In this week’s parsha, Hashem promises Bnei Yisroel that after krias yam suf, they will never see the Mitzri’yim again. The Mechilta references two other places where the Torah discourages our return to Mitzrayim. One is in parshas Shoftim, where the Torah limits the number of horses a king may own, to minimize the possibility of our returning to Mitzrayim, which was the primary supplier of horses. Additionally, in parshas Ki Savo, the Torah warns that if we will be punished by being sold into slavery in Mitzrayim. Based on these pesukim, Chazal understand that there is a prohibition for a Yid to live in Mitzrayim.
As we know, Yaakov Avinu took his entire family with him and moved to Mitzrayim. Yet the Gemara tells us clearly (Kiddushin 82) that Avrohom Avinu fulfilled all the mitzvos, and many meforshim assume that this applies to the other Avos, as well. If so, how could Yaakov Avinu have ignored this prohibition and lived in Mitzrayim.
If we study the sources, we find several exceptions that would justify Yaakov’s stay. Firstly, the Rambam (Hilchos Milachim 5:7,8) rules that it is only forbidden to settle in Mitzrayim, to establish a permanent residence. However, it is permitted to visit, or to live there for a short while. This is exactly how the ba’al hagada describes Yaakov Avinu’s intentions. “Lo yardu l’hishtakei’a shama,” he did not intend to remain there perpetually. Rather, as the shevatim told Pharoah, lagur ba’aretz banu,”, we came to live here temporarily. This is also alluded to in the first words in parshas vayechi. The Torah does not use the term vayeishev, he settled. Rather, it says vayechi, Yaakov lived there, but he still considered himself a citizen, a resident, of Eretz Cana’an. This might be why it was permitted.
Interestingly, we know that the Rambam himself lived for many years in Mitzrayim!
The Radvaz explains that the Rambam certainly did not disregard his own ruling. Rather, he suggests that the king might have insisted that he stay with him, in his position as the royal physician. The Radvaz continues by justifying the period when he, too, lived in Mitzrayim, by pointing out that his presence was needed to teach Torah and establish a Yeshiva. However, this is a puzzling defense. Why would building a Yeshiva override this prohibition?
We can suggest that Radvaz is relying on other leniency of some Rishonim, who explain that the reason for the prohibition is to protect us from the negative influences of the corrupt, Egyptian values. Therefore, it would be permitted to establish a Jewish monarchy in Mitzrayim and then live there, since this would change the prevailing cultural norms. In a similar vein, the Radvaz might hold that since he established a Yeshiva, he separated himself from the surrounding culture. If one is immersed in the world of the Yeshiva and the world of Torah, he is permitted to dwell physically in Mitzrayim.
Indeed, Rabbeinu Eshtori Haparchi, a fifteenth century Rishon, relates in his sefer, Kaftor Vaferach (chapter #5), that he met a descendant of the Rambam, Rav Shmuel, in Mitzrayim. Rav Shmuel related that whenever the Rambam would sign a letter, he would conclude with the following words: “The writer, who, every day, transgresses three prohibitions.” However, numerous Acharonim question whether the Rambam could have written such a self-incriminating statement. Their arguments are presented in the new, annotated editions of Kaftor Vaferach, chapter #5, footnote #201.
Perhaps this is the reason that Yaakov sent Yehuda ahead to establish a Yeshiva in Mitzrayim. This was the only way they would be protected from the effects of the local culture, and thereby be allowed to live there.
The Rishonim suggest several ideas significantly limiting the scope of this prohibition. Rabbeinu Bechaya (Shoftim 17:16) explains that the Mitzri’yim of that time were known to be resha’im and were sure to influence us negatively. However, we do not automatically assume that all future generations of Mitzri’yim would be worse than any other nation. Therefore, he says that this halacha was directed specifically at the Yidden of that generation. He supports this position by pointing to the many kehilos which were established in Mitzrayim throughout the generations. Surely, they did not all violate an explicit mitzva. And even if they had, we could assume there would have been an outcry and a protest from the Chachamim of those generations!
A second approach is found in the Semag (Lo Sa’aseh 227). He claims that the prohibition did extend to future generations of Mitzri’yim. However, the issur no longer applies today, because Sancheriv caused a great upheaval among the nations, uprooting the inhabitants of many countries and supplanting them elsewhere. Therefore, the current residents of Mitzrayim are not descended from the original Mitzri’yim, and so it is permitted to live among them.
On the other hand, Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz (Yereim 303) disagrees with this heter. He points out that the pasuk (Devarim 17:16) refers to the derech, forbidding us to return on the same road. In other words, after we left Mitzrayim, we cannot undertake the same journey in the other direction, and going back. Therefore, the prohibition still stands, regardless of whether the land is still occupied by the same inhabitants. Indeed, the Smag himself rescinded his position, and so, we cannot rely on this leniency.
However, he suggests another heter to explain the many communities that settled in Mitzrayim. Since the prohibition is tied to retracing our steps and returning along the same route, it is only forbidden to travel from Eretz Yisroel to Mitzrayim. However, it is permitted to travel to Mitzrayim from other countries.
A final exception is expressed by the Ritva (Yoma 38). He says that the prohibition only addresses Yidden as a whole, when we are all settled, as one people, in Eretz Yisroel. Today we are in galus, dispersed throughout the entire world, and so there is no difference whether we go to Mitzrayim or any other country.
These various approaches all agree that the prohibition does not apply to us these days, for the many different reasons explained earlier. This would explain why the Rambam lived in Mitzrayim. Similarly, we can apply the same reasoning to Yaakov Avinu. Whether we say that the prohibition was directed to a specific generation, or under specific circumstances, it would seem that living in Mitzrayim was permitted at that time, and Yaakov Avinu indeed kept the entire Torah, even while living in Mitzrayim.
