אֲבָל לֹא מֵעִיר לִכְרַךְ וְלֹא מִכְּרַךְ לְעִיר.

However, even within the same land one may not force his wife to move from a town to a city, nor from a city to a town.

מוֹצִיאִין מִנָּוֶה הָרָעָה לְנָוֶה הַיָּפָה, אֲבָל לֹא מִנָּוֶה הַיָּפָה לְנָוֶה הָרָעָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף לֹא מִנָּוֶה רָעָה לְנָוֶה יָפָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַנָּוֶה הַיָּפָה בּוֹדֵק.

The mishna adds: One may remove his wife from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, even if it is in another land. However, one may not compel his wife to move from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may also not remove her from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence, because a pleasant residence tests the individual, i.e., one accustomed to certain environments can suffer even in more comfortable living quarters.

גמ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִכְּרַךְ לְעִיר – דְּבַכְּרַךְ שְׁכִיחִי כָּל מִילֵּי, בָּעִיר לָא שְׁכִיחִי כָּל מִילֵּי. אֶלָּא מֵעִיר לִכְרַךְ מַאי טַעֲמָא?

With regard to the statement in the mishna that one may not force one’s spouse to move from a city to a town or from a town to a city, the Gemara asks: Granted, one may not remove her from a city to a town, as all items are readily available in a city, whereas in a town all items are not as available, and therefore the wife can argue that living in a town is inconvenient for her. However, what is the reason that the husband cannot compel her to move from a town to the city?

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁיְּשִׁיבַת כְּרַכִּים קָשָׁה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיְבָרְכוּ הָעָם לְכֹל הָאֲנָשִׁים הַמִּתְנַדְּבִים לָשֶׁבֶת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם״.

The Gemara answers: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: From where is it derived that dwelling in cities is difficult? As it is stated: “And the people blessed all the men who willingly offered themselves to dwell in Jerusalem” (Nehemiah 11:2). This shows that living in a city is difficult, due to the noise and the general hubbub of an urban area.

״רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר״ כו׳. מַאי בּוֹדֵק? כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שִׁינּוּי וֶסֶת תְּחִלַּת חוֹלִי מֵעַיִם. כָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר בֶּן סִירָא: ״כָּל יְמֵי עָנִי רָעִים״. וְהָאִיכָּא שַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים! כְּדִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שִׁינּוּי וֶסֶת תְּחִלַּת חוֹלִי מֵעַיִם.

§ The mishna taught: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that a pleasant residence tests the individual. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the term tests in this context? The Gemara explains: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits [ veset ] or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease. Similarly, it is written in Sefer Ben Sira : All the days of the poor are terrible. And yet there are Shabbatot and Festivals, when even the poor eat well. Once again, the Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: A change in one’s eating habits or in one’s place of residence is the start of intestinal disease, and as a result the poor suffer even from a change for the better.

בֶּן סִירָא אוֹמֵר: ״אַף לֵילוֹת, בְּשֶׁפֶל גַּגִּים גַּגּוֹ וּבִמְרוֹם הָרִים כַּרְמוֹ, מִמְטַר גַּגִּים לְגַגּוֹ וּמֵעֲפַר כַּרְמוֹ לַכְּרָמִים״.

Since the Gemara quoted from Sefer Ben Sira , it cites the rest of the passage concerning the terrible days of the poor. Ben Sira says: Even the nights of the poor are bad. His roof is at the low point of the roofs, i.e., his residence is at the lowest point in the city, and his vineyard is at the mountain peaks, at the highest point of the slope, which means that the rain of roofs washes down to his roof, and the soil of his vineyard to other vineyards, i.e., the rain washes away the soil in his vineyard and carries it away to the vineyards below.

מתני׳ הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין, הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין, אֶחָד הָאֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד הַנָּשִׁים.

All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one’s family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem. Both men and women may force the other spouse to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael or to move to Jerusalem.

נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא – נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא – וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת קַפּוֹטְקִיָּא. נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא – נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת קַפּוֹטְקִיָּא.

The mishna lists other halakhic distinctions between various geographic locations: If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, and the currency of the sum in the marriage contract was not specified, he gives her the sum of her marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, where the currency holds greater value, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He gives her the currency of Cappadocia. Everyone agrees that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Cappadocia.

גמ׳ ״הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין״ לְאַתּוּיֵי מַאי? לְאַתּוּיֵי עֲבָדִים.

The mishna stated: All can force the members of their family to ascend. The Gemara asks: This inclusive phrase serves to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include slaves, i.e., Hebrew slaves as well may be coerced to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael with their master’s family against their will.

וּלְמַאן דְּתָנֵי עֲבָדִים בְּהֶדְיָא, לְאַתּוּיֵי מַאי? לְאַתּוּיֵי מִנָּוֶה הַיָּפָה לְנָוֶה הָרָעָה.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one whose text of the mishna expressly teaches the case of slaves, this phrase comes to include what case? As stated later in the Gemara, there are some editions of the mishna that state that this halakha applies equally to men, women, and slaves. The Gemara answers: It comes to include one who moves from a pleasant residence to a noxious residence, i.e., one may coerce his family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael even from a good residence abroad to an inferior one in Eretz Yisrael.

״וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין״ לְאַתּוּיֵי מַאי? לְאַתּוּיֵי עֶבֶד שֶׁבָּרַח מִחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ לָאָרֶץ, דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: זַבְּנֵיהּ הָכָא וְזִיל, מִשּׁוּם יְשִׁיבַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל.

§ The mishna further taught: But all may not remove others. Once again the Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a Canaanite slave who ran away from his master and came from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, as we say to the master: Sell your slave here, in Eretz Yisrael, and then you may go and return abroad, but you may not take the slave abroad with you, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

״הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין לִירוּשָׁלַיִם״ לְאַתּוּיֵי מַאי? לְאַתּוּיֵי מִנָּוֶה הַיָּפָה לְנָוֶה הָרָעָה.

§ The mishna taught: All may force others to ascend to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks once again: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include a move from a pleasant residence elsewhere in Eretz Yisrael to a noxious residence in Jerusalem.

״וְאֵין הַכֹּל מוֹצִיאִין״ לְאַתּוּיֵי מַאי? לְאַתּוּיֵי אֲפִילּוּ מִנָּוֶה הָרָעָה לְנָוֶה הַיָּפָה. וְאַיְּידֵי דְּתָנָא רֵישָׁא ״אֵין מוֹצִיאִין״, תָּנָא סֵיפָא נַמִי ״אֵין מוֹצִיאִין״.

§ The mishna taught: And all may not remove them from Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: This phrase comes to include what case? The Gemara answers: It comes to include even a move from a noxious residence to a pleasant residence. The Gemara adds: And since the tanna of the mishna taught: But one may not remove, in the first clause, he also taught: But one may not remove, in the latter clause, despite the fact that this halakha could have been inferred from the first clause.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הוּא אוֹמֵר לַעֲלוֹת וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲלוֹת – כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ לַעֲלוֹת, וְאִם לָאו – תֵּצֵא בְּלֹא כְּתוּבָּה. הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לַעֲלוֹת וְהוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לַעֲלוֹת – כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לַעֲלוֹת, וְאִם לָאו – יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה.

§ The Sages taught: If the husband says that he wishes to ascend, i.e., to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, and his wife says that she does not wish to ascend, one forces her to ascend. And if she will not do so, as she resists all attempts to force her to make the move, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract, i.e., she forfeits her rights to the benefits outlined in the marriage contract. If she says that she wishes to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and he says that he does not wish to ascend, one forces him to ascend. And if he does not wish to immigrate, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.

הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת לָצֵאת וְהוּא אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לָצֵאת – כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לָצֵאת, וְאִם לָאו – תֵּצֵא בְּלֹא כְּתוּבָּה. הוּא אוֹמֵר לָצֵאת וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת שֶׁלֹּא לָצֵאת – כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לָצֵאת, וְאִם לָאו – יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה.

If she says that she wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael, and he says that he does not wish to leave, one forces her not to leave. And if she does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael and resists all attempts to force her to stay, she is divorced without receiving her marriage contract. If he says that he wishes to leave Eretz Yisrael and she says that she does not wish to leave, one forces him not to leave. And if he does not wish to stay in Eretz Yisrael, he must divorce her and give her the marriage contract.

״נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה״ כו׳. הָא גּוּפָא קַשְׁיָא;

§ The mishna taught that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he must pay her the marriage contract in the currency of Eretz Yisrael. The same is true if he married her in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult, i.e., there is an internal contradiction in the rulings provided by the mishna.

קָתָנֵי: נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְגֵרְשָׁה בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – אַלְמָא בָּתַר שִׁיעְבּוּדָא אָזְלִינַן. אֵימָא סֵיפָא: נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה בְּקַפּוֹטְקִיָּא וְגֵרְשָׁהּ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַלְמָא בָּתַר גּוּבַיְינָא אָזְלִינַן!

The Gemara elaborates: The mishna first teaches that if one married a woman in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Cappadocia, he gives her the currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the customs of the place of the lien, i.e., he pays with the currency of the location of the wedding, where the obligation came into force. Now, say the latter clause of the mishna: If one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he likewise gives her currency of Eretz Yisrael. Apparently, one follows the place of the collection of the money.

אֲמַר רַבָּה: מִקּוּלֵּי כְּתוּבָּה שָׁנוּ כָּאן, קָסָבַר כְּתוּבָּה דְּרַבָּנַן.

Rabba said: The Sages taught here one of the leniencies that apply to a marriage contract. The leniency is that the husband pays with the less valuable currency of Eretz Yisrael in both cases, whether the wedding or the divorce occurred there. This is because the tanna of this mishna holds that a marriage contract applies by rabbinic law.

״רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִמְּעוֹת קַפּוֹטְקִיָּא״. קָסָבַר: כְּתוּבָּה דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא.

