January 20, 2011 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm #594344simcha613Participant
Someone asked me the other day why everyone makes such a big deal over the 3 shevu’os… they aren’t brought down lehalachah by any of the major Rishonim or the Shulchan Aruch, so we see that many Rishonim didn’t accept them. So I explained that doesn’t mean the Rishonim didn’t accept them, it just means that the Rishonim saw it as an Agadic text rather than a Halachic one. The Rishonim accepted the haskafah and ideals behind it, it’s just not a halachic text. So he asked me, if it’s not halachic, what does it mean to violate the 2 Shevu’os? Obviously it’s not a concrete issur if it wasn’t brought down by the Rambam for example, so what do we mean by breaking or violating the Shevu’os… it’s not halachic! I didn’t really have an answer to that…January 20, 2011 2:19 pm at 2:19 pm #731811truth be toldMemberJanuary 20, 2011 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm #731812Pashuteh YidMember
Simcha, I have been saying that here on YW for years. Not only that, but the Maharsha clearly brings the gemara in Chidushei Agados (small font), not Chidushei Halachos (large font).
As far as Hashkafa goes, I totally agree. One must be nice and menschlach to one’s host country and not rebel against them, unless it is pikuach nefesh like Nazi Germany or the like.
My main question is why that menschlachkeit does not extend to our own brethren who now rule over EY. Why are we allowed to insult, degrade, deligitimize the current govt and the Medinah? Where did all the hashkafa go? Are they any more illegitimate than say the govt of Henry the 8th in England whose hobby was chopping off his wives’ heads?
Furthermore, the founders of the Medina got permisission in advance from the relevant authorities of their host countries, and from the British (the White Paper) to set up a state. So there was no rebellion involved.
If Rav Elyashiv called the USA a medina shel chessed, can anyone tell me how EY treats its citizens any worse? They have allowed Torah institutions and shuls to flourish in addition to creating an advanced and free society where everybody can be as frum as they want. Where did all the hashkafa go?
All the kindness the govt shows and services they provide are ignored, and no hakaras hatov is shown. Some claim a single maysa of Yaldei Teheran or Yaldei Teiman is the reason for the negativity. What about all the good which is 1 million times more? In addition, there were negative incidents in the USA, too, including the lynching of a Jew, Leo Frank, in the South years back. That didn’t stop Reb Elyashiv or Reb Moshe from constantly praising the USA. Why is Israel any different, especially when it is our own brethren in charge?January 21, 2011 8:08 am at 8:08 am #731813MDGParticipant
In the beginning of the Choshen Mishpat in the Aruch Hashulchan, around siman 3-4, he mentions one of the 3 shevuot as a halacha.
Even the Ramban, where he codifies the Mitsvah of living in Israel (at the end of the Rambam’s sefer Hamitzvot) says that today there is a Mitsvah for each individual to inherit the land. This appears about 2/3 down in the paragraph. It seems that he felt that there is the halacha of Lo Yaalu BiChomaJanuary 21, 2011 9:45 am at 9:45 am #731814simcha613Participant
ehhh… that’s a weak diyuk. All that means is that there isn’t necessarily a national mitzvah to inherit the land (I haven’t seen this inside, I’m just commenting on what you wrote). In no way does it imply that there’s an issur. If the Rambam really accepted it lehalachah he would have wrote it loud and clear. My diyuk is that since he didn’t write it, he doesn’t hold of it (at least in the halchic sense, not necessarily the hashkafic sense).January 21, 2011 4:38 pm at 4:38 pm #731816MDGParticipant
As you said the RambaM , Maimonides, does not include (in his seifer Hamitsvot) living in Israel to be a Mitsvah Chiyuvit – a Mitsvah that we are obligated to do. It seems that he feels that it’s a Mitsvah Kiyumit.
I was talking about the RambaN (Nachmonides). In his commentary at the end of the RambaM’s Seifer Hamitsvot, he talks about the national mitsvah of conquering the land. He uses the conquer no less than 11 times in the first 2/3’s of the paragraph. But in the last third of the paragraph he changes gears and says that even today there is a mitsvah on every individual to inherit the land and live there. He does not mention it as a national mitsvah, nor does he use the verbiage of conquering. It seems to me that he holds this in deference to the 3 shevout.January 23, 2011 1:53 am at 1:53 am #731817metrodriverMember
Pashute Yid; The essential difference between the Agudah (Agudat Israel) and the Old Satmar Rebbi (R. Yoel Teitelbaum ztz”l) is, that today, when there is a “Medinah” (A sovereign state of Israel, run by Jews.) we have to abandon some of the principles of Kanaous, (Opposition to the Zionist idea of acquiring an independent state.) of which the Agudah was one of the foremost players in pre-war Europe. That is Agudah’s view. But the Satmar Rebbi’s “Shittah” (Policy/ideology) is that the (Any) government in Israel formed by Jews is illegitimate and no participation that supports a national government is allowed. But he was a realistic and practical person, so he allowed participation in Municipal elections. But some “Super Kanaim” twisted his words to forbid participation in Municipal elections, too. Also, years ago, the campaign was against “Bechiros”. Now, it’s “Bechiros Ha Temeos”.January 24, 2011 12:38 am at 12:38 am #731820yitayningwutParticipant
I haven’t looked at the Ramban inside and I don’t know the exact word he uses which you are translating “to inherit”, but I just wish to point out that the word ?????? is often used in the Torah to mean ‘to conquer’ and not to inherit. There are many examples, I can find them if you’d like.January 24, 2011 12:51 am at 12:51 am #731822
R’ Shlomo Aviner has published volume one of a sefer responding to every taana in v’yoel moshe. I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.January 24, 2011 1:13 am at 1:13 am #731824
That Maharal is terribly misrepresented. He writes that even if the nations are being so harsh that it is forcing you to leave the Galus, you still shouldn’t. This statement of his was played around with and said over as even if the nations want you to go Eretz Yisroel and they are forcing you under pain of death, you should not listen to them and rather die.
Rabbi Hartman, in his edition has another big Kasha. Just like Yibum is in the place of what would otherwise be Assur, it doesn’t make it more Chamur. Here too, although we are to stay in Galus even while it is dangerous, it doesn’t make it one of the three cardinal sins.January 24, 2011 1:20 am at 1:20 am #731825
“arba shevuot” are mentioned in the hoshanah for Chol HaMoed Sukkot. Anyone have an explanation?January 24, 2011 1:21 am at 1:21 am #731826
Specifically, the hoshanah for the third day of Chol HaMoed in Nusach Ashkenaz.January 24, 2011 3:03 am at 3:03 am #731827
Charlie, you sure keep us on our mental toes!
The Gemara in Kesubos 111a says that there are six Shavuos:
- Not to go up en masse.
- Not to rebel against the nations.
- The nations should not be too harsh on us.
- Not to reveal the end.
- Not to push the end.
- Not to reveal our secrets.
The Gemara first mentions the first three alone, and then brings the rest in the name of Leivi. People often refer to the ‘Three Shavuos’ because of the facts that it is separated in the Gemara, and that the first three pertain directly to the Galus.
In the Hoshanos, four are mentioned because we are referring to all of the Shavuos that are related to Geula. Two of them, not to reveal our secrets and the one for them not to press us too much, aren’t directly related to the Geula.January 24, 2011 3:04 am at 3:04 am #731828metrodriverMember
Yitayningwut (To MDG); A more accurate translation of the word ?????? would be “To Drive Out”, Which is essentially, “To Conquer”. But certainly not “To Inherit”.January 24, 2011 4:04 am at 4:04 am #731829
This is such an old discussion…..”YAWN” Rav Zvi Hirsch Kalisher- a talmid of R’Akiva Eiger- wrote his sefer to answer all of these questions and in it he answered all these kashyas.January 25, 2011 5:15 pm at 5:15 pm #731830
ROB: Why don’t we open a thread on that sefer in the beis medrash section and take it in turn to post an English language summary of one piece every other day? You start, I need to actually buy a copy.January 25, 2011 6:03 pm at 6:03 pm #731831observanteenMember
IIRC, R. S. R. Hirsch said of Rabbi Kalischer: “What he considers a big mitzvah, I consider not a small aveirah.”January 25, 2011 6:34 pm at 6:34 pm #731832
observanteen: you better substantiate this charge.
