Refuting the Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot]

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Refuting the Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot]

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 362 total)
  • Author
  • #2266829

    The Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot] are misused by Satmar and NK,
    because Jews did not come and conquer Israel by force (לא עלינו כחומה).
    Rather, it was given to us Jews by the nations.
    Now that we are in Israel, we have an obligation to defend ourselves.

    Rambam [Maimonides] in his Epistle to Yemen specifically
    states that the Three Oaths are “metaphorical”.

    It appears that Ramban [Nachmanides] implicitly REJECTS
    the Three Oaths as Halachically binding.
    [He also ruled that aliyah is an obligation for all generations].

    Arizal stated that the Gimel Shevuot [Three Oaths]
    did not apply after 1,000 years of exile.
    Meaning we could have come up by force to conquer Israel after that.
    But we did not even do that.

    The 16th Century Kabbalist, Rabbi Chaim Vital
    expressed the view that the Three Oaths were
    only binding for the first thousand [1,000] years of Exile.

    Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk held that the Balfour Declaration ended
    The Three Oaths, as they could not be considered to be rebelling anymore.
    (The same is true of the San Remo conference and the
    League of Nations-issued Mandate for Palestine plan of July 24, 1922.)

    Tzitz Eliezer went a step further: He held that since the
    United Nations Organization voted to establish a Jewish Homeland,
    it would be rebelling to ignore them,
    and therefore we were obligated to form the State of Israel!!

    Rabbi Shlomo Kluger held that since Jews were severely persecuted
    by the other nations, The Three Oaths were no longer binding.
    He relied on the Shulchan Aruch which rules that
    both sides are needed to maintain an agreement.

    The Three Oaths are Agadic Midrash, and therefore they are
    NOT Halachically obligatory [they are not legally binding].

    If the Three Oaths are Halachically obligatory, then
    why are they NEVER MENTIONED in Rambam or
    Shulchan Aruch or Kitzur Shulchan Aruch or Mishnah Berurah?

    As I write these words, I predict that those people who are
    anti-Zionist NEVER listen to anything that I wrote here,
    and they will NEVER even admit that I might have a valid point.

    They will totally ignore what I have written,
    and use distorted logic to justify continuing
    to believe what they already believe.
    They cannot be moved with ANY amount of facts or logic.

    Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan [ZTL, ZYA] wrote that in the era
    before the Melech HaMashiach appears, the Jewish people
    will have PARTIAL CONTROL over the land of Israel.
    This also refutes The Three Oaths.
    Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan was a GENIUS, and his words should be listened to.

    yankel berel

    Avnei Nezer also asks why rambam in yad and Sh’A omit the 3 oaths and he says that this is proof that in their opinion it is not applicable to us nowadays. Only as a sign to improve our general avodat hashem.
    It is in his tshuvot at the end of Helek YD.

    Sam Klein

    In your entire letter which is very powerful and to the point bringing up many backups why didn’t you mention even on e what these 3 oaths are so a)people reading your letter can be more aware of what exactly your referring to and b)you can get more honest replies back from people which is what you want and why you posted this letter? Please add in what the 3 oaths are exactly that you are talking about and referring to.


    The question is moot (irrelevant) since the Palestinians demands have changed from a return to the 1914 status quo (which was tolerable to Hareidi Jews, since we are more interested in Torah and Mitsvos than political sovereignty), to a “River to Sea” Judenrein “final solution” on the Nazi model.

    Arguable had the Hareidim kept control of the Yishuv things would have been much better, no medinah, but also no holocaust, and a much larger Jewish community and a much frumer Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael, but the zionists won, and the British sabotaged the agreement with the Arabs (supported by the non-socialist zionists and the Hareidim) under their divide and conquer.

    However as Hamas, to the acclaim of Muslims and secular anti-Semites worldwide, made clear, their goal is genocide, so the three oaths are not relevant. And it is also clear, their goal is not limited to Eretz Yisrael, as the rising tide of worldwide anti-Semitism makes clear.


    First, The Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel – the majority of Jews at the time – did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh’s call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon – warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.

    Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.

    Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may nto do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V’Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)

    Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to makign a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doign so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.

    The Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more! Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephrain, Chazal say, were all hunted donw and killed in the deset for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.

    The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.

    The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It’s clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.

    The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.

