Talk:Three Oaths

Article expansion

I made a few changes regarding halacha/binding and midrash, because there are plenty of Charedim who think its just midrash, and plenty of Zionists that think it is binding. I also added an argument for the pro-zionism side which I have heard often said.

As the article is currently written, it makes is sound as if there is a debate about if these oaths are "binding", instead of a debate of if these oaths have been maintained. (which is what the real debate is). Some say the oaths were broken, some say they haven't been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.234.248 (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly this article is a controversial issue, and there are more detailed facets to this debate than we can fit into the existing strucutre of the article without making it a total mess. I propose we seek expert opinions (I will try get some Rabbis to take a look at the article) and restructure it according to their recommendations. There is also a major problem here with referring to disputed interpretations as fact.

In other words, this article needs a major cleanup and a lot of work.Sstr (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting in the type of 'rabbis' who are willing to look at Wikipedia will not be a solution. The 'rabbis' you propose, I consider them to be zionist kofrim who are not even worth mentioning nor are they worth the title 'rabbi'. I will write more later. I work 45 hours per week and am extremelyb busy and lack the time to spend the necessary attention on this issue right now. Might have time later this week. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange that you would use the term "kofrim" (disparaging term meaning "unbelievers") to described Zionists, when on your own user page you describe yourself thus: "was Orthodox for quite a few years, currently not practicing", which kind of deflates your credibility. Incidentally, where was there any violation of "the Three Oaths" in the establishment of the State of Israel, even if one were to assume that "the Three Oaths" were Halachically binding (and that is a big "if")? It hardly involved the Jews "ascending the wall" and making Aliyah en-masse as a single body. It involved a slow process of individual waves of Jewish immigration that peaked during times of persecution. And when the State was established, the vast majority of the Jews continued to live in the Diaspora. Since 1948, Jewish Aliyah to Israel has continued to occur through waves of Aliyah and by individuals, not by a mass "ascending of the wall". Not to mention there was no rebellion against the nations. The right to Jewish immigration and settlement in the Land of Israel, a Jewish National Home, and a Jewish State were all given the green light by the nations. It appears to me that the only "Oath" that was violated was the one in which the nations promised not to persecute the Jews excessively. Jacob D (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Jacob D

What you think of the Rabbis is irrelevant. If they can make an argument and support it with sources, that is all that matters.Sstr (talk) 10:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh no it isn't, and I am not accepting your 'rabbis'. I suggest that you ask the rabbis behind www.jewsagainstzionism.com for their opinion. By the way, I must clarify that I am in no way opposed to having Zionist 'rabbis' writing about Religious Zionism - I'm sure they are excellent at that. But you are not going to present their twisted opinions as the ultimate truth and fact.

You can read some more about the Three Oaths here: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm .

I suggest that you go and ask the following rabbis about the Three Oaths: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/endorsements/index.cfm or are they not to your liking?

And don't come telling me that this site represents a tiny group of weirdos who call themselves "Neturei Karta" (which they are not); it does not. See http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/events/20071203/index.cfm for an example.

Let me just emphasize that I do not in any way intend to insult you. You are, judging by our user page, merely the product of a regular Israeli Zionist education, educated to believe that all religious Jews are Zionists and that Zionism and Judaism are inhrerently one and the same. However, you should open your eyes to the facts and realize that this is not the truth. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the layout of the page to a version which, I hope, we can agree on:

• section on medieval rabbinical scholars
  • rabbi 1
  • rabbi 2
  • rabbi 3, etc
• section on current views
  • pro-oaths
  • anti-oaths

