a) The Rambam Hilchot Avadim 8:6 writes that if someone sells his eved to Suria; or even to Akko; this is equivalent to selling him to Chutz laAretz, and he goes free.

b) The Rambam's source is the Gemara Gitin 8a where Rabbi Chiya bar Abba was asked if someone sells his slave to suria, is this tantamount to selling him to Chutz laAretz or not? He answered that we can solve this question from the Mishnah Gitin 8a where Rabbi Meir stated that Akko possesses the Halacha of Eretz Yisrael for Gitin [so a person who brings as Get from Akko to other places in Eretz Yisrael is not required to say "the Get was written and signed in front of me"]. The Gemara infers from the Mishnah that Akko only has a Din of Eretz Yisrael for the issue of bringing a Get, but not for the issue of selling an eved. Since Akko is not considered as Eretz Yisrael in this respect, it follows that Suria; which is a lot further away than Akko; is certainly not Eretz Yisrael for avadim.

c) Rashi 8a DH keMocher beChutzah writes that the reason one is not allowed to sell an eved to Chutz laAretz is because the eved has to keep Mitzvot and therefore may not leave Eretz Yisrael. However the problem is that the Gemara; bottom 8a, top 8b; cites a braita which states that selling an eved to Suria is like selling him to overseas but the braita also maintains that "Kibush Yachid Shmai Kibush"; what an individual conquers is considered as a conquest; so Suria is part of Eretz Yisrael. The question now comes back on itself:- if Suria is like Eretz Yisrael then why can one not sell an eved to Suria?!

d) Possibly one can give an answer based on Tosfos above 2a end DH veAshkelon who writes that Akko is a long way off from the chief settlement of Eretz Yisrael. Even though Akko is Eretz Yisrael it nevertheless is a long way off from the main Eretz Yisrael so one may not sell an eved to such a remote part, and certainly one may not sell him to suria, which is even more remote.

KOL TUV

Dovid Bloom

Follow-up reply:

1) I will try and elaborate on the above, bs'd, with the help of an interesting idea that I saw in sefer Nosson Piryo, by Rav Nosson Geshtetner zt'l, on Gitin 8a DH veNireh, page 38 [ I have used my own understanding of his idea, and changed it slightly].

[As an anecdotal note, I once read that the Steipler zt'l used to send his son, Rav Chaim Kanyevsky zt'l, to ask practical Halachic questions to Rav Nosson Geshtetner. In fact, Rav Geshtetner lived in the next street in Bnei Brak to the Steipler; the Steipler lived in Rechov Rashbam and Rav Geshtetner lived in Rechov Dvora HaNeviah].

2) Nosson Piryo cites the Mishnah Kesuvos 110b which states that anyone can insist that his family to go up with him to live in Eretz Yisrael, and.even if they already live in Eretz Yisrael, he may insist that they go with him to live in Yerushalayim. We see that even if one already lives in Eretz Yisrael, there is still a Mitzvah to live in an even holier place in Eretz Yisrael; which is what Yerushalayim is (see Mishnah Keilim 1:8).

3) Since there is a Mitzvah to live in a place in Eretz Yisrael which possesses more kedusha, the reverse also follows; one may not move an eved to a remote part of Eretz Yisrael where the level of the Mitzvot that the eved will be able to observe, will be significantly lower than the level that he attains when living in Eretz Yisrael proper. Tosfos 2a, that I cited above in d), writes that not only is Akko far away from the main settlement, but, probably of greater importance, it is distant from the Yeshivot and Batei Din. This means that the people who live there are considerably less well-versed in the Mitzvot, so they will not enable the eved that they bought from a spiritually stronger part of Eretz Yisrael, to perform the Mitzvot in the way that he was accustomed.

4) To summarize, the reason one is not allowed to sell an eved to Chutz LaAretz is because it prevents him from observing the Mitzvot. If he is sold to Akko, which is remote from the centers of Torah learning, he will also go down spiritually.

Yasher Koach

Dovid Bloom

Akko is "Ad Koh"; until here is Eretz Yisrael:-

1) So far we have seen that whilst Akko may be a part of Eretz Yisrael for certain purposes, on the other hand it is distant from the main part of Eretz Yisrael, so if someone sells an eved to a buyer in Akko this is the same as selling him to Chutz LaAretz.

2) There is another source, to show that Akko was a border town, from Gitin 76b (cited in Tosfos 2a DH veAshkelon that I mentioned a few times above) where Rav Safra said that when the Rabbis used to say farewell to each other, they did so at Akko, because it is forbidden to go from Eretz Yisrael to Chutz LaAretz. Rashi DH Ki explains that overseas Torah students went to Eretz Yisrael to learn Torah. When they returned home, their friends in Eretz Yisrael used to escort them until Akko and would part from each other there, since the students who lived in Eretz Yisrael were not allowed to leave. We learn from this that even though Akko was considered as Eretz Yisrael, it was the border town.

