You! Why haven’t you made aliyah yet?! Living a Torah life in Eretz Yisrael is the ultimate goal, and a Torah life in America is almost meaningless. Variations of this message have graced these pages, with different degrees of nuance. Some took offense at the message that living in America is in any way inferior. Others responded that aliyah is an important mitzvah and has communal value, even though individual circumstances may not allow for it. We might say that the true goal in life is serving Hashem and being a moral and kind person. Living in Israel enables that in countless ways, but all sorts of factors — cultural, political, educational and spiritual —-can impact which environment will best achieve that aim for individuals and families. While certain sources (e.g. Ramban) are often brought to present living in Israel as the only authentic and valid option, other sources may indicate otherwise1.
This came to mind when considering Rav Yehuda’s brother, whom we meet on Ketubot 60a. We begin with one impression of Shmuel’s statement, but “כִּי אֲתָא רָמֵי בַּר יְחֶזְקֵאל” when Rami bar Yechezkel came, he announced that we shouldn’t heed his brother’s presentation of Shmuel. “כִּי אֲתָא ” indicates coming from Israel. Indeed, on Ketubot 111b, we read that he visited Bnei Brak and witnessed goats grazing beneath a fig tree. Honey oozed from the figs and milk dripped from the goats, mixing together. Rami declared this a literal instance of the biblical promise of “a land flowing with milk and honey,” namely both flowing together. He clearly appreciates Israel.
Meanwhile, Rav Yehuda bar Yechezkel famously was opposed to Babylonian aliyah to Israel during his own era. As some background, there was already a prohibition in Tannaitic times, to leave Israel. (See e.g., Rabbi Shimon on Bava Batra 91a; and an Amora, Rabbi Yochanan, on Kiddushin 31b.) Shmuel, a first-generation Babylonian Amora (as cited by his student, Rav Yehuda, on Ketubot 111a), extended this prohibition to leaving another Torah center, Bavel, to go to other diaspora lands. This makes sense. Rav and Shmuel encountered relative ignorance in Bavel, and established academies, and Rav introduced halachic institutions. And, upon Rav’s arrival, Bavel’s status changed in regards to bills of divorce (whether the agent needs to say בפני“ נכתב,” Gittin 6a) and raising small domesticated animals (Bava Kamma 80a). Shmuel himself, though born in Nehardea, traveled to Israel where he was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s physician and cured him of an eye ailment (Bava Metzia 85b).
Rav Yehuda then seems to have taken the prohibition a step further, to encompass leaving Bavel for Israel, with a biblical proof text for that prohibition2. I don’t think he prohibits this because he is Neturei Karta-nik, who bangs not just for Haman but for each mention of “medinah.”Rather, Rav Yehuda had founded the Pumpedita academy, and saw Nehardea and Sura academies flourish as well. Bavel had become a thriving Torah center. Perhaps, he didn’t want the spiritual and intellectual drain of his developing academy, or thought Torat Bavel superior. Now, his students, Rabbi Abba (Berachot 24b) and Rabbi Zera (Ketubot 110b), still ascended to Israel, though were somewhat afraid to take leave of their teacher, Rav Yehuda. Here, we see his younger brother, Rami (that is, Rabbi Ami), made aliyah as well. There is room and basis for multiple perspectives and approaches within our tradition.
As an aside, our sugya isn’t the only place Rami makes trouble for his brother. He does so in Ketubot 21a, where Rav Yehuda cites Shmuel that if a court ratified a document and, afterwards, someone alleges it’s a forgery, a judge and witness can combine to testify that the document is valid. So too in Ketubot 76b, where Rav Yehuda cites Shmuel regarding the details of one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, as well as one who barters for a bride. Finally, he does so in Chullin 43b, where Rav Yehuda cited Rav regarding the slaughter by the entrance to the gullet.
Infant Recognition
Why did Rami have to chime in here? As background to this, a baraita declared that if a couple divorced, the woman can be compelled to keep nursing her infant, being paid by her ex-husband as a wetnurse. This is because of potential danger to the baby, who recognizes its mother and might refuse to nurse from another woman.
The Amoraim seemingly argue about this empirical fact, regarding when a baby recognizes its mother and forms this connection. Someone cited Rav, who says at three months. Shmuel said: who says at 30 days. Someone cited Rabbi Yochanan, who says at 50 days. Rav Shimi bar Ashi3, a fifth-generation Pumbeditan Amora, ruled like Rabbi Yochanan.