This way, we can keep things separate and organized. I think this is the best way to deal with this article. Do you agree? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, whether you accept the Rabbis or not is irrelevant. I'm more than willing to have opposing views represented in this article, as long as neither position is portrayed as an absolute and universally accepted truth, because this is clearly a disputed issue. I am not insulted by anything you have said, except the prejudiced insinuation that, being Israeli, I am necessarily ignorant of Judaism. I am well aware of the anti-Zionist positions and of the distinction that some anti-Zionists make between Judaism and Zionism. I am not a great Rabbi and I don't presume to be able to argue with the Satmar Rebbe - and I am confident you will concede that there are many Zionist Rabbis you could not personally contend with either. Therefore, I am satisfied with simply citing the positions of others, both Zionists and non-Zionists. If you are willing to do the same, then we can work together. If you plan to push your own agenda and present it as the ultimate undisputed truth, we are going to have a problem. Sstr (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoever is writing the viewpoint of the Satmar Rebbe is not doing a very good job. He is being totally misquoted - if you look him up inside you will see there are times he writes the exact opposite of what he is quoted as saying. For instance, he explicitly states that the Three Oaths were not genuine oaths - but here he is quoted as saying they are and explaining the Rambam with a peirush he never wrote. The whole analysis of the Maharal, etc. really misses the point. The Satmar Rebbe did not base his reasoning on a Maharal. No Posek would ever decide any question in a matter of halacha based upon some obscure Maharal, and certainly not the Satmar Rebbe. What he writes very clearly in Vyoel Moshe is that to violate the Oaths (as it were) and leave exile before heavenly redemption is an act of heresy, just as is clearly spelled out in Tehilim by Bnei Ephraim (who did the equivelant of leaving exile before heavenly redemption) לא האמינו בד' ולא בטחו בישועתו. As a nice proof to this (and nothing more than that) he points out that it was obvious to the Maharal that it is better to die than leave exile, something which would seem to be directly at odds with the Torah's rule that ones life comes before any comanndment in the Torah besides heresy and the three cardinal sins. Clearly, the Maharal was of the opinion that leaving exile was a heretical act.SupremeandGloriousLeader (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, of course, that the source text (Psalms 78:22) makes no mention of Ephraim or the Israelites "leaving the exile before the redemption". In fact, the claim that Ephraim left Egypt 30 years before the appointed time of Exodus, and thus were punished, is found only in Rabbinical literature, and the relevant point there is that they were missing out on a key one-time event in the formation of the Jewish people, which has no parallel in any other event in Jewish history.

The text in Psalms 78 specifically referring to Ephraim (verse 9) says that "the children of Ephraim were as archers handling the bow, that turned back in the day of battle" and that they generally disbelieved in and distrusted God, not that they left Exile early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob D (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Those who come to the land, not to conquer it

Your removal of that sentence and your edit summary were totally wrong. I know that there are some fake 'Haredi' clowns sitting in the Knesset (Gafni, Porush etc שר"י), but they are completely irrelevant. They do not belong to the groups we are talking about here. They have no shaychus to Satmar or any similar group at all (B"H they don't). Nobody who is in the slightest way affiliated with the Edah HaChareidis participates in the Zionist elections or in their 'Knesset.' Now, again, I apologize for not having the proper time for this article. I'm very busy at work and simply don't have enough time. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to make a statement like that then explain what you mean, and who exactly it is referring to. The fact that they "don't come to conquer the land" means nothing since there is nothing to conquer, and implies that others immigrate with the intention of conquering Israel (else it would not be worth making the distinction). Anyway, haEdah Hachareidis are not the only Haredim in Israel. You cannot make statements about "Haredim" which do not hold true for all Haredim.Sstr (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article

Nachmanides is portrayed in this article, somewhat disigenuously, as though he leaves some element of ambiguity as to whether he believes the commandment of possessing and settling the Land of Israel(Positive Commandment #4, from the Nachmanides' Addendum to Maimonides' Book of Commandments) is an eternally and collectively binding commandment, valid even during the Exile. Notwithstanding some of the later rabbinical responses, it is clear from Nachmanides' commentary that in his view, the commandment is perpetually binding on the Jewish people as whole, even during the Exile, as he states explicitly:

"We are commanded to engage in the conquest in every generation. Now I say that the sages could not overemphasize living in the Land of Israel, even to the point of saying that anyone who leaves and lives outside the Land is as if he has engaged in idolatry, as it is said (1 Sam. 26:19), They have driven me out today from sharing in the Lord’s Possession [as if] I am told, ‘Go worship other gods.' They made many other such emphatic statements regarding this positive commandment that we are commanded to possess the Land and settle it. It is therefore an eternal positive command, obligating every single individual even during the time of Exile as is known from the Talmud in many places. In the language of the Sifrey [Devarim re'eh 12:29], “It once occurred that Rabbi Yehudah b. Batira, Rabbi Matya b. Charshuni, Chananya b. Achai, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Natan had left the Land [of Israel]; [when] they came to Puteoli they remembered the Land of Israel, lowered their eyes, cried rivers of tears, tore their clothes [in mourning], and recited this verse (Deut. 11:31-32), When you take possession of it and settle in it, take care to observe all the commandments…They concluded: Settling in the Land of Israel is equal to all of the commandments in the Torah!" (Nahmanides, Hassagot positive #4), emphasis mine.