    The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us wuth torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.

    And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).

    The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is nto included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.

    R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced SHmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the “shem hameforash” and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.

    And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b’chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim’s Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.

    What I wrote above is not rocket science. It’s pretty obvious. Takes no genius or encyclopedic knowledge to understand it. Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violate dtheirs but we still cannot violate ours.

    It’s just plain dishonesty that would make people come up with this.


    Soda (both regular and diet), Snapple (both regular and diet), and iced tea are high in acid and damage teeth.
    If you must drink these liquids, then use a straw.


    I don’t hold that the oaths are halacha, and you raise good points, but the reason Tur, Shulchan Aruch, and downstream commentaries like Mishna Brura don’t mention them, is these seforim don’t deal with any halachos of land of israel. Same reason there are no halachos of Shmita in Shulchan Aruch.


    Saying the rambaN doesn’t “hold” of the shvuos is only possible if you don’t read his maamar al hageulah where he QUOTES it beferush!

    The kasha on him vis a vis how he could hold of a chiyuv to live in EY while there’s a prohibition on going there en masse is dealt with extensively in the poskim. It’s not that big of a deal. The simple answer is that everyone should try, but Hashem will prevent some people and it won’t end up being en masse.

    The balfour declaration (and even the UN partition plan) are irrelevant because when the zionists took over, the british were no longer baalei batim on the land. Their permission is just as valid as China’s; same with the UN – it doesn’t matter what most goyim say, if there is opposition (as in, the independence war with a bunch of Arab armies) then you do NOT have permission to go en masse.

    Making a state is a separate issue; rav meir simcha never spoke of it, rather the issue was mass immigration. Declaring a state involves another shvuah, of not forcing a geulah; on that I don’t believe having permission helps.


    The problem with these discussions is everyone has their preconceived notions and cherry picks Pieces mamarei chazal to fit .

    I can’t think of any other issue where a “Piskei Riaz” is cited as THE first Halachic source. Never mind that it isnt brogught in Rif, Rosh Rambam (halachic works igeres teiman becomes Kodehs Kedoshim to fit the agenda), Tur, Mechaber . its a Piskei Riaz!

    Another great example

    “The Balfour declaration (and even the UN partition plan) are irrelevant because when the zionists took over, the british were no longer baalei batim on the land.”

    It is hard to imagine a reasonable person making such an argument. It is clear that halacha recognizes kivush as a form of kinyan. Britain conquered Palestine, they handed the “problem” over to the UN the Un voted to create Israel. Simple, finished.
    But no for this we ignore kivush and you need permission of neighboring countries. why? Because otherwise it doesn’t fit the preconceived agenda.

    I’m not trying to convinve you that you are wrong, I can’t. My point is when you see htese types of arguemnts (Especially the scond) we arent dealing with logic, rather emotion.


    BTW This works in both directions

    The Satmar Rebbe had his shita, but R’ Aryeh Kaplan disagreed and he must be right because he “was a GENIUS, and his words should be listened to.”


    So sad.

    Your Zionist idol makes you not only distort and deny what is true but also makes you write outright falsehoods and nonsense.
    “because Jews did not come and conquer Israel by force (לא עלינו כחומה).”

    Yes, that is exactly what the Zionists did – they used lots of overwhelming force. The Zionists terrorized and fought both the British and the Arabs in order to create their “State” – very unlike what Rabbi Kook expected, as it happens.

    The Satmar Rav and others wipe out the arguments you attempted.

    The Rav Meir Simcha argument is particularly pathetic. If he actually said what the Zionists claim he said, all he said was that there is no problem with going to settle in E”Y given the permission of the nations. This doesn’t at all mean that the oaths no longer apply. In fact, just the opposite, he was saying that the oaths very much are in force but that this would not violate those oaths.

    So pathetic.


    > it doesn’t matter what most goyim say, if there is opposition (as in, the independence war with a bunch of Arab armies) then you do NOT have permission to go en masse.
    Why? According to your logic, if a Prime Minister is elected with 52% of the votes, and creates an edict, you do not have to obey it and it’s not considered Dina D’Malchuta Dina?

