The Three Oaths "Sholosh Shevuois" Explained

Because of the deluge of people e-mailing me to explain the Sholosh Shevuois, I have decided to dedicate an entire post to this explosive topic, and hopefully put this controversy to rest, at least on my blog!

Normally, I allow people to dissent in the comments, but I will not allow it with this post; I will delete them, because the other side has numerous venues and opportunities to voice their opinions. 
For example, they can voice their side on Der Yid, Der Blatt, Dee Zeitung, Ami Magazine, Hamodia, Hapeles (Auerbach's rag), Der Sturmer, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, & New York Times, naming just a few!
They can also start their own blog and spew their hate and Loshon Hara against the majority of the Jewish people, over there! 

I cannot allow space to be given to Apikorsim, Koifrem, Meraglim, haters of the State of Israel, and people who base their entire Chassidus, hating other Jews!

Now, the Yeshivas have taken the cause of anti-Zionism, fueled by the fanatical rants and shmoozzes of their Roshei Yeshivois, who are control freaks and are terrified of losing their grip and power over their sheep.

In this week's edition of Der Yid, the editor boasts and admits that they finally succeeded in changing the Litvishers' view of the State of Israel. They write that it took 50 years to get the Yeshivishe velt to turn away from being pro-Zionistic to the Satmar view!
They write, that in the past, except for the Briskar Rav and some other Litvishe Yechidim, the Satmar Rebbe was the sole person to see "the State for what it really is." 

The reason that the Litvishe Roshei Yeshivah guys, joined Satmar in speaking Loshon Harah and deciding that hating The State, was good policy was for only one reason, and one reason only...
since they refuse to work and refuse to join the army,  taking on the "shita" in effect gives them the excuse of not being part of a productive society!
Of course, this will be unsustainable, both in Israel and in the USA!

In secret, the Roshei Yeshiva are all pro the State, since they constantly advocate  Litvishe parents, to send their children to Israel to learn.
They are also on the take, practically all Yeshivas in the State of Israel take money from the Zionist entity, making the Zionists the largest Baalei Tzedaka in the entire Jewish world. And this even after the massive cuts from the Government!


The following Midrash is the source of the "sholosh shevuois" ... 

It begins on Ketubot 110b and continues on 111a (where the Three Oaths or sholosh shevuois are plainly conveyed). 

The Gemara quotes R. Yossi ben R. Chanina:


?ג' שבועות הללו למה,

אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה

ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם 

ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את אומות העולם שלא
 ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי.

"What are these Three Oaths?

One, that Israel should not storm the wall {RashI interprets: Together forcefully}.

Two, the Holy One adjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world. 

Three, the Holy One adjured the nations that they would not oppress Israel too much".


The Midrash is in large part an exegetical analysis of three separate Pesukim in  Shir HaShirim, and naturally reflects the traditional interpretation, which sees the entire Shir HaShirim as an allegory for the relationship between the Ribono Shel Olam  and the Jewish people.

One should take note, that Ezra Hasofer, lived over 500 years before R' Yossi ben Chanina, and he urged the Jews living in Bavel to make Aliyah, He went up with approximately 5,000 Jews, the largest one time Aliyah in the History of the Jewish people since Yehoshua. Apparently, he wasn't aware of the Sholosh Shevuois, or if he did, he ignored it and considered it null and void!
 He chastised those who remained in Bavel.
He was successful in building the Second Bais Hamikdash!


*Reish Lakish said to Rabbah bar bar Chanah, "By G-d, I hate you. (Rashi
explains: 'I hate...all Babylonians, because they did not ascend to Eretz Yisrael at
the time of Ezra. They prevented the Shechinah from returning to rest upon the
Second Temple.') It is thus written, If she be a wall, we will build upon her a
battlement of silver; and if she be a door, we will enclose her with a cedar board
(Shir HaShirim 8:9): Had you made yourselves like a wall and ascended all together
to Eretz Yisrael at the time of Ezra, you would have been compared to silver which
does not decay (and the redemption would have been complete). Now that you
went up like doors,123 you were compared to cedar which decays (meaning, the
edifice was destroyed)." (Yoma 9b)

The Ya'avetz (Siddur Beit Ya'akov, Sullam Beit El, p. 14b.) explains [the homiletic
passage in which Eliyahu] appears to R. Chiya as a fiery bear (Bava Metzia 85b):
For he [the angelic minister of Persia, who appears as a bear] prosecutes against
the Babylonian Jews who did not ascend when Cyrus, king of Persia, gave them
permission to do so. Had they ascended during that divine visitation, [their efforts]
would not have decayed and the redemption would have been complete...
Therefore, there is room to prosecute, because the Babylonians caused the exile to
be lengthened.