3) We find this also in Kesubos 112a; bottom line; which tells us that Rabbi Abba used to kiss the rocks of Akko out of his love for Eretz Yisrael. Tosfos DH Menashek points out that this suggests that Akko was part of Eretz Yisrael, as we also learn in the aforementioned Gitin 76b. Tosfos then asks from the first Mishnah in Maseches Gitin 2a, which states that Akko was considered Eretz Yisrael for Gittin, which implies that for other purposes Akko was considered as Chutz LaAretz.

4) Tosfos resolves this problem by citing the Talmud Yerushalmi that half of Akko was in Eretz Yisrael and the other half was in Chutz LaAretz. At any rate we do learn that Akko is very much a borderline case. In fact the Talmud Yerushalmi Sheviis 4:7 gives a hint at this from Akko's very name. It cites the story about kissing the stones of Akko, but according to Yerushalmi, it was Rabbi Yosi ben Chaninah who did this.

5) Yerushalmi adds that when he kissed the stones he said "Ad Koh Hee Ara deYisrael"; unitl here is Eretz Yisrael. Akko is a shorterned form of Ad Koh and indicates that Akko is right on the border

Dovid Bloom

According to Rashi, Akko and suria were not conquered by those who returned from Bavel:-

1) Rashi Gitin 8a DH leAvadim writes that Akko is not part of Eretz Yisrael. The background to this statement is that the Gemara there asks:- if one sells one's eved to suria does he go free? The Gemara cites the Mishnah 2a where R. Meir said that Akko is like Eretz Yisrael for gitin, from which the Gemara infers that it is only for gitin that Akko is like E.Y. according to R. Meir, but not for avadim. The Gemara concludes that since Akko is not E.Y.; therefore suria, which is further away, is certainly not. Rashi writes that Akko is not EY for avadim because it is not a part of EY.

2) Obviously, Rashi 8a maintains that Akko was not conquered by the "Olei Bavel"; the Jews who returned from Bavel at the end of the 70-year exile, and started building the second Beit Hamikdash (see Shiurei Rav Shmuel Rozovski zt'l, Gitin #114 DH veHineh). This means that Rashi disagrees with Tosfos Gitin 2a DH veAshkelon, who writes that those who returned from Bavel conquered Akko.

3) We can now go further and suggest that according to Rashi, suria was also not conquered by Olei Bavel. The latter is the opinion of the Hasagot HaRa'avad, Hilchot Shemittah veYovel 4:28, who writes that the east side of the Jordan river and suria were not held by Olei Bavel. My proof that Rashi agrees with the Raavad is that once we have shown that Olei Bavel did not conquer Akko, it seems very logical that since the Gemara 8a states that the fact that one may not sell an eved to suria is learnt from a Kol keShekein from Akko, if the Halacha would be that Olei Bavel conquered suria but did not conquer Akko, it would be hard to justify this Kol She-Kein, since there is an aspect by which suria has greater kedusha than Akko. Therefore it would seem that Rashi agrees to the Raavad that Olei Bavel did not conquer suria.

4) So we have learnt, bs'd, that according to Rashi, Akko and suria are similar in that one may not sell an eved to either, and Olei Bavel did not hold on to either.

Dovid Bloom

The fact that Akko was not conquered by Asher is not a reason to say that it is not part of EY :-

[ 1) Just to point out the obvious. The Beit Shemesh; from which the inhabitants were not driven out, as mentioned in Shoftim 1:31; is the Beit Shemesh in the inheritance of Naftali. This is not the same as the Beit Shemesh in the inheritance of Yehudah, which is mentioned in Yehoshua 15:10. The large, famous contemporary Beit Shemesh is in the vicinity of Beit Shemesh of Shevet Yehudah from the time of the Tanach.]

2) However the fact that the inhabitants were not driven out is not necessarily a reason that the city should not be considered as EY. We see this from the Ran, on the Rif Gitin 1a in Rif pages DH uBeMai, who asks on the Mishnah 2a that states that Akko is classified with what is north of it, and is therefore considered as Chutz LaAretz; that we know that Akko is Eretz Yisrael, because Shoftim 1:31 states that Asher did not expel the dwellers of Akko?! Ran writes that whenever the verse states such a thing, this proves that the city mentioned is part of Eretz Yisrael. The proof for this is from Gemara Chulin 7a which asks "How can you say that Beit Shean is not a part of Eretz Yisrael; is it not written (Shoftim 1:27) "And Menasheh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beit Shean"?!

