[Avodah] shemitta

[Moshe Feldman]

R Samuel Groner wrote:
> : I wouldn't know where to begin arguing with someone who believes that
> : "someone who is not very very confident that his mitsvos outweigh his
> : averiros should definitely avoid being in EY." ...

I responded:
> Just pointing out that the Avnei Nezer YD 454 s"k 27 - 39 disagrees
> with this.  He argues: (1) there is a mitzvah to live in E"Y, so one
> has no right to question whether he is ra'ui to live there-- b'hadei
> kavshei d'rachmana lama lach.

R' SBA replied:
<<
But a 'grobber baal aveireh'? Man dechar shmei??     CV to even think
that that is what the AN 'b'hadei kavshei d'rachmana lama lach'.
>>

I wasn't talking about a "grobber baal aveireh."  I was talking about a
shomer torah umitzvos "who is not very very confident that his mitzvos
outweigh his aveiros."  Presumably, most of us are in that category.

R' SBA continued quoting the Avnei Nezer (in the AN's summary at the end of
the tshuva):
<<
2.  "...ein mitzvas Yishuv EY rak be'ish tzaddik she'im hoyu kol yisroel
kemoso hayu nigalim...oy beshe'al kol ponim sofek lo im ish tzaddik hu.
"Avol im shlosh eleh lo yaaseh, yetziosoy meChu'L leEY chinom ein kosef
venachas ruach beyetzi'osoy.."
>>

This is incorrect.  At the beginning of par. 2, the AN says that this was
his havei amina.  Then in par. 3 he says "aval ein kein mashma'us
ha'poskim."  And he then says that according to the majority of poskim, the
kedusha she'niya of EY was kidsha l'asid lavo, and therefore the mitzva of
making aliyah is de'oraisa.

You also neglected to quote the part of par. 4 (which is summarizing what he
wrote above in par. 56) which states that all this is during a situation
where the gov't doesn't give permission to make aliyah.  However, if the
gov't gives permission, then this is not considered going "b'choma" and then
one is *mechuyav* (par. 56) to make aliyah.  Presumably, once one is
mechuyav to make aliyah, one does not weigh the level of his tzidkus-see
par. 27, where he is mechalek (according to his havei amina) between bizman
hazeh (presumably when the issur of shelo ya'alu b'choma is in place) and
bizman ha'mikdash (when it is not).  The point of his havei amina is that
since am yisrael as a whole was warned shelo yaalu b'choma, yechidim must
act as part of the shunned tzibbur unless the yechidim are tzaddikim on the
level that if klal yisrael were like them the geula would come.  But when
there is no issur of choma (because of permission by the gov't), yechidim
revert back the basic chiyuv of yishuv EY.  (See also par. 34-35, where he
is mechalek between b'zman hazeh and bizman hamikdash:  bizman hazeh there's
just a "sevara" to live in EY, but that makes sense only when he is not
poge'a in the kedusha; but bizman ha'mikdash - "mitzvah gamur" to live in EY
and therefore one should not be medakdek whether or not he is a tzaddik
since he is mechuyav to live in EY.)  However, he does say (par. 56) that
even if the gov't gives permission, one should not live in EY among people
who are not k'sheirim, because otherwise yatza scharo b'hefseido.

In a separate email, R' SBA quotes the Kol Bo: "The primary Mitzvah of going
to EY, is... only if he will be Parush from here on."  First, the Kol Bo
(who lived in France and was expelled in 1306) is quoting the "R'M"-- is
that R. Meir of Rothenburg?  If so, this may be connected to the shitas R'
Chaim in Tosfos Kesubos that nowadays there is no mitzvah of aliyah and
therefore the din of the husband forcing the wife to make aliyah does not
apply nowadays.  Also, the Beis Yosef EhE 75 (s.v. "amar ha'ish") quotes Rav
Meir (presumably of Rothenburg, as this is a quote from the Rosh Kesubos
13:17) that the Mishna was b'zman ha'bayis and it is not applicable b'zman
hazeh.  However, the majority of poskim (Rambam Ishus 13:19, SA EhE 75:3)
disagreed and paskened this l'halacha even nowadays.  This ties into the AN
above-- if the prohibition to move to EY "b'choma" has been removed because
we have gov't (Balfour/ UN) permission, we do not ask people to move to EY
only if they guarantee that they will completely refrain from sin.

I do agree that it is problematic to encourage people who are porek 'ol to
make aliyah.  After all, the pasuk of "va'taki ha'aretz es yoshveyha" is
talking about complete goyim, as well as Jews.  Perhaps, there is a limud
z'chus for those who are tinokos she'nishbu, if their aveiros are not
considered aveiros.  Still, from the precedent of complete goyim who were
spat out of EY, these tinokos she'nishbu can't be encouraged to make aliyah
if they will do to'evos of arayos --as the pasuk is talking about goyim
doing such to'evos and the goyim at the time of Yehoshua may not have been
aware that this is forbidden (even though it is part of the 7 mitzvos benei
noach, and the Ramban on Vayikra 18:25, talking about the to'evos, says that
benei noach were muzhar about this and therefore they can be punished).
OTOH, maybe the Ramban's point is that because the goyim were muzhar, it was
common knowledge (using one's seichel) that these types of relationships are
forbidden, and maybe that same sevarah would apply WRT to those who do
to'evos of arayos today.

BTW, with regard to the fact that the AN was troubled by how to explain why
R. Zeira did not make aliyah until he had a dream about barley (indicating
that he was a tzaddik): the Tzitz Eliezer 10:32 (par. 7) has a different
explanation -- R. Zeira was afraid to make aliyah because R. Yehuda (Kesubos
110b) held that it was forbidden to move from Bavel (as the pasuk says
"Bavela yu'va'u).  Only after R. Zeira had the dream did he realize that he
was right to permit making aliyah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe