though it is permitted to leave, it would not be indicative of the quality of piety....*
None of these permissive circumstances seems to have applied to Maimonides ’ leaving the Land. There was no scholarly rabbi in Egypt who could possibly teach him Torah . Nothing is heard about any financial distress. His statement that one may leave under such circumstances but would be considered lacking midat hasidut(the quality of piety) was certainly not a light matter to the author of these laws.
Maimonides used this term, midat hasidut, to describe the conduct of one who takes it upon himself to observe beyond the letter of the law. He cites as a negative example the sons of Naomi, Mahlon and Chilion, who left the Land of Israel because of famine and died in the country of Moab (Ruth 1:1-5). Why did they die, even though it is permitted to emigrate to escape starvation?
The Rambam explains that they were the great men of their generation, and therefore they were punished by God . The source for his assertion is the Talmudic dictum in the name of Rabbi Simeon b. Yohai:“Elimelech[Naomi’s husband], Mahlon, and Chilion were the great men of their generations as well as leaders of their generations (parnasei hador). Why then were they punished? Because they left
Palestine for a foreign country.”
Here is the conundrum: Maimonides is definitely considered to be among the greatest scholars and leaders of his generation. He was certainly aware when he codified these laws that they might refer to himself He did not even have the mitigating circumstances of a famine. Furthermore, he did not merely leave the Land of Israel, but
131