EDITEDJanuary 25, 2011 8:09 pm at 8:09 pm #731833
YWN inserted my comments ,but they were truncated. The words on the present comment did not sound as harsh as the words are now. I said to “observateen’ that he should substantiate the quote from R’s.r.Hirsch, Otherwise he would be “insulting” a godol bejisroel- meaning R.S.R hirsch.
Actually, IF there is such a quote it clearly refers to R’Zvi Hirsch kalisher’s attempt to restore “korbonos’ on the Har Habaiys.ON THIS point, there were strong diasgreements between the gedolim of that dor-including R’akiva Eiger and the Chassam Sofer. On that- i can see Rav Hirsch saying what “observateen” mentioned, as it possibly included d’oraisas. It certainly had nothing to do with the ‘sholosh shevuos”.
Itche srulik= the sefer is called “derishas zion”. I’ll try to quote the relevant passages.January 25, 2011 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #731834
ROB: nu, how about that thread?January 25, 2011 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm #731835
The Rambam did hold that they should be kept, as he writes in his Iggeres Taimon. The only arguable point is if it is a Halacha, to the extent that one would be called an Avaryon for violating it. I never see the other 3 Shavuos getting the same harsh Kanaus. Many have been accused of trying to bring Mashiach before its time. They were never referred to as Ovdey Avoda Zara because of that. The Gemara in Shabbos calls Tzlafchad a Tzadick when considering him as one of the Ma’apilim.
I actually find this art point to be a strong Kasha on the Shita. I didn’t find anywhere in the Satmerer Rebba’s Sefarim that discusses it.
There is also another debate: Were the 2 Shavuos actually violated? The land was legally given to the Zionists, so they weren’t rebelling against the nations in that sense. As for the other Shavua, that would only be a violation if the whole Klal Yisroel would come together as a crusade. We find that in the days of Ezra, it was held against us that we didn’t go up Bechoma. Could it be that what the Zionists did is called Bechoma and what the Yidden did at the time of Koresh is not?
Perhaps you can call the bombing of British installments, a rebellion, perhaps not. However, that never seems to be the argument.January 25, 2011 9:33 pm at 9:33 pm #731836
ROB: I know what the sefer is called and I’ve learned parts of it. I just don’t have a copy.
HaLeiVi: To argue those points you would have to know both Torah and history. Sadly, since 1979 many proponents of the shita know neither.January 25, 2011 10:20 pm at 10:20 pm #731837
itchesrulik: thanks for the encouragement. I have the sefer (published by Mossad Harav Kook) and I will exprapolate the relevant passages concerning the sholosh shevuos. Do you think that the Mod’s will allow me to start a new thread based upon this?January 25, 2011 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm #731838
Thanks!January 25, 2011 10:52 pm at 10:52 pm #731839
Haleivi: I read the whole of Iggeret Teiman (in translation, of course) and I had to wait till the LAST paragraph in the letter to find what you are saying. The letter is very long and the rambam just has ONE paragraph concerning this oath (one oath only). He does say ( quoting shir hashirim 2-7 and 4-8) that we should not ‘awaken’ the “love”-meaning the redemption, early. However, it is abundantly clear from the whole iggeret that he means to say this only when someone declares himself to be the messiah (see letter) which ,of course, is scarcely the case nowadays with Eretz Yisroel.
Furthermore- the Rambam writes that this can only bring catastrophe and that the people will perish AFTER this has been done. For now, Eretz Yisroel remains a thriving place.
Lastly, nowhere in the “Jad” does the rambam mention these shevuos, suggesting that his words in the Iggeret were meant to discourage people from following pseudo-messiahs, not as an absolute injunction.
- The topic ‘3 Shevu'os’ is closed to new replies.