Three Oaths

The Three Oaths (Hebrew: שלוש השבועות) is a Midrash found in the Babylonian Talmud [Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot 111a] which states that it is forbidden for the Jewish people to immigrate to the Land of Israel in an organized manner, or to rebel against the nations of the world.

Most Haredim, especially those groups which are known as being strongly anti-Zionist, view this Midrash as binding halacha. Fact|date=August 2008

Religious Zionists, on the other hand, do not, for a variety of reasons, which are discussed below.

Content of the Midrash

R. Yossi ben R. Hanina: "What are these three oaths? One that Israel not “ascend the wall”: one that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world: and one that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world not to oppress Israel overmuch."

The Midrash in question is based upon three verses found in the Song of Songs:

Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires (Song of Songs 2:7)

Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
by the gazelles and by the does of the field:
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires. (Song of Songs 3:5)

Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you
Do not arouse or awaken love
until it so desires. (Song of Songs 8:4)

The Midrash on these verses is based on the traditional interpretation of the song, according to which the Song of Songs is an allegory for the relationship between God and the Jews.

Viewpoint of medieval rabbinical scholars

Maimonides (the Rambam)

Maimonides cited the Three Oaths in his letter to the Jews of Yemen, telling them not to leave their place of exile in Yemen for the Land of Israel under any circumstances. [ [http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/vl/rambamuvno/rambamuvno14.pdf Igeret Teiman, original Hebrew] ] [ [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/maimonides.cfm Jews Against Zionism - Igeret Teiman, translated section] ]

Religious Zionists suggest that in his citation of Iggeret Teiman, the Rambam specifically interprets the oaths metaphorically, and not literally. According to them, this is stated explicitly in Iggeret Teiman: "Solomon, of blessed memory, inspired by the holy spirit, foresaw that the prolonged duration of the exile would incite some of our people to seek to terminate it before the appointed time, and as a consequence they would perish or meet with disaster. Therefore he admonished and adjured them in metaphorical language to desist..." [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Yemen/XX] Therefore, they argue, the Rambam did not consider them halachically binding. [http://www.yasharbooks.com/Religious%20Zionism%20Debate.pdf]

In his book, Da'at Chaim, Israeli-Haredi Rabbi Chaim Walkin points out that the Rambam discussed the Three Oaths only in Iggeret Teiman, but not in his halachic work, the Mishne Torah, because while these oaths are important, the Rambam did not consider them Halakha. [http://www.messiahtruth.com/zionism.html]

Nachmanides (the Ramban)

Nachmanides disagreed with the position of the Rambam, who argued in Iggeret Teiman that Jews should refrain from immigration to the Land of Israel due to the Three Oaths. In a commentary on Maimonides, Nachmanides wrote: "It is incumbent upon every individual to go up to live [in Israel] " and that this was "a positive commandment incumbent upon every individual in every generation." [http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/zionism/b4.html] The Ramban himself made Aliyah from Spain in 1267. [http://www.jewishmag.com/91mag/rambanshul/rambanshul.htm]

Nachmanides held that it was a positive commandment to live in the Land of Israel if doing so was possible in the present generation (for any generation), which could not be so if the Three Oaths were halachically binding. [http://www.messiahtruth.com/zionism.html] This is still a disagreement amongst Jews today, and could not be true if Maharal's claim that the Three Oaths is a law derived straight from the Torah is accurate. Presently the modern movement of Zionism holds with the opinions of Nachmanides.

The Maharal

The Maharal cited the oaths and wrote that even if the non-Jews threaten the Jews with torturous death, they should not break the oaths, and this holds true for each of the oaths, according to him. ["Netzach Yisroel", Perek 24, 116-119; see end of page 119; found online [http://www.hebrewbooks.org/14200 here] ]

In the case of the Maharal, religious Zionists argue that he, too, considered the oaths allegorical rather than literal. This can be seen in his commentary on Kesubos, which was published for the first time from manuscript in 1960. Therefore, as the Satmar Rav, who cites Maharal as evidence for his position, did not have access to this information when he considered this issue (as it was not yet published), some claim that his view on the matter cannot be considered conclusive. [http://www.yasharbooks.com/Religious%20Zionism%20Debate.pdf]

Chaim ben Yosef Vital

Chaim ben Yosef Vital, the main student of Ha-Ari, said that according to the Baraita of Rabbi Ishmael, the Three Oaths remained in effect for the first thousand years after the destruction of the Second Temple only. [http://www.messiahtruth.com/zionism.html]

Other medieval rabbinical scholars

Rabbi Bahya ibn Paquda, author of "Chovot ha-Levavot", cited the Three Oaths in his commentary on the Torah as being valid and binding. [ [http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/rabbi_quotes/bechaye.cfm] ]

Modern times

Viewpoint of those who do not consider the Three Oaths to be binding

There have been several other responses to the anti-Zionist claims from the religious Zionist camp, each of which have in turn been responded to by counter-claims from the anti-Zionist camp. An overview:

* The Three Oaths are an Aggadic Midrash, and therefore they are not Halakhically obligatory (based upon the writings of the Rambam, who said that Midrashim are not a valid source of Halakha). Further, the wording of the Rambam in his "Iggeret Teman" specifically states that the oaths are allegorical ("al derech mashal").
* Although the Three Oaths were obligatory in the past, the gentiles violated their vow by excessively persecuting the Jewish people, and therefore the validity of the two other vows has expired. Thus, the ban on mass-immigration to the Holy Land is null and void (based on the teachings of Rabbi Shlomo Kluger).
* The Balfour Declaration, San Remo conference and United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 constitute permission and approval from the nations of the world, and thus the Jewish people cannot be considered to have rebelled against the nations.

Viewpoint of those who consider the Three Oaths to be binding

Famous Haredi rabbis, such as Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum of the Satmar Hasidim, have cited the Three Oaths as the source for their anti-Zionist position which forbids Jewish mass-immigration to the Land of Israel and Jewish rule over it. Nevertheless, Haredi Jews who subscribe to this view do immigrate to the Land of Israel, but only as individuals and not as part of an organized mass-immigration; also, they come to the land only to live there, and not to conquer it and rule over it.

The answers given to the arguments given above are as follows.
*The Satmar Rebbe, in his book Vayoel Moshe notes that the Rambam himself cites the Three Oaths in Iggeret Teiman, in a way that makes it appear that he is discussing binding halachah. In using the description "allegorical" Maimonides is referring to the passage in the Song of Songs, and not to the Three Oaths as such.
* The oaths are between the Jewish people and God, and the non-Jews and God; the fact that the non-Jews violated their oath does not mean that the Jewish people are free to do so as well.

ee also

* Haredim and Zionism
* Anti-Zionism
* Religious Zionism
* Vayoel Moshe

References

ources

* R. Shlomo Aviner, "Kuntres She-Lo Ya'alu Be-Homah"