Living in Israel vs. Honoring Parents

Transcribed by David Silverberg

          In approaching the halakhic issues arising in a situation where the mitzva of honoring parents conflicts with that of living in Eretz Yisrael, we must distinguish between two separate questions.  The first involves leaving the Land of Israel to comply with the wishes of one's parents that he relocate outside Israel; the second question is whether one should refrain from moving to Eretz Yisrael due to his parents' opposition to his aliya.

Leaving Israel

          The Rambam, in Hilkhot Melakhim 5:9, establishes that "it is forbidden to ever leave from Eretz Yisrael to the Diaspora."  From where does this prohibition originate?

          One source appears in Masekhet Ketubot 111a, where the gemara relates a case involving a situation of yibum.  A childless man who lived outside Israel passed away, thus requiring his brother - who lived in Israel - to perform the mitzva of yibum, meaning, to marry the widow (or perform the chalitza ceremony to permit her to marry other men).  The brother came before Rabbi Chanina and asked whether he may leave Eretz Yisrael in order to perform this mitzva.  Rabbi Chanina forbade him from doing so, exclaiming, "His brother married a gentile woman and died - blessed is the Almighty who killed him!! - should he now go down after him [to marry her]?!"  Meaning, the brother died because he lived outside Eretz Yisrael; the surviving brother should certainly, then, remain in Israel rather than go marry the widow.

          A second Talmudic source for this prohibition is found in Masekhet Gittin (76b).  The gemara tells that when the rabbis living in Israel would escort their comrades as they left to return home overseas, they would stop in Akko, at the border, and proceed no further, given the prohibition against leaving Israel.

          This prohibition perhaps arises as well in Masekhet Kiddushin (31b), where Rabbi Yochanan explicitly forbids Rav Assi from leaving Eretz Yisrael.  Although the Tosefot Ri ha-Zakein interprets the gemara's conclusion as implying that no such prohibition exists, this is a unique reading of the gemara which was not adopted by other Rishonim.

          The Maharit (there in Kiddushin), however, effectively dissociates this gemara from our topic - the general prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisrael.  He establishes an important qualification on this prohibition, claiming that it does not apply at all to leaving Israel temporarily (when one has a compelling need to do so); it forbids only permanent relocation outside Eretz Yisrael.  Though Rabbi Yochanan had issued a blanket prohibition forbidding Rav Assi from leaving, drawing no distinction between a temporary and permanent resettlement, the Maharit attributes this ruling to the fact that Rav Assi was a kohen.  A kohen's departure from Eretz Yisrael involves a separate issue of "tum'at eretz ha-amim" - the de facto state of tum'a (ritual impurity) Chazal declared upon all lands in the Diaspora (see Masekhet Avoda Zara 13a).  Therefore, according to the Maharit, the gemara in Masekhet Kiddushin cannot be seen as a source for the general prohibition of leaving Eretz Yisrael, as it addresses the specific question of a kohen's departure from Israel.

          In any event, the general halakha forbidding one from leaving Eretz Yisrael is well established and arises explicitly from at least two Talmudic passages.  Let us now turn our attention to the scope of the prohibition.  To whom does it apply?  Does is it apply to everyone who sets foot within the territory of Eretz Yisrael, or only to those who reside there, having thus begun fulfilling the mitzva of yishuv Eretz Yisrael (dwelling in Israel) and may therefore not leave?  This question could have ramifications for the many students who come from overseas for a temporary period of study in Eretz Yisrael, as well as for those who come simply as tourists.[1]

          This issue may hinge on a different question, as to the reason behind this prohibition.  Two general possibilities exist as to why halakha forbids leaving Eretz Yisrael:

1. This prohibition results from the mitzva of yishuv Eretz Yisrael;
2. Leaving Israel adversely affects one's performance of mitzvot.  Firstly, one thereby loses the opportunity to fulfill the mitzvot ha-teluyot ba-aretz - those mitzvot that apply only in Israel.  Additionally, mitzva fulfillment in chutz la-aretz is inherently inferior to observance in Eretz Yisrael.  (See Beirur Halakha in Masekhet Kiddushin for a fuller discussion of this topic.) 

According to the first possibility, the prohibition would likely be restricted to those who have already settled in the land and thus participate in yishuv ha-aretz.  If, however, we attribute the prohibition to the loss of mitzva opportunities, or to the lower level of fulfillment in the Diaspora, this would presumably apply to anyone situated in Israel, whose departure therefrom would thus adversely affect his fulfillment of mitzvot (in terms of either quality or quantity).

The Prohibition Against Leaving Versus Honoring Parents

          In a situation where the prohibition to leave Israel conflicts with the wishes of one's parents, we should, at first glance, implement the basic principle introduced in Masekhet Bava Metzia 32a.  The gemara there posits that when one's parent asks him to do something that violates the Torah, he disobeys his parents and follow the dictates of the Torah.  The gemara derives this rule from the verse, "You shall each fear his mother and father, and you shall observe My Shabbatot; I am the Lord your God" (Vayikra 19:3).  As the gemara explains, this verse implies that although one must fear his parents, he must nevertheless observe Shabbat; thus, should a parent ask the child to violate Shabbat, the laws of Shabbat override the parent's wishes.  Presumably, then, if one's parents request that he leave Israel, he should seemingly remain in Israel rather than obey their request.

