: Is it conceivable that living outside Eretz Yisroel is a sin of worshiping idols? The Gemara concludes that one who lives outside of Eretz Yisroel is equal to an idol worshipper, not and actual worshiper.
As proof to this, the Gemara cites Dovid HaMelech’s words when he was forced to flee from Shaul and sought refuge with Achish of Gat or in Moav (I Shmuel 26:19): “For they have driven me today from being joined to the heritage of Hashem, saying: ‘Go, serve other gods.’” Although no one told Dovid Hamelech to go worship idols, being forced to leave Eretz Yisroel was viewed by him as a spiritual downgrade, as if being told to worship foreign gods.
The Maharit Tzahlon (Maharitz I:85) explains the underlying concept: In Eretz Yisroel, Hashem’s Hashgacha is direct, while other lands are governed by the celestial forces that oversee the nations. A Jew living outside Eretz Yisroel is thus subject to a more natural, less direct form of Hashgachah. This subtle shift makes full spiritual clarity, wisdom, and yira’as Shomyim much more difficult. Hence Chazal’s statement that living outside Eretz Yisroel is equal to idol worship.
From the Tosafos and other commentators it appears that these are two distinct topics: The prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisroel, and the advantage of living in the Land and the critique of living outside it.
Some commentators on the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 5:12) argue that the Rambam understood the obligation to live in Eretz Yisroel applies only to one who already resides there. If such a person leaves, it is as if he worships idols. But this does not apply to one born and raised outside of Eretz Yisroel. They note that Dovid Hamelech’s words, who left Eretz Yisroel, apply only to one who leaves, not one who never arrived.
They further prove this from another story in the Gemara: A man from Eretz Yisrael was called to perform yibbum in the city of Chozai in Babylonia. He asked Rabbi Chanina if he should leave Eretz Yisroel to fulfill the mitzvah. Rabbi Chanina replied sharply: “Your brother left the Land to marry a foreign woman and died; blessed is Hashem who killed him. And you wish to follow his path?”
Another relevant passage appears in Avodah Zarah (13a), which discusses a distinct prohibition for a kohen to leave Eretz Yisroel for “the lands of the nations” due to the impurity of foreign lands. Some suggest that this concern may extend also to non-kohanim who are careful about maintaining ritual purity. In that context, the Gemara lists two exceptions that permit leaving: Torah study and marriage.
A related source appears in Gittin (76b): when Torah scholars escorted those departing from Eretz Yisroel, they accompanied them only until Akko, and no farther, “for it is forbidden to leave the Land.” This passage raises an obvious question: If leaving is prohibited, why were the departing scholars allowed to go? And why does the prohibition affect only the escorts?
Rashi explains that the individuals leaving were Babylonian scholars returning home; they were not residents of Eretz Yisroel. Later authorities infer from this that the issur of leaving Eretz Yisroel applies primarily to natives of Eretz Yisroel, whereas someone visiting from chutz la’aretz may return home. The Maharit (Kiddushin 31b), however, argues that the practice of stopping at Akko was simply a middas chassidus, observed by some, but not required of all.
A related discussion appears in Moed Kattan (14a) in the laws of Chol Hamoed. The Gemara teaches that one who arrives in Eretz Yisroel from chutz la’aretz during Chol Hamoed may take a haircut then (assuming he could not do so while traveling) unless he had left Eretz Yisroel without proper “permission.” The Gemara records a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim about what constitutes such permission. The conclusion is as follows: travel undertaken for leisure or pleasure is unquestionably forbidden; travel for basic parnassah is unquestionably permitted; travel motivated by the desire for financial gain beyond essential needs remains unresolved.
Practically, the Shulchan Aruch (OC 531:4) rules in accordance with the Chachamim, that any form of parnassah-related travel, even to earn beyond one’s minimum needs, is considered leaving “with permission.” Therefore, one who travels for such a purpose and returns during Chol Hamoed is allowed to cut his hair, provided he was unable to do so before Yom Tov because of the trip.
Another halacha appears in Kesubos (110b): in cases where husband or wife wishes to make aliyah, the mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisroel is so weighty that one spouse may, in certain circumstances, compel the other to accompany them and relocate in Eretz Yisroel. The Shulchan Aruch codifies this ruling explicitly (EH 75:3).
Practical Halachah
The Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 5:9 – 12) rules that it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisroel.
The Shulchan Aruch, as noted, does not cite this halacha explicitly, however it does mention the issue by the way: in Hilchos Chol Hamoed (OC 531:4), in the laws of marriage (EH 75:3), and Hilchos Shabbos (OC 248:4), where it states that one making aliya for the mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisroel may set out on Friday, despite general restrictions on beginning a journey before Shabbos.
The Pe’as HaShulchan (1:11) which was written to fill in the halachos pertaining to Eretz Yisroel, lists this halacha explicitly.
Reasons for the Prohibition
The Rashbam (Bava Basra 91a) explains that the prohibition stems from the fact that living in Eretz Yisrael obligates one to keep the land-dependent mitzvos, and by leaving, one exempts himself from those obligations.
The Ramban (Hasagos to Sefer HaMitzvos 4; Bamidbar 33:53) explains that the issur is abandoning the mitzvah of dwelling in Eretz Yisroel. However, this reasoning applies only according to the view that such a mitzvah exists. The Ramban himself acknowledges that, according to Rashi and the Rambam, there is no independent positive commandment of yeshivas Eretz Yisroel.
The Meiri (Kesubos 111a) explains that even in a city where most residents are Jewish, lands outside of Eretz Yisroel are inherently the domain of idol-worshipping nations, and one inevitably absorbs something of their ways. Thus, even a predominantly non-Jewish city in Eretz Yisrael contains more wisdom and Yiras Shomayim than a Jewish city outside of Eretz Yisroel.
The Meiri explains that Chazal considered one who lived in Bavel as though he lived in Eretz Yisrael. The spiritual disadvantages of the Diaspora, he writes, apply mainly to places where Jews are oppressed and mistreated, making pursuit of wisdom and yiras Shamayim difficult. Eretz Yisrael, by contrast, naturally fosters these qualities, allowing its inhabitants to sense the Divine presence and radiance of the Shechinah. For this reason Chazal said that even a maidservant in Eretz Yisrael is assured a share in the World to Come, as the pasuk says: “Even upon the slaves and the maidservants I will pour out My spirit.”
The Chochmas Adam, (Shaarei Tzedek, Mishpetei Ha’Aretz 11:14) writes that prayers offered in Eretz Yisrael are more readily accepted than prayers elsewhere. Since the entire Jewish nation relies upon the prayers of the Jews living in Eretz Yisrael, and there are only a small number living there, those in Eretz Yisroel are forbidden to leave.
The Chasam Sofer (YD 233 – 234) writes that the prohibition is rooted in the inherent holiness of Eretz Yisroel. Accordingly, since Yerushalayim has an even higher level of sanctity, there is importance in refraining from leaving Yerushalayim. The Minchas Yitzchak points out that Rashi seems to follow this approach.
The Gemara compares the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisroel to the prohibition of leaving Bavel (except for traveling to Eretz Yisroel). Rashi explains that one may not leave Bavel because of the yeshivos located there, and the Lechem Mishneh adds that Torah study imparts to a place a level of sanctity resembling that of Eretz Yisroel. This suggests that the prohibition is linked to the kedushah of a place, even for those who are not personally engaged in learning in those yeshivos.
The Vilna Gaon (OC 531:8) writes that, according to the Yerushalmi, the prohibition applies specifically to kohanim, since Chazal decreed that lands outside Eretz Yisroel convey ritual impurity. A kohen would therefore be forbidden to expose himself to the tumah of “the lands of the nations.” However, the Gaon concludes that according to the Bavli (Kesubos 110b), the prohibition applies to all Jews alike, and is not based on the laws of tumah. The Tzitz Eliezer (10:42) notes that although this view is not accepted as the primary halacha, it may still be considered a secondary factor in certain situations.
Next week’s installment will explore the practical questions: When is one permitted to leave Eretz Yisroel? What about travel for vacation, family visits, better employment opportunities, or shidduchim? Does the prohibition apply to women? What is the status of brief or occasional trips abroad? Is there an issue with leaving a Torah-observant community outside Eretz Yisroel, or an obligation to live in such a community at all?
