The Dispersion of Israel

Chapter 1. In Which Will Be Explained the Primary Reasons that Bring about Israel’s Dispersion to the Ends of the Earth

I have observed that on account of our many sins these days, very many Jews have scattered to the ends of the earth, some forced out, some because of the difficulty of maintaining a livelihood, and some not from compulsion or necessity at all, but from some frivolous motive that comes from the evil inclination, as we will explain below. For whatever reason, Torah fades from Israel, and on account of our many sins, many of the Torah’s strict prohibitions are ignored. I have therefore found myself obligated to be somewhat expansive on this matter and to instruct the public as the good Lord instructs me.

Now, the motivations that inspire a person to relocate and migrate to another land are many, but there are five principal reasons:

1. The lust for money, when one sees that some who have gone there have acquired so many hundreds or thousands of silver rubles, and he imagines that he, too, will prosper there.
2. When someone has difficulty making a living and imagines that in another place he will accumulate wealth without laboring and struggling.
3. When relatives abroad send them a travel ticket and urge them to come join the family there.
4. When a wife tells her husband that she sees that her friend is receiving money from abroad, so she persuades him that he should travel there to acquire money.
5. When one sees that everyone acts with license to emigrate, and imagines that it is a well-trod path and is permitted.

In the coming chapters, we will respond to each of these arguments.

First, though, we must offer a short preface to the reader. I begin with what Maimonides wrote in his [Mishne Torah] Book of Knowledge: Laws of Ethical Dispositions [6:1]¹ [ . . . ]

Maimonides wrote similarly in his responsa, in his “Treatise on Sanctification of the Divine Name,”² that even if there were two cities of Jews, and one was better in deeds and conduct, and one was more punctilious and subservient to the mitzvot than the other, a God-fearing person was obligated to leave the one whose deeds were not so meticulous to the better [more observant] country. All this applied even if both cities were composed of Jews; how much more so, then, that if one of them was composed of idolaters, a Jew who lived there would be obligated to leave that place and go to a better [non-idolatrous] place. He should strive to do so even if he were to place himself in danger, until he could extricate himself from the evil place where he could not practice his religion properly, and go to the better place. [ . . . ] It is thus clear that if he already lives in some place and sees that people there do not practice the religion properly, he is obligated to make every effort to leave. All the more so, then, should he exercise caution at the outset not to go to such a place that lusts after money.

Experience teaches us that all the pillars of religion and foundations of the mitzvot have weakened among many Jews who emigrate abroad. Many are led astray and think of many of the Torah’s positive commandments—that they are only nice customs of the Jewish people—while regarding certain prohibitions of the Torah, such as refraining from linen-and-wool garments, trimming one’s sidelocks, shaving one’s beard by razor, and many similar prohibitions, as merely customs of Judaism. Similarly, they know nothing of the severity of the prohibitions concerning the Sabbath, and think that other prohibitions of the Torah are more severe than desecrating the Sabbath. However, even though a Jew who transgresses any prohibition of the Torah maliciously is indeed counted as wicked and is barred from judicial testimony and oaths, the prohibition to desecrate the Sabbath is more severe than any of the other prohibitions of the Torah, for one who transgresses it is liable to the death penalty, as it is written: Those who profane it shall be put to death (Exodus 31:14). Even at this time, when the four death penalties are not in effect, the judgment of death is not annulled; thus, if someone incurs liability to be stoned, [heaven decrees that] he will fall from a roof or be torn by a wild beast; and similarly with the other death penalties, as is discussed in b. Ketubot (30a–b). [ . . . ]

Now, a person of heart must certainly avoid—himself and his family—going there [to America], to let themselves become lawless. Even if he believes the misleading of his [evil] inclination that he will accumulate a fortune there, by this he gives up eternal life for a transient one. Indeed, the evil drive deceives people into believing that they won’t be affected by the emigration at all, for anyone who wants to be a[n observant] Jew there can do so, and whoever does not—God forfend—has the possibility to do so here as well. However, when we examine this carefully we can see that this thought has its answer: Indeed, he who wants to be etc. [will remain observant], but the point is that there he will no longer want it. Soon he will see some of his landsmen among his friends, who used to be very observant [when still in Eastern Europe] but ridiculed it after they moved there, and so he will think: Am I more righteous than they? Bit by bit, he will start to follow their ways, until in the end it all appears right to him. We can liken it to a company of drunkards who went to the tavern, and once they were overcome by wine, song, and frivolity, some started shedding their clothes and dancing naked. All of them liked the idea, and so they all acted in the same way. Such is the reality in our case. Here, in our country, a person who is not yet drunk in his opinions cannot imagine how things can devolve into such anarchy. He therefore decides in his mind that it [emigration] cannot harm him at all. But truly, just as no one can imagine how he will act and speak after he has downed a liter of strong brandy—that under such circumstances he will truly become another person with different judgment—so, too, is the case discussed here.

I can prove my argument to the reader. It is known that every upright person, when he first comes to those countries, his heart storms within to see how the boundaries of religion are violated among many people, and he curses the day that made him see this with his own eyes. His whole hope is that God will help him get away from there. All the more so is he resolute with regard to his sons—God forbid that he should bring them to such a place to settle among idolaters, God forbid. But with the passing of time, his thinking changes completely; not only does he not leave, but he brings his sons there as well. What was the cause of this? Has there been any diminishing in the value of the Torah’s commandments, God forbid? Definitely not: the Torah stands forever and for eternity without change or decrease! Rather, the degradation was in the religious standing of those people since, with the passing of time, their souls became contaminated by the customs of the country, and deteriorated. [ . . . ]

Therefore, a person should refrain from entering a place where he will be tempted to sin. Thus, King David prayed that God be merciful to him, saying, Turn my heart to Your decrees, and not to love of gain. Avert my eyes from seeing falsehood, etc. (Psalms 119:36–37). His intention was that the Blessed One should help him avoid seeing the false [temptation], so that he would not even need to overcome it. Even if a few people there remain righteous and faithful, who knows if he will merit to be like them? If he sees a tottering bridge from which dozens of people fell and drowned, will he permit himself to walk reliably on to escape danger, because he saw a few people who crossed it and were spared? So is our present case. Do we not know that ever so many from our country were proper Jews, but went there and drowned in the depth of the abyss? Therefore, the only proper course is to preserve one’s soul by avoiding such a path.

In conclusion, a person should refrain from immigrating to a place where there is danger of losing his soul, even if he thinks that by doing so he will gain great wealth. Why should we not learn from our holy ancestors? When they came to Egypt, scripture records: When Pharaoh summons you and asks, what is your occupation? You shall answer: Your servants have been breeders of livestock from the start until now. . . . For all shepherds are abhorrent to Egyptians (Genesis 46: 33–34). It would seem that there was a more likely route to temporary prosperity, for Joseph was second to the king and was very beloved by Pharaoh. It would have been simple for Pharaoh to have brought prosperity to the rest of his brothers by raising them to high position. They were worthy of this, for they were great heroes, as is well known. But they were commanded to do the opposite, to respond that they knew no other trade but shepherding, something that was an abomination to the Egyptians. This is because they knew that living close to the Egyptians would cause them to forsake God’s way. Therefore they took [Joseph’s] advice and made every effort to live by themselves in the land of Goshen. [ . . . ]

So, too, is it in our case. A person should flee from a place that causes him to forsake God’s way, even if he knows clearly that he will achieve great material prosperity there.