          However, from the continuation of the aforementioned passage in Masekhet Kiddushin, we see that this issue is far less simple.  Recall that Rabbi Yochanan forbade Rav Assi from leaving Eretz Yisrael.  The story continues, however, that Rav Assi then asked whether he may do so for the sake of honoring his mother, to which Rabbi Yochanan responds, "Assi - you want to go?  The Almighty shall bring you back safely."  Rabbi Yochanan not only permits Rav Assi to leave, but even gives him a blessing.  Apparently, then, this situation, where the prohibition against leaving Israel conflicts with kibbud av va-em (honoring parents), marks an exception to the general rule.  Halakha appears to afford preference to the wishes of one's parents over the prohibition against leaving Eretz Yisrael.

          Several issues related to this gemara call to our attention.  First, how far does this heter (permission) extend?  According to the Yad Rama (in Kiddushin), as implied as well by the Maharsha, in this situation one may leave Israel only for a specified period of time, with the intention of returning to Eretz Yisrael.  By contrast, from Rashi's comments on this gemara it appears that Rabbi Yochanan permitted even permanent resettlement in the Diaspora for purposes of honoring parents.  This debate would seem to depend on how we understand Rabbi Yochanan's blessing to Rav Assi.  Rashi explains it to mean, "May the Almighty bring you back TO YOUR PLACE [meaning, in Bavel] safely."  The Yad Rama would interpret his blessing as a wish that God bring Rav Assi safely back to Eretz Yisrael after his excursion to Bavel.

          The second issue we must discuss regarding this gemara is whether Rabbi Yochanan permitted Rav Assi to leave, or obligated him to do so for the honor of his mother.  The Sefer Ha-makneh implies that in such a situation, a child has the option to either obey the parent's wish and leave, or remain in Eretz Yisrael to fulfill the mitzva of yishuv ha-aretz.  Conceptually, however, one could argue that when halakha permits one to leave, we must view the prohibition as entirely non-applicable in this situation.  Accordingly, not only may one obey his parent's wishes and leave, but he in fact must do so.  Therefore, according to the aforementioned position of the Maharit, if one's parents ask that he leave Israel for a short period of time, he must do so, and does not have the option to refuse and remain in Eretz Yisrael.

          In truth, however, this argument would not suffice to compel someone in this situation to obey his parents' request.  Even if the prohibition against leaving Israel does not apply when it conflicts with kibbud av va-em, there remains the general mitzva of yishuv Eretz Yisrael, and the poskim indicate that even with regard to mitzvot asei, the Torah's law overrides one's parents' wishes. 

          In fact, one could perhaps draw proof for this position of the Sefer Ha-makneh, giving one the option to leave or stay, from the gemara itself.  Rabbi Yochanan remarked to Rav Assi, "Assi, nitratzeit la-tzeit?" - "Assi, you want to go?"  This might suggest that Rabbi Yochanan left to Rav Assi the decision of whether to go greet his mother or remain in Eretz Yisrael.

          The final issue we must address concerning this gemara is how we define a "temporary," as opposed to "permanent," trip.  Recall that according to the Maharit, no prohibition exists whatsoever to leave Eretz Yisrael on a temporary trip.  According to the Yad Rama, a temporary trip is allowed for purposes of kibbud av va-em.  By what standard - according to either of these positions - do we view a trip as "temporary" or "permanent"?  Conceivably, one could claim that leaving for a specified purpose, such as schooling and the like, qualifies as a "temporary" trip regardless of its duration, even for a multiyear program.  Indeed, the Rambam, in Hilkhot Melakhim (5:9), allows one to leave Eretz Yisrael for Torah study, and implies that only a temporary stay in the Diaspora is allowed.  Clearly, one who travels overseas to learn plans on staying for more than just several weeks or, in many cases, even months.  It would therefore appear that any pursuit which normally, by its nature, spans several years may still be deemed "temporary" with respect to this halakha.  Thus, even the Yad Rama, who permits only a temporary departure from Israel for kibbud av, would allow one to leave for several years to study where his parents wish.

Parental Opposition to Aliya

          Seemingly, any position allowing one to leave Israel for purposes of kibbud av va-em - either on a temporary or permanent basis - would permit one to refrain from making aliya to Israel in deference to his parents' wishes.  The question, though, arises, as to whether he is permitted to obey his parents' wish, or if he must.  This second possibility would mean that those who encourage one to move to Israel against parents' wishes violate the prohibition of lifnei iver (encouraging the violation of Torah).  In a famous teshuva, the Mabit (1:139) addresses a case of someone who took a neder (vow) that he would move to Tzefat should a certain event occur.  Sure enough, this event occurred, but the individual's parents opposed his aliya.  Does his parents' objection provide a "petach" - a way to nullify the vow, or should he move to Israel in spite of his parents' opposition?  The Mabit ruled unequivocally that the person must fulfill his neder and move to Tzefat.