§ The mishna taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if one married a woman in Cappadocia and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, he pays her the marriage contract in the currency of Cappadocia. The Gemara explains that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that a marriage contract applies by Torah law, which means that its debt must be paid according to its highest possible value. Consequently, one follows the place in which the obligation was formed, which is the halakha for all deeds and contracts, and there is no room for leniency in this matter.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹצִיא שְׁטַר חוֹב עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, כָּתוּב בּוֹ בָּבֶל – מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל, כָּתוּב בּוֹ אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. כָּתוּב בּוֹ סְתָם, הוֹצִיאוֹ בְּבָבֶל – מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת בָּבֶל, הוֹצִיאוֹ בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מַגְבֵּהוּ מִמְּעוֹת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. כָּתוּב בּוֹ כֶּסֶף סְתָם – מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה לֹוֶה מַגְבֵּהוּ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּכְתוּבָּה.

§ The Sages taught: With regard to one who produces a promissory note against another, if Babylonia is written in it, he pays it with the currency of Babylonia; if Eretz Yisrael is written in it, he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. In a case where it is written without specification as to where the document was written, if he produced it in Babylonia he pays it with the currency of Babylonia and if he produced it in Eretz Yisrael he pays it with currency of Eretz Yisrael. If the note mentions money without specification of what type of coins are to be used, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes, even the smallest denomination available. However, this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract.

אַהַיָּיא? אָמַר רַב מְשָׁרְשִׁיָּא: אַרֵישָׁא, לְאַפּוּקֵי מִדְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, דְּאָמַר כְּתוּבָּה דְּאוֹרַיְיתָא.

The Gemara asks: With regard to this last statement, that this is not the case with regard to a marriage contract: To which part of the baraita is this referring? Rav Mesharshiyya said: It is referring back to the first clause, that if the promissory note mentions Babylonia one pays with Babylonian currency. This indicates that one invariably pays based on the place where the document was written. The tanna adds that this principle does not apply to a marriage contract, as one pays based on the place where a marriage contract was written only if this would lead to a leniency, as explained above (Rid). This ruling comes to exclude the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said that that a marriage contract applies by Torah law and must always be paid in the currency of the place in which the obligation was first formed.

״כָּתוּב בּוֹ כֶּסֶף סְתָם מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה לֹוֶה מַגְבֵּהוּ״. וְאֵימָא נַסְכָא? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ מַטְבֵּעַ. וְאֵימָא פְּרִיטֵי? אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: פְּרִיטֵי דְּכַסְפָּא לָא עָבְדֵי אֱינָשֵׁי.

§ The Gemara continues to analyze the baraita , which teaches: If the note mentions money [ kesef ] without specification, the borrower may pay it with any type of coin he likes. The Gemara asks: But can’t one say that perhaps the document was not speaking of coins but of silver [ kesef ] strips? Rabbi Elazar said: The baraita is referring to a case in which it is written in the document: Coins, although it does not specify which ones. The Gemara further asks: And can’t one say that one may pay off the debt with perutot , a small denomination? Rav Pappa said: People do not ordinarily mint perutot of silver, as they reserve silver for larger denominations.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לְעוֹלָם יָדוּר אָדָם בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲפִילּוּ בְּעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ גּוֹיִם וְאַל יָדוּר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּעִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. שֶׁכָּל הַדָּר בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל דּוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֱלוֹהַּ, וְכָל הַדָּר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ דּוֹמֶה כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אֱלוֹהַּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״לָתֵת לָכֶם אֶת אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים״.

§ In relation to the basic point raised by the mishna concerning living in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages taught: A person should always reside in Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by gentiles, and he should not reside outside of Eretz Yisrael, even in a city that is mostly populated by Jews. The reason is that anyone who resides in Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who has a God, and anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as one who does not have a God. As it is stated: “To give to you the land of Canaan, to be your God” (Leviticus 25:38).

וְכָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ דָּר בָּאָרֶץ אֵין לוֹ אֱלוֹהַּ?! אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: כָּל הַדָּר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר ״כִּי גֵרְשׁוּנִי הַיּוֹם מֵהִסְתַּפֵּחַ בְּנַחֲלַת ה׳ לֵאמֹר לֵךְ עֲבוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים״, וְכִי מִי אָמַר לוֹ לְדָוִד: לֵךְ עֲבוֹד אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים? אֶלָּא לוֹמַר לְךָ: כָּל הַדָּר בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

The Gemara expresses surprise: And can it really be said that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael has no God? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship. And so it says with regard to David: “For they have driven me out this day that I should not cleave to the inheritance of the Lord, saying: Go, serve other gods” (I Samuel 26:19). But who said to David: Go, serve other gods? Rather, this comes to tell you that anyone who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered as though he is engaged in idol worship.

רַבִּי זֵירָא הֲוָה קָמִשְׁתַּמֵּיט מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, דִּבְעָא לְמִיסַק לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: כָּל הָעוֹלֶה מִבָּבֶל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר

§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: