Today’s daf probes the question of whether one is allowed to leave the land of Israel if the economic situation becomes untenable. How does one determine that the economic situation has plummeted to such a level that it overrides the commandment to settle in the land?
The sages taught: One may not leave the land for outside the land unless (the price of) two se’a (of grain) is priced at a sela. Rabbi Shimon said: When does this apply? When one finds it impossible to buy food. But when one is able to buy, even if a se’a of grain is priced at a sela, he may not leave.
The sages offer a mathematical indicator: When the price of two se’a of grain rises to a sela, which is double its normal cost, then you are permitted to leave. (A se’a is a dry measure of approximately nine quarts. A sela is a silver coin based on the Roman “Tyre tetradrachm” and was equal to two silver shekel coins).
Rabbi Shimon disagrees. He says that if there is food available and you are wealthy enough to pay inflated prices, then even if the price of grain has quadrupled (1 se’a for 1 sela) you must remain. In other words, you can leave the land of Israel if you are on the brink of starvation, but not if you want to avoid high prices.
Later on the daf, Rabbi Yohanan adds a case that lines up with Rabbi Shimon’s stance: If food is available and cheap, but the people do not have the income with which to pay for it, then one may also leave. Rabbi Yohanan follows this ruling with a memory:
I remember when four se’a were sold for one sela, and yet there were many swollen from hunger in Tiberias, as they did not have one issar (to purchase food). And Rabbi Yohanan said: I remember when laborers would not work on the east of the city, because they would die from the smell of the bread.
These dismal depictions of hunger remind us that the evaluation of the economy must take into account employment, salaries, the value of money and the cost of grain. While Rabbi Yohanan arouses our empathy with descriptions of laborers so hungry they can’t stand the smell of bread, restrictions on leaving the land in a time of hardship are possibly more important for the wealthy. If the wealthy leave when there is a downturn, this is bound to further damage the economy and the morale of the people.
In this vein, the Talmud turns to the Book of Ruth, which begins with Naomi’s family relocating to Moav to avoid a famine in Israel. Naomi’s husband Elimelech and her two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, die in Moav, and Naomi eventually returns as a poor widow with her daughter-in-law Ruth.
And Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai would likewise say: Elimelech, Mahlon and Chilion were prominent members of their generation and were economic leaders of their generation. And why were they punished? Because they left the land to outside of the land, as it is stated: “And all the city was astir concerning them, and the women said: Is this Naomi?” (Ruth 1:19). What is the meaning of: “Is this Naomi”? Rabbi Yitzhak says: Have you seen what befell Naomi, who left the land for outside the land?
Though it is not explicit in the biblical text, Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai says that Naomi’s bad luck was in fact punishment for the family’s abandonment of Israel. This is hinted at when Naomi returns as a poor widow and the people gossip about what has befallen this family that tried to escape. The fact that they were wealthy and prominent makes their abandonment even worse and their punishment deserved.
However, not all the rabbis agree:
Rav Hiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says: Heaven forfend (that they sinned). Had they found even bran they would not have left. But rather, why were they punished? Because they should have requested mercy for their generation, and they did not request this, as it is stated: “When you cry, let those you have gathered deliver you” (Isaiah 57:13).
Rabbi Yehoshua bar Korha asserts the right to leave Israel during a famine, as the legal section of this daf suggests. Elimelech and Naomi they only left when they couldn’t even find bran, meaning they couldn’t even find animal fodder to subsist upon, so they did not sin. But if they were justified in leaving, why were they punished? They were punished for not taking their leadership to the next level and praying for the people.
The Talmud reckons with the ways an economic downturn impacts various strata of society. While trying to construct a law that applies equally to all, the Talmud empathizes with the poor, who have fewer choices, and urges the wealthy to demonstrate solidarity with the citizens of the land in times of need.
Read all of Bava Batra 91 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on September 24, 2024. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
