ALIYAH: CONFLICT AND AMBIVALENCE
His son, R. Joseph b. Moses Trani(Maharit, 1568-1639) considered the second ruling of Rabenu Haim against a/iyah fallacious. He contended that some agricultural mitzvot connected with the Land could definitely be observed in the present—that is, the Middle Ages. These included, among others, /leket(gleanings), shi'khehah (the forgotten sheaf), peah(comer of the field left for the poor), and ma'asarot(tithes). Furthermore, the Maharit declared that dwelling in the Land is a positive mitzvah of the Torah as established by Nahmanides . He goes on to list some of the great advantages of living in Eretz Yisrael and concludes that the halakhah is well established that wherever no danger exists one is compelled to go up to the Land. In reply to a questioner, he summed up his view with the succinct determination:“Therefore, you should not heed the wamings of Rabenu Haim.”
The Maharit seems to have been influenced not only by his father’s convictions, but by his own experiences in Eretz Yisrael as well. He was born in Safed and served there as a rabbi and head of a yeshivah. He had lived there for more than thirty years when, in 1639, he was sent to Constantinople on behalf of the Jewish community of Safed . He became the chief rabbi of the capital city and eventually of all Turkey. In spite of the distance, he remained in close contact with his family in the Galilee. His firsthand knowledge of the reality of the Land and its halakhot gave him a perspective quite different from that of his colleagues in Europe .
The Maharit ruled in a case similar to that related by R. Samson above.” He was consulted by a certain R. Isaac who had been vowing for two years that if his wife bore him a son he would go on aliyah to the Land of Israel. His wife did indeed give birth to a male child, but the next year he was unable to go. Then he left his home and family in the city of Adrianople , Turkey. He expressed himself as full
128