24 Mar LEAVING ISRAEL DURING WAR

I. Danger in
Yeshiva?
It is now common
for many American
yeshiva students
to spend a “gap
year” in Israel after
high school. This year usually fosters
religious growth through intense study in a
specialized environment. Since war began
with Iran, with missiles frequently raining
down all over Israel, every student in Israel
for a gap year faced the question of whether
to remain in a country at war or return to
their home countries. Most had planned
to return to America for Pesach but they
faced the decision whether to leave Israel
early, follow their original plans or change
their plans and remain in Israel for Pesach.
There are many aspects of this question
that raise practical and emotional issues.
I want to explore here just the halachic
issues. But before we reach that, we should
note that everyone faces unique individual
and family circumstances. There should be
no judgment about whether someone stays
or returns.

I did not go to Israel for a gap year and
instead went straight to Yeshiva University.
However, most of my friends went for what
they thought would be a full school year.
Saddam Hussein had other plans. That year
was 1990-91, the year of the first Gulf War.
During that war, Iraq shot Scud missiles
into Israel which people feared may
contain lethal gas. When a siren sounded,
people had to flee to a safe room and put on
gas masks. Thankfully, the missiles caused
minimal damage. However, there was a
sense of danger which led many gap year
students to return. YU’s dormitories did
not have enough room for all the returnees
so we had to squeeze extra people into
crowded rooms. On the other hand, many
US-based YU students went to Israel
during winter break, after the war broke
out, as a sign of solidarity.
II. Leaving During Danger
In 1991, Rav Ya’akov Ariel, the now-retired
rabbi of Ramat Gan and a leading halachic
authority in Israel, published an article on
the subject in the journal Techumin (no.
12), later republished in his Be-Ohalah

Shel Torah (vol. 1, no.
6). The primary source
about leaving Israel
during danger is Bava
Basra (91a) which
discusses the beginning
of the biblical book
of Rus. Why did
Elimelech and his sons
Machlon and Kilyon
die? “In the days when
the judges judged, there
was a famine in the land. A man from Beis
Lechem of Yehuda went to sojourn in the
fields of Moav, he, his wife and his two
sons” (Rus 1:1). They left Israel because of
famine and went to Moav, where there was
food. If there was a famine, why were they
punished for leaving?
Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos
Melachim 5:9) says that you are allowed
to leave Israel during a time of great
famine. However, it is a midas chassidus,
a pious practice, to remain in Israel even
during those difficult times. Rambam adds
that Machlon and Kilyon were communal
leaders and were punished for failing to
observe this midas chassidus. Rav Yosef
Karo (Kessef Mishneh, ad loc.) explains
that Rambam recognizes that Elimelech
and his sons were leaders of the Jewish
community and would not leave Israel
when doing so against halachah. Rather,
leaving Israel must have been technically
permissible. They were punished because,
as communal leaders, they were expected
to follow the midas chassidus and remain
in Israel, praying for the situation to
improve. Rav Yisrael of Shklov (Pe’as
Ha-Shulchan, Hilchos Eretz Yisrael, ch.
1 n. 24) follows this explanation, as well.
If you may leave Israel during a time of
famine, certainly you may leave during a

time of war when you face potentially life-
threatening danger. Rav Ariel suggests

that yeshiva students constitute communal
leaders, gedolei ha-dor, and therefore may
not leave. This argument is difficult to
accept. Perhaps the children of uniquely
influential Jews are communal leaders.
However, now that it is commonplace for
nearly all yeshiva students to spend a gap
year in Israel, they cannot all be communal
leaders. Rather, it seems that halachically
gap year students are allowed to leave in
a time of danger but it is praiseworthy
for them to stay. When they stay, they
show leadership, that they want to make a

statement in solidarity with Israelis. When
there are soldiers of the same age risking
their lives in combat, students can do their
part by volunteering in the community or
at least staying in their program in Israel
and continuing their studies. There are
additional considerations of the impact to
Israeli morale, but that requires a longer
discussion of the prohibition against fear
during war.
III. Parental Rights
What if a student wants to stay but his
parents insist he return? Rav Ariel quotes
the Maharik (Responsa, no. 167), followed
by the Rema (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah
240:25), who says that a son may marry a
woman against his father’s objections. The
Vilna Gaon (ad loc.) quotes many sources
that say that a child is only obligated to
honor his parents for the parents’ needs.
If a father does not want you to marry a
woman because he thinks she is wrong for
you, that constitutes a child’s needs and not
that of the parent. You do not have to listen
to such an objection because it is about the
child’s needs and not about the parent’s
needs.
Therefore, suggests Rav Ariel, if a parent
wants a child to leave Israel for the child’s
safety, the child is not obligated to listen
to the parent. However, if the parent is
worried and will not become calm until the
child leaves, then it is the parent’s need and
the child must obey. In practice, I find it
hard to think of a case in which a parent
wants a child to leave a war zone that does
not involve the parent worrying. If that
is the case, then a student is obligated to
leave Israel if his parents insist that he
do so. Because different parents react
differently, and different students have
different emotional and family needs,
we cannot judge poorly those who leave
Israel. They might be doing what is right
for them. Those who stay merit to fulfill the
midas chassidus of staying in Israel during
a time of danger.