The Rambam cited the Sholosh Shevuois in his famous  Iggeret Teiman, which was written around 1172 in reply to an inquiry concerning the crisis the Yemenite Jews were then going through. A decree of forced conversion to Islam which had thrown the Jews into panic. 

Coupled with this crisis, was the rise of a Messianic movement started by a native of Yemen who claimed he was Meshiach which served to further increase the confusion within the Jewish community. 

In the course of the Rambam's attempt to strengthen the morale of the Yemenite Jews. he states in his letter:

ולפי שידע שלמה ע"ה ברוח הקדש שהאומה הזו כאשר תלכד בגלות תיזום להתעורר שלא בזמן הראוי ויאבדו בכך וישיגום 
הצרות הזהיר מכך והשביע עליו על דרך המשל
 ואמר השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וכו

"Shlomo, of blessed memory, foresaw with Divine inspiration, that the prolonged duration of the exile would incite some of our people to seek to terminate it before the proper time, 
and as a consequence they would perish or meet with disaster. 
Therefore he warned them (to desist) from it and adjured them in metaphorical language"

Rabbi Chaim Walkin points out in his sefer, Da'at Chaim, that the Rambam discussed the Sholosh Shevuois only in the letter to Yemen, but not in his Halachic work, the Mishne Torah.

 R. Walkin postulates that this is due to the fact that while the Rambam saw these oaths as important, he did not consider them to be legally binding as Halacha, only that they serve as “warnings that these actions would be unsuccessful

I,(DIN) humbly believe, that if one wants to make the case that Shlomo Hamelech was making a Nevuah that Jews should not "terminate the [Galus] before the proper time", and consider the Sholosh Shevuois a prophecy, then he was talking of Galus Bavel exclusively. In fact during the time of Achashveirosh, the Galus Jews miscalculated the 70 years that they were in exile and hence the almost annihilation of the Jews in Bavel  and Persia; hence the warning of Shlomo Hamelech!

The 70 years of exile were known to all Jews in Bavel, they just miscalculated! 

Not addressed by the Gemara or any Rishonim or for that matter Achronim, is the third oath, the oath to the goyim that  "they would not oppress Israel too much".

Which Goyim were told? Where were they told?
Who informed them? What did they say to the one who informed them?
What does "too much" mean? Were they told, how much they could oppress? 
Is murdering and torturing 6 million Jews, "too much"?

The present Galus has no end in sight, and there isn't any prophecy that predicts its conclusion. 
We have The State of Israel, and it is a fact B'H, and it is close to 70 years old; has survived B"H even though it is surrounded by Arab Wolves; we see Nissim V'Nifloas every second.

We are all witness watching the State of Israel being rebuilt, we see that the  State of Israel has the most Torah being learnt since Mattan Torah. 
We see the magnificent infrastructure of Israel, 
We see beautiful orchids filled with the most beautiful fruits and vegetables etc etc

We can only see what is happening..... 

and what is happening is the Nevuah that we say 3 times a day in Shemonah Esrei which we see with our very own eyes:

"V'kabztieinu Yachad Me'arba Kanfos Haaretz"

Says Hashem:

"I will gather you from the 4 corners of the earth"

We see Jews coming to the State of Israel from all corners of the globe.... we see Antisemitism all over Europe that is directly causing Jews to finally see that Hashem wants us only in Israel...

not in Monsey, Boro-park, Williamsburg, Monroe, New square, Flatbush, Kensington, South Fallsburg, Miami, London, Paris etc

but in Israel!

Gedolie Yisroel (Lubavitcher Rebbe ,see later in this post) suggest that in Rambam's  letter to Yemen, he explicitly interprets the oaths metaphorically, and not literally. 

As it states there “Therefore he admonished and adjured them in metaphorical language

 (דרך המשל, lit. by way of metaphor) to desist.” 

Therefore, they maintain, that the Rambam did not consider them to be Halachically binding.

The Ramban did not explicitly discuss the Sholosh Shevuois, however he did maintain that it is incumbent upon Jews in every generation as a positive commandment, Mitzvas Esseh to attempt to conquer the Land of Israel. 

In his glosses (Hashmatot) to Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot on Positive Commandment #4 he wrote:

"That we are commanded to take possession of the Land which the Almighty, Blessed Be He, gave to our forefathers, to Avraham, toYitzchak, and to Yaakov; and not to abandon it to other nations, or to leave it desolate, as He said to them, You shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land and dwell in it, for I have given the Land to you to possess it, (Numbers, 33:53) and he said, further, 

To Inherit the Land which I swore to your forefathers, (to give them,) behold, we are commanded with the conquest of the land in every generation."

Ramban's' position here is untenable if he maintains that the Sholosh Shevuois are Halachically binding. 