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.144 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for this valuable contribution to the article. Debresser (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Non-functional links

The links to the three verses of Song of Songs are not functioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantnup (talk • contribs) 18:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Zero0000, The current lead in unsourced, it does not summarize anything from the article but makes ridicules claims, that " God adjured three oaths upon the world." Half of the article is claimed to be sourced with Talmud itself, another half with unreliable sources like Rabbi Tatielbaum or Rabbi Kahane books (or remains unsourced with incorrect claims), while you removed a very rare properly sourced sentences. Finally the claim of historic views on this midrash also needs a source Tritomex (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC) If no objections are raised, I will remove this horrifically sourced claims from the article.Tritomex (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

(1) Learn how to do a ping. (2) If you want to change the lead, do it in a way that summarises the article, which makes it very clear that the interpretation of Satmar is not a historically fringe view. Actually it is close to the historical religious mainstream view. These "oaths" were a major reason why almost the entire religious leadership of Europe opposed the Zionist movement in its early days. A good lead would indicate the gradual change of interpretation which coincided with the rise of Zionism, not attempt from the outset to present the non-Zionist interpretation as fringe. Zero^talk 14:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I see the issue much more complicated. First I focused solely on how this article is constructed. It is written in tragically poor way. Almost not a single reliable source is used, while the books of Rabbi Tatielbaum and Rabbi Kahane are used as references for different claims. Than, entire sections are based on Talmud as a primary source for different original research. As for the historic context, when you say "entire religious leadership of Europe" you are probably referring to Hasidic Judaism, as the "Three Oaths" never played any significant role in Zionist/Antizionist considerations among non Hasidic Jews. Much more important reasons, why many non Hasidic Jews opposed Zionism was inclination toward Bundism, international socialism, the attitude of Reform Judaism, assimilation/integaation etc. Even among Hasidic Jews, the idea of the importance of the Three Oaths rose only in parallel with the advance of Zionism. So although, before WWII, the debate about this three oaths may played some role in other Ortodox Jewish groups, today this interpretations, in Judaism, is fully restricted to Satamar and Neturei Karta communities.Tritomex (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I wrote "a major reason" because "the major reason" would be problematic if applied to everyone. I also agree with you on the very poor state of this article. It badly needs some detailed secondary sources to base the main narrative on. Meanwhile, you shouldn't make the article worse by presenting a non-Zionist interpretation as fringe right in the lead paragraph. Zero^talk 08:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile you should not make inaccurate, sweeping statements like "the interpretation of Satmar is not a historically fringe view. Actually it is close to the historical religious mainstream view. These "oaths" were a major reason why almost the entire religious leadership of Europe opposed the Zionist movement in its early days." In the early days of Zionism as a political movement, there was no consensus among the "religious leadership of Europe" regarding the status of the 'Three Oaths', their precise meaning, and their applicability to the issue of Zionism. Quite the opposite, there has been a consistently strong contrary view, following opinions such as those of Rabbi Abraham Bornstein, the Rif, the Rosh, Maimonides, Rabbi Yosef Caro, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk and the Vilna Gaon, not to mention the outspoken views of the preeminent medieval Jewish scholar Rabbi Nachmanides (the Ramban), such as his statement regarding the "positive commandment that we are commanded to possess the Land and settle it. It is therefore an eternal positive command, obligating every single individual even during the time of Exile as is known from the Talmud in many places". These views were known, taken into consideration, and endorsed by many among the "religious leadership of Europe" (at least in theory if not in practice) and undermined any consensus among Jewish religious leaders to object to the basic premise of Zionism (although many did object to its early secular character).

The book "Hastening Redemption: Messianism and the Resettlement of the Land of Israel", by Arie Morgentstein, discusses the "Three Oaths" at length, and shows how widespread religious objection or disregard to their use in preventing large-scale Jewish settlement of the Land of the Israel predates the rise of modern political Zionism.