    Could Be

    Please don’t say that satmar is “misusing” the 3 shavuos. It is 100% a machlokes haposkim, and who are we to decide the halacha? everyone agrees that the Satmar Ruv z”l was a goan. If you don’t want to pakin like him, becasue you have your poskim, that’s fine. But it is a very valid shita in halacha (I won’t even get into that most ashkenzic poskim actually held this before the creation of the state).

    Just like you don’t want satmar yidden to say that your shita has no mekor, don’t say it about the satmar shita (which again is not only satmar. It’s only that the Satmar Ruv wrote a few seforim on the subject)

    NK is a sperate matter entirely, as they are the ONLY ones in klal Yiroel who will protest together with our enemies. No legitimate gadol biYisroel held that you can do that, so they “misusing” the satmar shita in that way.

    Menachem Shmei

    The issue with the OP is that he’s jumping into a huge ocean of arguments between gedolei yisroel that went on for a LONG time, and picking all of the arguments of one of the sides and showing how obvious it is that they are correct.

    My favorite line which demonstrates this point:
    Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan [ZTL, ZYA] wrote….
    This also refutes The Three Oaths.
    Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan was a GENIUS, and his words should be listened to.

    Aha, so we have all of these interesting arguments, but because “the genius of all time” implies a refutation of the three oaths, this must be the final ruling.


    Ubiq, there are many answers as to why it’s not mentioned in the rif, rosh and rambam’s yad. One of them, which my rebbe rav belsky said, is that they aren’t dinim, but they are realities that chazal warn us about. If we do X, we will he hunted, like the gemara says, as animals in the field. Slaughtered. And that’s precisely what happened.

    Chazal teach us how to live as individuals and as communities. The 3 shvuos are part of that mesorah; a very important part. But they aren’t dinim, according to rav belsky, so they aren’t brought in halacha seforim very often. That in no way means we can ignore them – chazal say it, after all.


    And this is why the shuvos are brought mainly in the context of conmunal guidance, like the iggeres taiman, or rav galant, as UJM quoted.


    Could Be:
    100%? Machlokes?
    Which poskim rule that they are not halacha?

    yankel berel

    Whats with the avnei nezer s explanation for the fact of omission of the poskim ?


    HaKatan said: “Which poskim rule that they are not halacha?”


    ANSWER: The Three Oaths are an Agadic Midrash,
    and therefore they are not Halachically obligatory,
    because Agadic Midrashim (as opposed to Halachic Midrashim)
    are not traditionally understood as a valid source for Halachah.

    Stated simply: Midrashim are not Halachah.


    Square, it’s in the gemara, not the medrash. And have you ever heard of the sifri/sifra? They’re medrashim which are halacha.

    The dvar Hashem as relayed through chazal in the gemara says if you do this, Hashem will permit your flesh to be hunted like animals of the field.

    That’s not a mussar vort or a story with a lesson. It is a reality, and it happened when the heretical, G-d hating zionists violated the shvuos.


    SQUARE_ROOT (and Could Be):
    “Stated simply: Midrashim are not Halachah.”

    Wrong, as mentioned above; see UJM’s post above.
    That the oaths are mentioned in the gemara as agadita has zero relevance to their being in full force.
    Again, the Rambam himself invoked them in Iggeres Teiman, and various poskim bring down the oaths as halachically binding. The Maharal makes it even more stringent, that they’re yehareig viAl yaavor. Not bad for “agadita”.

    So sad that people refuse to accept simple reality of Torah just because it conflicts with the Zionist idolatry.


    >>>The problem with these discussions is everyone has their preconceived notions and cherry picks Pieces mamarei chazal to fit .

    I have read a lot of anti-Zionist propaganda .Some opposition that I agree with. Some is a legitimate haskafa or political complaint even I personally do not agree with the conclusion. There is however one very important component that I have never seen in any of the anti-Zionist propaganda written over the past sixty years: Anyone even TRY to make an intelligent non emotional argument that Israel has the CURRENT option to give into the anti-Zionist demands without at the at least the very heavy risk of a Jewish bloodbath afterward.


    Smerel, there’s a good reason for that – nobody, not satmar, brisk, neturei karta in yerushalayim, or the rest of the Torah world, which are anti-Zionist, has ever said that israel should surrender to the Arabs, because of the very reason you said. It will cost Jewish lives – this is a part of why zionism is bad, that it costs Jewish lives.