[see Chazon Ish on the Gemara Chulin 7a; in Chazon Ish Yoreh Deah #214; who discusses the question:- how did these places attain kedusha if they were never conquered?! He writes that it is possible that in the time of David HaMelech and Shlomo HaMelech all the cities surrendered]

Dovid Bloom

Rashi Sanhedrin 5b writes that Akko is partly EY and partly the Land of the Peoples:-

1) On Rashi Gitin 8a DH leAvadim that I cited sbove; that Akko is not a part of Eretz Yisrael; there are obvious questions that must be asked (a) if so how does Gitin 76b tell us that Akko was the farewell point where Torah students parted from their friends before returning to Bavel; their comrades from EY would not be allowed to accompany them even to Akko since this would mean they are leaving EY, which one is not allowed to do?! (b) How does Kesubos 112a tell us that Rabbi Abba kissed the rocks of Akko, if Akko is anyway Chutz LaAretz?!

2) We can answer with the help of Rashi Sanhedrin 5b DH Rabbi who writes

" Akko is partially EY and partially Eretz HaAmim".

There would seem to be 2 possible ways of understanding this. It could mean that for certain Halachot, Akko is considered as EY and for certain Halachot it is considered as Chutz LaAretz. The other possibility is that Rashi holds like his grandson; Rabeinu Tam; cited in Tosfos Gitin 2a DH veAshkelon; that half of Akko was in EY and half in Chutz LaAretz.

3) We will assume, for the moment, that Rashi maintains that half was in EY and half in Chul. Therefore we can say that the Eretz Yisrael talmidim who accompanied their friends in Gitin 76b only went as far as the EY half of Akko, and Rabbi Abba kissed the stones of Akko in the EY half.

4) But why does Gitin 8a say that one may not sell an eved to Akko; why not sell him to the EY half of Akko?! And why does Rashi 8a write that Akko is not part of Eretz Yisrael; possibly he was sold to the EY half?!

5) We can answer with Tosfos Gitin 2a; that Akko was a long way from the Yeshivot and Batei Din. This meant that the level of Mitzvah observance was significantly lower there, so selling an eved even to the EY half of Akko would mean that he would deteriorate in Mitzvot. There is no prohibition merely to accompany a friend to the EY half of Akko; since it does possess a Halacha of EY; and the stones of Akko are still very special and one wants to kiss them. But one may not sell an eved, even to the EY half of Akko, because this will mean that for years his level of Mitzvah observance will be worse.

Dovid Bloom

Support for my arguement from Pesachim 51a:-

1) I found, bs'd, a Gemara Pesachim 51a where, at end 50b, Abaye cited a Halacha that if something is permitted, but a certain section of the public are stringent on this matter, one may not tell them that it is permitted. Rav Chisda (top 51a) said that this only applies to Kutim, because they make light of Halachot and if they are told that one thing is permitted, they may come to be lenient about other matters which are in reality forbidden.

2) The Gemara cites a number of incidents which are relevant to this issue. One is the Halacha that one is allowed to sit on the benches of Nochrim on Shabbat. Rashi explains that the Nochrim use these benches to sell their wares, but we are not concerned that if one sits on them there will be a suspicion that a Jew is doing business on Shabbat. However the Gemara also states that this Halacha does not apply in Akko and then relates that it once happened that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel was in Akko and he sat on the Nochri benches. The entire country spoke discreditably about this and said "we have never seen such a thing in our lives!". Raban Shimon got off the bench, sat on the ground, and did not tell them that it is permitted to sit on the Nochri benches on Shabbat.

3) The Gemara asks; why did Raban Shimon not tell them that this is permitted; it is only to Kutim that one may not tell that such a thing is permitted?! The Germara answers:-

"the people in the countries of the sea are similar to Kutim since Rabbis are not frequently found amongst them".

Rashi explains that since they have not learnt, and do not live in a Torah place, they are also liable to become lenient and make light of the Halacha.

4) I believe that this supports, bs'd, what I argued above. Pesachim 51a describes the inhabitants of Akko as people who live in "the countries of the sea"; in other words outside of Eretz Yisrael. This does not mean that Akko is not a part of Eretz Yisrael, since the Mitzvot of Eretz Yisrael apply at least in one half of Akko. What it means is that Akko is far away from the Yeshivot and Batei Din of Eretz Yisrael, and the result of this geographical distance is that there is also a distance from Torah knowledge and caring about Halacha. This is why one may not sell an eved to Akko since by doing so one is distancing him from genuine Torah life.

Dovid Bloom