Is the prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisroel identical for men and for women? Was Naomi from Megillas Rus punished for leaving? And if so, why? And why was her punishment different from that of her husband and sons? Does the obligation to remain in Eretz Yisroel vary across the different periods in history?
Does a woman have a chiyuv of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel? Do the mitzvos ha’teluyos ba’aretz apply to women in the same way they apply to men? Is one permitted to leave Eretz Yisroel in order to honor his parents? Is one obligated to leave Eretz Yisroel in order to honor his parents? May one travel abroad to visit relatives or meet with friends? What about traveling overseas for vacation, and under what conditions could such a trip be permitted?
Many travel to kivrei tzaddikim in Europe. Is it permissible to leave Eretz Yisroel for that purpose? May one attend a medical or professional conference abroad? If a particular trip is halachically permitted, can one do some touring or take a vacation along the way? Is one permitted to travel abroad for vacation?
And finally: if someone left with a legitimate heter, is he (or she) obligated to return to Eretz Yisroel once the reason for the trip ends?
These, and other related questions, are the focus of this week’s article.
Leaving Eretz Yisroel – Who and Why
Eretz Yisroel plays a major role in these weekly parshiyos. Hashem commands the Avos to dwell in Eretz Yisroel and they face real-life circumstances compelling them to leave. Avraham Avinu goes down to Egypt and returns; Yitzchak wants to go during a famine and is told to remain due to his elevated sanctity as one consecrated as a korban. Yaakov escapes Eisav’s wrath, and goes to Charan. Later, the twelve Shevatim descent to Egypt by explicit Divine instruction, and centuries later they return to the Promised Land.
In our recent articles, we have explored various dimensions of the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisroel and the mitzvah of dwelling within it.
In this week’s article, we turn to practical, real-life situations: under what circumstances is travel abroad permitted, and when is it prohibited?
Reasons for the Prohibition
As explained in previous articles, the Rishonim cite four primary reasons for the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisroel. Any discussion of this matter requires identifying which of these reasons applies to the case at hand and considering the situation’s unique circumstances.
- According to the Rashbam and other Rishonim, since the mitzvos ha’teluyos ba’aretz apply only in Eretz Yisrael, one may not absolve himself from the obligation to fulfill these mitzvos. However, Rabbenu Chaim HaKohen (Tosefos) holds that because of the practical difficulties in properly observing the land-dependent mitzvos today, people are exempt from the obligation to ascend to Eretz Yisrael.
- The Ramban and other Rishonim maintain that there is a positive commandment to conquer and settle the Land of Israel; dwelling in the Land fulfills this mitzvah, whereas leaving it constitutes neglect of that mitzvah.
- Eretz Yisrael possesses unique holiness and is governed by a special level of Divine Providence which cannot be attained outside of Eretz Yisroel. Thus, one living outside Eretz Yisroel finds it more difficult to attain Yiras Shomayim than one living in Eretz Yisrael.
- Chazal decreed a tumah rests upon the lands of the nations for several reasons, and prohibited kohanim from leaving Eretz Yisrael due to this concern. This prohibition applies to male kohanim even today. In earlier generations, when perushim (meticulous observers of purity laws) strictly guarded the laws of tumah and taharah, they too refrained from leaving Eretz Yisroel for this reason.
In this week’s article we will address practical halachos that depend, in part, on these reasons.
Eretz Yisroel Borders
Which parts of the modern State of Israel carry the full halachic status of Eretz Yisroel, and which areas, despite lying within Israel’s borders, are halachically considered outside the consecrated Land? Defining the consecrated borders affects both the permissibility of travel, and whether or not one fulfills the mitzvah of yishuv Eretz Yisroel by residing in those locations.
Next week’s article will examine these issues in depth, outlining the halachic boundaries of the Land, the laws that apply in each region, and which of the four foundational reasons for the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisroel apply to each area.
Ladies and Eretz Yisrael
After outlining the prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael, it is necessary to clarify to whom this prohibition applies. Is the halachic status identical for all, or might the obligation differ between men and women?
The question arises from the nature of the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. If settlement and conquest are defined as two distinct commandments, one might argue that, since the duty of warfare does not fall upon women, perhaps their obligation in settling the Land would also differ from men. However, if conquest and settlement are two elements of a single mitzvah, exemption from one part could affect the entire obligation.
In practice, the Beis HaLevi (Vol. II, 50) writes that women are exempt from the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael.
Nonetheless, regarding the spiritual elevation inherent in residing in Eretz Yisrael — closeness to Hashem, increased Yiras Shamayim, and greater access to Divine wisdom — there is no basis to draw distinctions. These benefits are available equally to all Jews who dwell in Eretz Yisroel.
As for the decree of tumah, it applies specifically to male kohanim, since the obligations of priestly purity rest upon them alone. In earlier eras, when some women observed stringent purity practices in order to eat chullin b’taharah, there may have been reason for further consideration. Today, this factor has no practical relevance.
Proof from Maseches Kesubos
The Mishnah (Kesubos 110b) outlines several laws regarding disputes between spouses about place of residence.