    There isn’t a safe way out of the distress that the zionists put us in. The satmar rov in the early days of the state said it should be given to the UN, and the brisker rov said they should give back everything in 1948, but that was then – in today’s situation, not a single gadol or talmid chacham will say that Israel has that option.

    The only people who go around saying that are the fanatical, USand UK based neturei karta, which stole the name of a group of yerushalmi yidden who were just more outspoken against zionism than others and were opposed to dealing with the government.


    Please consider the following. The machlokes of Abaye and Rava whether אי עביד לא מהני or if it is a מצווה הבאה בעבירה . The fact is ההר בידינו and כלל ישראל davens by the kosel regardless.


    ADA and Smerel:
    Whether or not the Satmar Rav’s idea is or is not still valid – logically, one would have to conclude that it is, but that’s besides the point – the most important thing is to recognize the reality of the Zionist idol for what it is, and to daven for a yeshuah from that Zionist idol.

    Also, the issue with NK of today is not their political views about the Zionist State; it’s about their being mischabeir to/machzik reshaim. Of course, those who associate with the Zionists are worse, in that regard, but that’s also besides the point. NK obviously consider that to be pikuach nefesh, while typical gedolim do not. But the fact that the Zionist State will at some point disappear is not at all in dispute.


    Hakatan, ths Satmar rov himself said it is no longer feasible, because it will lead to many, many, if not millions of jewish lives being lost.

    Rav shach would daven everyday for the peaceful dismantlement of the government – but that’s all we can hope for; there’s no method bcarchei hishtadlus or bederech hateva that it can come about. It probably will only be destroyed by melech hamoshiach, and his enemies will probably include many Zionists.

    Radical NK do not believe they are saving jewish lives by supporting the Palestinians and wearing kefiyehs. They believe that yehereg velo yaavor (even though we have no idea if the halacha even follows the maharal) means that we can get jews killed to get rid of the medina. It’s a completely baseless understanding of the term, and it is just as dangerous as the zionist claim of “people die in war” to justify taking back eretz yisroel and putting jews in danger.

    They’re just opposite sides of the same coin, both of which believe that jewish lives are expendable.

    There’s nothing wrong with cozying up to reshoim in and of itself if it brings a yeshua – the gedolim honored wicked kings and such for generations…ever see the noda b’yehudahs praises of the austrian king? It’s chanifa and it’s a mitzvah. NK isn’t praising the wicked arabs to save Jews, they’re doing it because they want them to destroy the state of israel, and who knows how many jews in the process.


    >>>this is a part of why zionism is bad, that it costs Jewish lives. There isn’t a safe way out of the distress that the zionists put us in

    Blaming the Zionists for the situation “they” put “us” in even if true (1)has no practical relevance today and (2)is not so different than the belief that gave birth to the Zionist movement to begin with which was “if we only we had a state of our own we would put a stop to the mass murder of Jews” that was then going on the world.

    Both of them largely push Hashem and the hasgacha of Klal Yisroel and even the historical patterns faced by Klal Yisreol out of the picture. Both of them think “listen to us and antisemitism and murder of Jews will be a thing of the past”

    I know some will say that murder of Jews in Israel today is Hashem’s punishment for Zionism . When you will explain why Hashem would punish people for something done way before they were born that they have no option or ability to change, maybe I’ll consider that as a valid haskafa.



    In 1922, a joint resolution of both houses of the US Congress endorsed the British Mandate for Palestine.

    US President Warren G. Harding also signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

    In 1947, by a majority vote, the UN General Assembly voted to allow a Jewish state in the Land of Israel.

    A few years ago, the President of the United States placed the US Embassy in Jerusalem.

    If the Three Oaths are really halacha, then it is 100% clear that it is Satmar and NK who are violating that halacha!



    “Ubiq, there are many answers as to why it’s not mentioned in the rif, rosh and rambam’s yad. One of them, which my rebbe rav belsky said, is that they aren’t dinim, but they are realities that chazal warn us about. If we do X, we will he hunted, like the gemara says, as animals in the field. Slaughtered. And that’s precisely what happened.”

    sure there are reasons for anything you want to be true. Though these reasons, like the one your Rebbe Z”L gave tend to be weak. you say thye “aren’t dinim” there goes the entire argument. So Its just a bad idea, not assur.

    and the bad idea is further weekned when you consider that its not like there want Jew hunting going on in Europe pre State.