The Talmudic nNarrator then states that Rav and Rabbi Yochanan are understandable, for “כׇּל חַד וְחַד כִּי חוּרְפֵּיהּ, each according to his sharpness.” I’m not sure if this means that they estimated different typical acuity for babies within a natural range, and fixed it there, or it refers to Rav and Shmuel’s own sharpness. But who can find Shmuel’s fixed point in the world? This consideration perfectly prompts Rami bar Yechezkel’s statement. Rami bar Yechezkel said: “Don’t heed the principles my brother (Rav Yehuda) said in Shmuel’s name. Rather, Shmuel said it is whenever he recognizes her.” Meaning — unlike the others — Shmuel didn’t intend a fixed time, but declared it based on individual acuity, and presented the 30 day figure as an extreme example.
Indeed, the Gemara continues with Shmuel empirically testing whether a particular baby, at its particular age, is capable of recognizing its mother. A divorced mother who didn’t wish to nurse came before him. At his command, Rav Dimi bar Yosef made a lineup of women and carried the child past them. When he reached the mother, the baby looked at her face with joy, and she averted her eyes. He said, “Lift up your eyes, get up and take your son.” Rav Ashi further clarified that a blind baby can recognize its mother through smell and the taste of the milk.
Parallel Yerushalmi
Since Shmuel’s words are in dispute by an Amora coming from Israel, we should examine the Yerushalmi parallel (Ketubot 36b). There, Rabbi Yirmeyah cited Rav, who says at three months. Rabbi Zeira looked at him funny, so Rabbi Yirmeyah said: “Why are you staring at me? Is it because of Shmuel’s ruling, where Shmuel said three days? Shmuel is consistent with himself, for he said ‘I recognize the midwife who delivered me.’” The Yerushalmi continues with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said he recognized his mohel, and Rabbi Yochanan, who said he recognized the women who accompanied his mother (who died in childbirth, so either at birth or prior).
If Shmuel said three days, not 30, the Bavli’s incredulity makes more sense. Also interesting is that Rabbi Yochanan’s position doesn’t appear in Yerushalmi, as discussed by Rabbi Yochanan’s students, Rabbi Yirmeyah and Rabbi Zeira. The Yerushalmi seemingly takes Shmuel as assessing based on his own brightness, but perhaps it’s just that he sees the potential, so an empirical test is required. Also interestingly enough, Rabbi Yochanan himself had such acuity as a newborn or fetus, but in Bavli, it still says 50 days. Finally, perhaps Rabbi Zera — a student of Rav Yehuda — expected a citation of Shmuel, because that’s what Rav Yehuda presented in Bavel, or because this is an issue of money, not prohibition.
Practically speaking, can a baby recognize its mother at three days? Modern scientific studies have discovered4 that a typical fetus in late gestation can recognize its mother’s voice (measured by heart rate), but a baby cannot recognize its mother’s face until three months, unless assisted by voice5. Others report much earlier recognition, from soon after birth, even without voice and while masking odor6. Meanwhile, from birth, babies can identify their mother by smell7. Shmuel may therefore be vindicated, even for non-genius babies.
Rabbi Dr. Joshua Waxman teaches computer science at Stern College for Women, and his research includes programmatically finding scholars and scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud.
1 See, for instance, the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s letter concerning aliyah, https://tinyurl.com/mtyks2ru. Also, see Rav Soloveitchik’s letter here, https://tinyurl.com/u5xpcuzs.
2 Namely, Yirmiyahu 27:22: “they shall be taken to Bavel and remain there until I recall them … ” This is obviously a derasha or an asmachta, speaking foremost of the Temple vessels (as the Talmud ascribes to Rabbi Zeira) rather than humans, based on the context; and it is Yirmiyahu speaking of the first exile rather than their current one (see Tosafot).
3 Our printed texts have bar Abaye, but manuscripts correctly have bar Ashi. I’ve simplified the citations for clarity. But it’s Rava — a fourth generation Pumbedita — citing Rabbi Yirmeyah bar Abba — who’s Rav’s second-generation talmid-chaver in Sura — citing Rav. Except for manuscripts that omit some of the citation chain. And it’s Rabbi Yitzchak citing Rabbi Yochanan. Shmuel is directly cited, but this might be via Rabbi Yirmiyahu bar Abba or via Rabbi Yehuda, in Pumbedita. Given Rava and Rav Shimi bar Ashi’s opinions, this objection might have occurred in Pumbedita.
4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22213896/
5 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8047405/
6 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.569.3165&rep=rep1&type=pdf
7 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2717541/