Jacob D (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Jacob D

I came here to see who you were replying to and was surprised to find that it was me. I note that (omitting the modern rabbi Eliezer Melamed if that's who you meant) only 2 of the 8 rabbis you mention went to live in Eretz Israel. Rambam even visited but preferred to live in Egypt. I have the book you mention and it does not support your claim of a "consistently strong contrary view". Actually the book repeatedly refers to the idea of a mass return to Eretz Israel as revolutionary. It might be good politics to pretend that today's mainstream view was always the mainstream view, but it isn't good history. I'm not currently interested in editing this article or even in discussing it, so reply as you wish but I might not respond. Zero^talk 02:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"I came here to see who you were replying to..." Why do I find this statement to be slightly unsettling?

"only 2 of the 8 rabbis you mention went to live in Eretz Israel." Indeed, and that is why I specifically added parenthetically, "at least in theory if not in practice".

"...it does not support your claim of a "consistently strong contrary view" That view manifested itself in a strong body of Talmudic and rabbinical literature stressing the importance of living in Eretz Israel, regardless of the age. Caveats were added due to the practical difficulties associated with moving there. See, for example Tosafot on Ketubot 110b:14:1 - "He says to go up [to the Land of Israel], etc.: It is not practiced in our times, as there is danger on the roads."

"Actually the book repeatedly refers to the idea of a mass return to Eretz Israel as revolutionary." The idea of a mass return brought about by human initiative was considered revolutionary. But as I pointed out, the book's premise is that the change occurred before the rise of modern political Zionism. The book's preface cites a key moment in that development: "Particularly prominent among the immigrants who reached the Land of Israel in the early nineteenth century was a group led by disciples of the Ga'on R. Elijah of Vilna ("the Vilna Ga'on"); in 1813, they number 511 souls. The group's members sought to ensure the realization of the redemption by means of human action - primarily aliyah, the fulfillment of the commandment to dwell in the Land of Israel, but also an effort to renew classical rabbinic ordination and the building of Jerusalem." The book focuses on 1840 as the year in which a sea-change occurred, and thousands of Jews settled down in Eretz Israel. Despite the failure of the messianic expectation in 1840, Jewish settlement continued and accelerated after that. Oppression in Europe, philanthropic assistance by western Jews, and modernization under the influence of Western powers are cited as factors that contributed to the continued growth of the Jewish community in Jerusalem after 1840. The Epilogue states that this period was marked by "increased awareness of the Land of Israel's potential as a 'land of refuge' from spiritual influences prevalent elsewhere that were inimical to Judaism - a consideration that complemented the ideas of fulfilling the commandment to reside in the Land of Israel (a commandment said by some to be equal in weight to the entire remainder of the Torah) and of anticipating the coming of the Messiah." In parallel, there were those who saw modernization and philanthropy by western Jews as an opportunity for growth of the Jewish community. The net result was that, in spite of the ideological differences between the two streams, "[t]he Jerusalem yishuv thus underwent a remarkable transformation over the course of the nineteenth century, from oppressed ethnic minority, existing in filthy, almost unbearable conditions, to a majority in the city living in significantly improved and improving circumstances."

"It might be good politics to pretend that today's mainstream view was always the mainstream view, but it isn't good history." Ignoring the colossal change in the practical feasibility of mass Aliyah in recent centuries, and its profound and direct influence on "the mainstream view" isn't good history! A rabbi living 1000, 500, or 200 years ago, even one fervently believing in the commandment to settle the Land of Israel, would be unlikely to have urged his community to actively fulfil that commandment, not least because of the practical impossibility and risk of even attempting to carry it out.

Jacob D (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Jacob D

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 September 2022

In the introduction, please change "Jewish Law" to "Jewish law" because "Law" isn't a proper noun. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done --N8_wilson 🔔 15:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

should link

There should be a link to the Wiki page and/or fulltext of the book Em Habanim Semecha.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eim_HaBanim_Semeicha

https://www.sefaria.org/Em_HaBanim_Semecha?tab=contents 2603:7000:9900:5FB9:21E0:141A:AE9A:5820 (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

One of the links is broken. Footnote 10 should link to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Yemen/XX Michael Zigismund (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Isochrone (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August 2024 (2)

Footnote 13 should refer to Genesis 32.8, not 32.7. The text above the quote in the body should also be changed to reflect this. Michael Zigismund (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Isochrone (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)