          Although in his treatment of this question the Mabit does deal with the conflict between yishuv ha-aretz and honoring parents, the relevance of his discussion to our context is perhaps undermined by the complicating factor of the neder.  This consideration would seem to prevent us from reaching any conclusions for our issue from the Mabit's ruling.  However, the Bet Yehuda (Y.D. 54) follows the Mabit's ruling, that one need not heed his parents' objection to his aliya, even when no vow has been taken.  Rav Ovadya Yosef, in Yechaveh Da'at (3:69), cites such a ruling from the Maharam of Rutenberg (Berlin edition, 28), that given the mitzva involved in moving to Israel, one may do so even in the face of parental opposition. 

          A different view appears in the work, "Panim Yafot" (by the author of Sefer Hafla'a and Sefer Ha-makneh; Parashat Lekh-Lekha s.v. "Be-Midrash Lekh-Lekha").  He comments on the passage in the Midrash that when God orders Avraham Avinu to move to Canaan, he says, "Specifically you do I exempt [from kibbud av]."  On the basis of this Midrash, the Panim Yafot concludes that God granted Avraham special permission to disregard his parents' wishes and settle in Canaan; for others, however, the concern for kibbud av va-em overrides resettlement in Eretz Yisrael.  He apparently understood this passage in the Midrash as an actual, halakhic ruling.

          The Panim Yafot then proceeds to explain this distinction between Avraham Avinu and others in this regard.  He suggests that since Terach, Avraham's father, worshipped idols, the obligation of honoring parents did not apply to him.  He offers a different approach in his Sefer Ha-makneh on Kiddushin 31b, where he writes that Avraham had the halakhic status of a convert, who loses all familial relationships to his gentile relatives for purposes of halakha.  He therefore bore no obligation of kibbud av va-em towards his parents.

          In any event, the Panim Yafot clearly indicates that it is forbidden for one to move to Israel without his parents' consent; the mitzva of kibbud av va-em overrides that of yishuv Eretz Yisrael.

          This debate likely hinges on how one understands the nature of the mitzva of yishuv ha-aretz.  The Mabit and others who maintain that one may move to Israel in spite of parental opposition would appear to accept the famous view of the Ramban, that indeed an actual obligation exists for every individual to live in Eretz Yisrael.  Therefore, this mitzva resembles any other mitzva in that it does not give way to the concern for honoring one's parents.  Moreover, these poskim would presumably require one to make aliya, even against his parents' wishes.  The Panim Yafot, by contrast, can be understood in light of the comments of Rav Moshe Feinstein (Iggerot Moshe, end of E.H 1:102) regarding the mitzva of yishuv Eretz Yisrael.  Rav Moshe claims that no obligation exists requiring an individual to pick up and move to Israel.  Rather, he classifies this mitzva as a "mitzva kiyumit" - whereby one fulfills a mitzva by moving to Eretz Yisrael, but he is not considered as having been "mevatel" (neglected) a mitzva should he refrain from doing so.  We will therefore not allow the mitzva of yishuv ha-aretz to override parental objection to aliya.

Summary

          One who lives in Eretz Yisrael is clearly under no obligation to obey his parents' wish that he leave Israel, as this violates at least a mitzvat asei of yishuv ha-aretz.  On the other hand, some authorities would allow him to leave, certainly for a specified period of time.  As for one who lives in the Diaspora, the question of whether he may move to Israel in spite of parental opposition is subject to a dispute among the poskim; certainly he has authorities on whom to rely if he decides to stay in the Diaspora for a specified period of time.  We noted that even an extended stay for an expressed purpose, such as academic studies, classifies as a "specified period of time" in this respect.  In light of this discussion, one must think twice before encouraging people to make aliya (or remain in Israel after their term of study) against their parents' wishes.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] One well-known halakha, regarding the recitation of "ve-ten tal u-matar" (the special prayer for rain, added to our shemoneh esrei prayer in the wintertime), may provide support for the lenient position - that the prohibition applies only to those living in Israel.  People living n Eretz Yisrael begin adding this recitation on the 7^th of Marcheshvan, two weeks after the conclusion of Sukkot.  The gemara explains that essentially they should begin immediately following the festival of Sukkot.  The recitation is delayed, however, out of concern for the olei regel - the Jews from Bavel who came to Yerushalayim for the festival and now make their way back home.  We do not wish for rain to begin falling until after their comfortable trip back to Bavel.  This would suggest that the Chakhamim accepted the phenomenon of Jews leaving Israel after a temporary visit and took it into account when establishing halakhic norms.  Seemingly, then, the prohibition against leaving Israel does not apply to those who had come to Israel temporarily.