Accordingly it would appear that the Ramban implicitly rejects the Sholosh Shevuois as Halachically binding, and that to treat it as such would be to effectively nullify a Mitzvahs Esseh M'doirisah!

The Ramban continues to write:

"Chazal 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 Gemarrah in many places"

The Maharal discussed the Sholosh Shevuois in two different locations, in his work Netzach Yisrael and in his commentary to Tractate Ketubos. 

In his work Netzach Yisrael he wrote:

כי פירוש 'בדורו של שמד' היינו במדה שהיה לדורו של שמד, שהיו דביקים בה דורו של שמד, ובאותה מדה השביע אותם שלא ישנו בענין הגלות. כי דורו של שמד, אף על גב שהגיע להם המיתה בגלות, לא היו משנים. ועוד פירוש 'בדורו של שמד', רוצה לומר אף אם יהיו רוצים להמית אותם בעינוי קשה, לא יהיו יוצאים ולא יהיו משנים בזה. וכן הפירוש אצל כל אחד ואחד, ויש להבין זה

"Another explanation of the Midrash’s statement (he is speaking of Shir Ha-Shirim Rabba 2:20 that begins “ורבנן אמרי השביען בדורו של שמד”) that Hashem adjured the Jewish people in a generation of Shmad (religious persecution Jews, or decrees against Jews): that even if they will threaten to kill them with difficult torture, they will not leave the Exile nor will they change their behavior in this manner"

 Most later Achronim say that the Maharal in his Pirush in Kesubois, considered the oaths to be a Divine decree, which has thus subsequently expired. 
They rely on the Maharal's commentary in Kesubois.
Because they maintain that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in what the Maharal wrote in his sefer Netzach Yisrael (quoted above) and therefore his true position must be the one what he wrote in his Kesubois commentary, for “anything to the contrary yields a contradiction within the Maharal’s own writings."

However, the Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum's, position in respect to whether Maharal understood the Oaths as prohibitively binding upon Jews is based upon what was written in Netzach Yisrael only, and he refused to consider and factor in Maharal’s position in his commentary on Kesubos because this Maharal didn't fit in with his hatred of the State! 
Not to explain a pshat of the Maharal on the Gemarrah that speaks about the Sholosh Shevuois  on the spot, that basically says that the Shalosh Sevuois it is no longer valid and then quote an ambiquos Netzach Yisrael, is bizarre and weird, and can only be that Satmar Rebbe decided that it doesn't fit his view.

Rav Henkin wrote the following in 1959 in response to the anti-Zionist position of the Satmar Rebbe and the Neturei Karta:


"I was shocked to read in Chomoteinu of Cheshvan 5719 the slanderous notion that we are required to give our lives (limsor nefesh) to frustrate and resist the efforts of the State of Israel in its struggle against those who would rise up against them. This was stated as a p'sak din based on what we learn that Israel is restricted from rebelling against the nations (Ketubot 111a). This opinion is clearly not in keeping with halacha [and which can result] in imminent dangers for millions of Jews....


"Now all the rabbis who were opposed to Zionism and the establishment of a state took up that position until the time that it was officially founded. Once the state was declared, anyone who plays into the hands of the nations of the world even where there is no imminent danger, is clearly a moseir and rodeif. ...to proclaim that anyone who aids the state is a rodeif, well such talk is the severest form of redifa.

Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman in his book, Torah and Existence explains:

שהשבועה שלא יעלו בחומה אין זה נגד מצות כבוש הארץ

... כי השבועה שלא יעלו בחומה היתה על אלה שגלו וישבו בבבל או בכל מקום

אחר בחו״ל, עליהם נאמר שלא יעלו בחומה ושפיר אתי הלשון שלא יעלו. 

אכל

אלה היושבים בציון עליהם לא היתה כלל השבועה שלא ילחמו

"...the difficulty in the Ramban which says that the mitzva of kibush prevails in our time against the oath, dissolves. The oath, shelo yaalu bechoma means explicitly that we cannot storm eretz-Yisrael from chutz-laaretz. 

But when the Jews are in eretz-Yisrael, there is surely a hechsher mitzva of kibbush-haaretz.. 

How can the Jews be in eretz-Yisrael without the aliyah "bechoma?" 

The answer is very simple. If many Jews came to eretz-Yisrael individually, or by permission of the nations, then once they are there, there is a command of kibbush... 

There was never an oath upon the people who were in eretz-Yisrael"

, Rabbi Chaim Vital a talmud of the Ari Hakodosh, in his introduction to his sefer Eitz Chayim, expressed the view that the Sholosh Shevuois were only binding for the first thousand years of Exile. He wrote:

‘I made you swear, daughters of Jerusalem...’ this great oath to G-d was that they should not arouse the Redemption until that love will be desired and with good will, as it is written ‘until I desire,’ and  Chazal already said that the time of this oath is a thousand years, as it is written in the Baraita of Rabbi Yishmael in Pirkei Heichalot (in a comment on Daniel 7:25)..., and similarly in the Zohar II:17a...that it is one day of the Exile of the Community of Israel.'