The Mishnah rules that if the husband wishes to move to Eretz Yisrael and the wife refuses, he may divorce her without paying the kesubah. Likewise, if the wife insists on moving to chutz la’aretz and the husband declines, her demand is not justified, and the husband may divorce her without paying the kesubah.
Conversely, if the husband wishes to remain in chutz la’aretz while the wife demands to move to Eretz Yisrael, or if he seeks to leave Eretz Yisrael and she insists on remaining, then the wife is considered to be in the right, and may request a divorce and receive her full kesubah.
The Yerushalmi records these halachos differently. The Yerushalmi on Kesubos writes that a husband may demand that his wife either make aliya with him or accept a divorce without a kesubah, while a wife may not demand her husband make aliya. Furthermore, if she wants to move to Eretz Yisrael against her husband’s will, he may divorce her without paying the kesubah. The question arises: why is there a difference between the Mishnah and the Talmud Yerushalmi?
The Maharam of Rothenburg (cited in the Rosh, Kesubos 13:17; Tur EH 75) holds that the Mishnah refers to the time of the Beis HaMikdash, when the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisrael was greater, and thus both husband and wife were obligated. Nowadays, (to which the Yerushalmi is referring), the mitzvah does not carry the same weight, and only the husband may demand it, not the wife.
Why should there be a difference between men and women? The Vilna Gaon (EH 75:17) explains that in our times, the primary reason for the prohibition to leave Eretz Yisrael is forfeiting the mitzvos ha’teluyos ba’aretz. When the Beis HaMikdash stood, these mitzvos were far easier to fulfill. Today, when their observance is more demanding, women are generally exempt from many of these agricultural obligations — tithing produce, shemittah, and similar strenuous mitzvos — as these fall primarily upon men. Consequently, the Gaon concludes that women are not obligated to make aliya.
The Beis HaLevi (vol. II, 50) cites Rabbenu Chaim HaKohen (Tosafos, Kesubos 110b), who maintains that due to the difficulty of fulfilling the mitzvos ha’teluyos ba’aretz, all are exempt from the obligation to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. Even according to those who do obligate aliya, the Maharam of Rothenburg holds that the effort and self-sacrifice applies to men alone, not to women.
Rav Zilberstein (Chashukei Chemed, Bava Basra 91a) notes that in contemporary times, whereas these mitzvos can be fulfilled with relative ease, even according to the Beis HaLevi women would be obligated in making aliya.
Nevertheless, the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch follow the plain ruling of the Mishnah — that no distinction exists between man and woman regarding the obligation to reside in Eretz Yisrael. Each spouse may insist on residing in Eretz Yisroel, and refusal by the other spouse constitutes a justified basis for divorce with full kesuba rights. The Rema does not dispute this ruling.
Rav Zilberstein (ibid.) offers proof from the Gemara (Bava Basra 91a) that women are included in the prohibition to leave Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara describes the tragedy that befell Naomi and her family: though they left wealthy and healthy, only she returned -- bereft of husband, sons, and property. This, he argues, proves that the prohibition applies equally to women, at least according to those authorities who see no difference between the times of the Beis HaMikdash and today.
On the other side, one may infer the opposite: Although halacha permits leaving Eretz Yisrael during famine, the righteous don’t leave. Elimelech, Machlon, and Kilyon who were expected to meet this higher standard, were punished for abandoning Eretz Yisroel. Naomi, however, suffered only the loss of her family and fortune, while her own life was spared, indicating that her obligation to remain in Eretz Yisroel was lesser than that of her husband and sons.
Leaving Eretz Yisrael for Marriage
The Tzitz Eliezer (vol. 10, 42) was asked a reverse question. Since one of the accepted permissions for leaving Eretz Yisrael is to marry, must this justification be limited to a man, who is obligated in the mitzvah of pru u’rvu, or does it apply to a woman as well? On one hand, a woman is not personally obligated in pru u’rvu, which might suggest that she may not leave Eretz Yisroel to marry. On the other hand, she may still be included in the broader mitzva that appears in the pasuk in Yeshayahu (45:18): “He did not create it for a waste, He formed it to be inhabited”. Although this is a lighter form of obligation than the mitzvah of pru u’rvu, the question is whether it is sufficient grounds to permit her departure from Eretz Yisroel.
In his conclusion, the Tzitz Eliezer rules leniently, noting the various considerations that can be joined together to permit a woman to leave for marriage: the Shelitos who permits traveling abroad for any mitzvah; the Gra who holds that the mitzvos ha’teluyos ba’aretz do not obligate women; and the Beis Halevi who holds that the mitzvah of settling Eretz Yisrael does not obligate women.
Traveling For Kibbud Av V’eim
The Gemara in Kiddushin (31b) relates that Rav Assi wished to leave Eretz Yisrael in order to visit his mother in Bavel. He approached Rabbi Yochanan to ask whether it was permitted to leave, and Rabbi Yochanan responded that it was forbidden. Rav Assi then inquired specifically about leaving for the purpose of greeting his mother, and Rabbi Yochanan answered that he didn’t know the answer. After some time, Rav Assi posed the question again. This time, Rabbi Yochanan replied, “If you have decided to go, may the Omnipresent return you in peace.”
