Everyone May Compel a Move to Jerusalem

The Rabbi’s Opening Post

Everyone May Compel a Move to Jerusalem

Posted on 18/8/2013

I received a question today regarding the husband’s right to compel his spouse (or vice versa) to move to Jerusalem nowadays.7

This would require elaboration and the presentation of sources beforehand, but for the public benefit, and in order to hear opinions on what I wrote, I am attaching here what I wrote briefly. There are several points here worth discussing (including the basic law itself, which seems somewhat problematic).

Greetings.

It appears that, as a matter of basic law, even today there is a right to compel a move to Jerusalem, or else to leave without the payment due under the marriage contract. See sources

here

.

It should be noted that in the Old City there is a security consideration, and several legal authorities have written that such considerations nullify the right to compel spouses to move to Jerusalem. True, the risk is small, and still, living in the Arab part of the city can be considered unsafe, and in my view there is no possibility of compelling one’s spouse to live there. The view of the reasonable person today is that there is a certain risk in living in these places.

At present, however, one must discuss the neighborhoods that were added to Jerusalem. On the one hand, there is no danger there, and therefore there is a right to compel residence there. On the other hand, it is possible that the right was not originally stated with respect to these areas, since they do not have the original sanctity of Jerusalem. In the Mishnah, at the beginning of Sanhedrin, we find that adding to the city and the Temple courtyards can be done only by the Great Court of 71 judges with classical ordination. It is true that on Purim there is a law of places that are adjacent and visible, but that applies only to the reading of the Scroll of Esther and to Purim.

However, I found that Tzitz Eliezer wrote (vol. 14, no. 52):

Surely, beyond doubt, there is great significance and marked preference in living even in New Jerusalem over the other cities of the land, since it is like a city joined together with it, adjacent to and visible from the King’s palace. For even with respect to burial, our Sages of blessed memory in every generation preferred being buried in Jerusalem over the rest of the Land of Israel, even though the place of burial is outside the city, and solely by virtue of its being adjacent to the gate of heaven, concerning which great and wondrous things were also prophesied and promised, and concerning the great privilege involved.

And from this (that is, this teaches us) it follows all the more so that such a promise applies to one who lives there in his lifetime, in a place adjacent to and visible from it, and to which the holy name “Jerusalem” is applied. In the sense that ‘being received there in life is not like being received there after death’ (Ketubbot 112a), and in the sense of ‘those encamped around it’—those nearby are more sanctified and closer to our God (Responsa Hatam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah, no. 233), and fortunate is one who merits dwelling near the sanctity of the mountain of God even in its ruin (Hatam Sofer, ibid.).

Still, in my opinion one cannot derive from here full sanctity, that is, that from the standpoint of Jewish law one may compel a spouse to move to Jerusalem. For this, ‘significance’ is not enough; actual sanctity is required. This is also evident from the wording of Tzitz Eliezer, who writes that this is a great virtue and of great significance, but does not write that spouses may be compelled on that basis.

Therefore, in my opinion there is no right to compel residence in the other neighborhoods.

In sum, to the best of my understanding of Jewish law, there is no possibility of compelling a spouse to live in Jerusalem, neither in the Old City (because of the risk) nor in the newer parts of the city (because they do not possess Jerusalem’s sanctity). Of course, if you come to an agreement to live there, you are to be blessed.

In any event, I repeat that even if there were such a right, it is very inadvisable to make use of it. No one says that there is an obligation to compel one’s spouse to move to Jerusalem; at most there is a right to do so. It is certainly not worth breaking up or destabilizing the marital home, for whoever divorces his wife, even the altar sheds tears over him. And peace is of surpassing greatness, for even the Holy One, blessed be He, is prepared to have His name erased in water (in the law of the scroll of the suspected adulteress) in order to bring peace between husband and wife. That is the most important value of all.

The link was corrected for ease of reading

Source (the “Stop Here, Think” forum): http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=3020250&forum_id=1364