The Following is a conversation that the Lubavitcher Rebbe had with the Sadugere Rebbe in July 1980

Cover of transcript booklet of conversation between the Lubavitcher Rebbe and the Sadugere Rebbe

Read 8 lines from bottom:

Sadugere Rebbe: "In reference to today's situation, is there a Din of  3 Shevuois?"

Lubavitcher Rebbe: "In today's situation, there is no connection at all to the 3 Shevuois"

Read 10 lines from bottom:
Lubavitcher Rebbe:

"There is absolutely no concern or connection today to the 3 Shevuois" 

To summarize the argument, that the three Shevuois are either not relevant or null and void:

• The Three Oaths are an Aggadic Midrash, and therefore they are not Halakhically obligatory (Aggadic Midrashim, as opposed to Halachic Midrashim are not traditionally understood as a valid source for Halacha). Accordingly, Rambams' Mishne Torah, the Arba'ah Turim, the Shulchan Aruch, and other halachic sources do not cite the Three Oaths or rule accordingly. They are not found there at all.

• The United Nations resolution to declare the State of Israel fulfills the first condition of the oath to not rebel against the nations. Thus, when the United Nations told the Jews to go home, it was mandatory that they do so. Just as Cyrus instructed the Jews of Babylonia to construct the Second Temple. This position is held by Eliezer Waldenberg, the Tziz Eliezer  ציץ אליעזר, חלק ז, סימן מח and others.

• The Three Oaths simply meant that Hashem had decreed an exile for the Jewish people. The fact that the Jewish people have successfully returned to the Land of Israel, and that the State of Israel has survived, is evidence that the oath is void and the decree has ended.

• The wording of the Rambam in his Letter to Yemen specifically states that the Oaths are “metaphorical” (see Rambam above), furthermore in his Halachic work he places great value upon living in the Land of Israel, and forbids leaving it.

• Although the Three Oaths were obligatory in the past, the gentiles violated their vow by excessively persecuting the Jewish people. Therefore the validity of the two other vows has been nullified. Religious Zionists point to a specific Midrash warning that if gentile nations violated this oath, then "they cause the End of Days to come prematurely."
• 
  
• This has been interpreted to mean that Israel's re-establishment would be implemented sooner than originally intended. With atrocities against Jews throughout history, and especially after The Holocaust, the Jewish people were absolved of their part of the Oaths. Those who hold this position often rely on the Shulchan Aruch which states: "two [persons] who have taken an oath to do a thing, and one of them violates the oath, the other is exempt [from it] and does not require permission."

• As a result, the ban on mass-immigration to the Land of Israel became void, and Zionism and the State of Israel arose as a direct result of the breach by gentile nations of the Oaths.

• Religious Zionists often point to Israel's seemingly miraculous survival in the numerous Arab-Israeli wars, especially the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Six-Day War, and interpret this as the State of Israel being preserved directly by Hashem's hand.

• The Jewish people did not return en masse to the Land of Israel, but rather through individual immigration as well as a series of five Aliyahs. Jews continue to individually immigrate to Israel today. There was never a point in history where a majority of world Jewry collectively migrated to the Land of Israel.

• It is not clearly established in either the Gemara or the Halacha what precisely would constitute permission from the nations. As such, the Balfour Declaration, San Remo conference, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, and the League of Nations-issued Mandate for Palestine plan of July 24, 1922 is understood as representing permission and approval from the nations of the world. Accordingly, the Jewish people cannot be considered to have rebelled against the nations. This was the opinion of Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk regarding the Balfour Declaration.

• Many authorities understand the oath of "not ascending as a wall" as only including an immigration of the entire (or at least a majority of the) nation. Some of these authorities also require that this mass immigration be one of force in order for the oath to be considered violated. Among those who hold these positions are Isaiah Achron in his Piskei Ri'az, Bezalel Ashkenazi in his Shittah Mekubetzet, the Maharal, Jonathan Eybeschutz, Yisroel ben Shmuel of Shklov and students of the Vilna Gaon, Meir Blumenfeld., and Yonah Dov Blumberg
• .
•  Similary, Baruch Epstein, in his Torah Temimah, understands the oath to only include a forceful mass immigration, and Ishtori Haparchi in his Kaftor Vaferach understands the oath to mean immigration with intent to conquer. Isaac Leon ibn Zur in his Megillat Ester on Nachmanides also understands the oath as prohibiting conquest.