Rav Assi worried that this response indicated displeasure, so he consulted Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Elazar reassured him that since Rabbi Yochanan had given him a blessing, he clearly bore no resentment.
This passage shows that Rabbi Yochanan held there is a higher standard of conduct not to leave Eretz Yisrael even for the sake of honoring one’s parent. Yet, upon seeing Rav Assi desire to go, Rabbi Yochanan offered him a blessing, as the basic halacha permits such travel.
The Rishonim differ in explaining Rabbi Yochanan’s intent. Rashi understands the blessing as meaning, “May Hashem return you in peace to Bavel,” indicating that even a permanent move was permitted. The Yad Ramah and Meiri interpret the blessing as, “May Hashem return you in peace after completing the mitzvah of honoring your mother,” implying that Rabbi Yochanan assumed Rav Assi’s trip was temporary, and when completing his mission he would return to Eretz Yisroel.
The Mabit (vol. 1:139) was asked about a man who vowed to ascend to Tzfas if a certain salvation would occur, but after it did, his parents insisted that he remain with them in chutz la’aretz. The Mabit ruled that one is not required to forgo the mitzvah of making aliya for the sake of kibbud av, and any Jew may leave his parents in order to fulfill the mitzvah of moving to Eretz Yisrael. Since the parents themselves share this obligation, if they fulfil it, they will ultimately enable their son to honor them properly in Eretz Yisroel.
Other Mitzvos
In previous articles we noted the dispute between Tosafos and Rav Achai Gaon: according to Tosafos, one may leave Eretz Yisrael only for marriage and Torah study, while Rav Achai Gaon holds that one may leave for any mitzvah purpose.
Nowadays, poskim have different opinions regarding when one may leave Eretz Yisrael. Some allow leaving for any mitzvah, while others restrict it to the two classic mitzvos mentioned in the Gemara, or to specific mitzvos for which permission is explicitly stated. The Igros Moshe (YD 1:249) writes that the Rambam (Avel 3:14) follows Rav Achai Gaon and permits travel for any mitzvah purpose, whereas the Shulchan Aruch rules in accordance with the Tosafos that only the two well-known mitzvos permit leaving.
However, in the laws of Chol HaMoed (OC 531:4), the Shulchan Aruch allows travel even for livelihood, and even when the goal is additional profit, provided that one intends to return. The Magen Avraham (531:7) adds that even travelling simply to visit a friend is considered a mitzvah and therefore permitted.
Visiting Relatives
The Minchas Yitzchak (3:26:7) notes that common custom allows travelling to visit relatives, which is certainly a greater mitzvah than visiting a friend. The Rashbatz (3:288), however, implies that travel is permitted only for honoring parents. He concludes his response with a recommendation to seek guidance from the rabbonim in Eretz Yisrael who are most familiar with the practical application of these laws (this response was written while he was still in chutz l’aretz).
Kivrei Tzakidim
The Sdei Chemed (vol. 5, Eretz Yisrael 1) writes that traveling to kivrei tzadikim is permitted because it is considered a mitzvah. Others disagree, noting that one may pray at the graves of many great sages within Eretz Yisrael itself, and there is no justification to travel specifically to visit gravesites in chutz la’aretz.
Work And Play
When asked about travel in order to attend a medical conference, the Tzitz Eliezer (22:5:1) rules that since business travel is permitted, even for a brief period, attending a professional conference is likewise included. He adds that once the primary purpose is permitted, remaining temporarily for local sightseeing may also be allowed, since the main reason for the trip is for a mitzvah.
Vacation
Rav Wosner (Shevet HaLevi 5:173) was asked about travelling for vacation to Ophira or Eilat. He writes that Ophira is certainly outside Eretz Yisrael, and Eilat likely is as well, and that the main prohibition concerns extended residence abroad, not a short visit. However, in order for travel to be permitted some element of mitzvah must be present. This may explain why the Shulchan Aruch permits travel during Chol HaMoed even for earning a profit or to visit a friend: such trips are brief, yet even then require a mitzvah component. Rav Wosner concludes that if the purpose of the trip is to appreciate the wonders of creation and to reflect upon the works of Hashem, a very short journey may be permitted, provided one ensures that the trip has the character of a d’var mitzvah.
Despite these allowances, there remains a level of piety in refraining entirely from leaving Eretz Yisrael, and many follow this approach, just as Chazal (Gittin 76b) refrained from passing beyond Akko even to accompany their colleagues.
Obligation to Return
The Mishnah Halachos (vol. 8:12) writes that even one who leaves Eretz Yisrael with full halachic permission — because of famine, financial pressure, or similar circumstances — must return as soon as the justification for leaving no longer applies, as the mitzva of settling in Eretz Yisroel is a constant one. This is learned from Naomi, who returned at once when she heard that Hashem had “remembered His people.”
Summary
The halachos of leaving Eretz Yisrael are complex and subject to significant discussion among the major poskim. Although there are cases in which travel is permitted, there is also ample basis for adopting a higher standard of conduct. Therefore, before making any travel plans, one should seek guidance from one’s rabbi.