    Again I’m not trying to convince you of anything. Though Hopefully you can see that these arguments tend to be a bit forced and built on preconceived notions. You arguments n this thread are PERFECT examples


    The Gentiles of the world have certainly failed to abide by The Third Oath:


    The structure of the Talmud statement makes it clear that
    The Three Oaths were a contractual relationship —
    once one of the sides breaks its commitment,
    so too the other side is released from the contract.

    Though the Talmud does not define precisely how much
    subjugation is too much, it can be assumed that centuries of:
    Crusades, Inquisitions, Blood Libels and many other false accusations,
    Pogroms, Jew-Taxes, beatings, tortures, unjust imprisonments,
    and the horrors of the Holocaust have effectively severed
    the Jewish people’s obligation to remain in Exile.

    Rabbi Teichtal, in his book “Em Habanim Smeicha” offers this explanation:

    Although the Jews were sworn not to enter Eretz Yisrael forcefully,
    the nations of the world were also sworn not to persecute the Jews too much.

    Over the course of the exile, the Jews were severely persecuted by the gentiles.
    Because the gentiles violated their oath, the Jews were no longer bound by their oath.


    I find it hard to believe you are being serious here, as that is absurd.

    On the off-chance that you are seriously asking:
    First, you’re leaving out all the rest of the history, much of which contradicts the cherry-picked points you’ve mentioned.

    The Zionists terrorized the Arabs and British, forcing the British to leave Palestine, at which point the Zionists went ahead with declaring their “State” even though the UN wanted to begin a different mandate in Palestine. In the final analysis, the wicked Zionists founded their “State” against the will of the nations (including the Arabs) and with tremendous force (almost $100 Million dollars – in 1940s money – of weapons), both of which are violations of the oaths.

    As well, creating any State – even with full permission of the nations – is forbidden as a violation of the oath of dechikas haKeitz, forcing the end, as in doing that which only Mashiach can do – namely, here, founding a State.


    Right, what does any of that have to do with the Torah world opposing the state? See above regarding the UN. The oaths don’t depend on what some goyim say. There are alsp opinions that hold that it doesn’t matter if all of them agree.

    Ubiq, תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה אלקיך בשמחה…. Isn’t a din either, yet national calamities occur because of it. Rav Belskys pshat is very simple, but you’re being dismissive. Not being a din doesn’t mean “case closed.” Hashem reveals to us in the Torah, through chachamim, what He wants us to do. And that includes our behavior in Galus.

    Chazal learned the parsha of Yaakov and eisav before meeting with the Roman rulers, to learn and remind themselves of the yesodos, the ways one must behave in galus to be safe.

    Now is that hanhagah – giving gifts, flattery, etc…is that a din? No. It’s how Hashem taught us, through the example of Yaakov avinu, our heiligeh zaydeh, who was the first yid in galus.

    So too, the oaths are a pathway to security when dealing with goyim, and they are not to be taken lightly…. Hashem himself said He would permit our flesh to be hunted….din or not, it’s extremely important. Go over this a few times, let it marinate, because you’re coming from a perspective of “no din? No problem!” which is not how chazal teach us. There are other such examples, including a menuval bershus hatorah.

    Regarding why Jews were targeted in Europe, gedolim would often ask why. Tach vetat was explained to the tosfos yom tov in a shailas chalom from shomayim, that it was due to talking in shul. The chofetz chaim said trouble in his days was due to chilul shabbos and lashon hora.

    No gedolim ever go with “well there’s always antisemitism so we don’t know why X happened, because look, Y people were better about it and yet they still were punished”

    Learn the chofetz chaims seforim on this. Look at the warnings about the Holocaust from the meshech chochma and others. This attitude you picked up in the baalebatish circles is not the way gedolei yisroel think; it’s intellectual laziness.


    “and the bad idea is further weekned when you consider that its not like there want Jew hunting going on in Europe pre State.”

    This is a big error. Zionism began its cataclysmic rebellion against G-d (including violating the oaths), decades before the wicked Zionists formally declared their “State” in 1948. In fact, the Zionists caused the Holocaust and also contributed to it, as the gedolim noted and, liHavdil, secular writers as well.

    Regardless, numerous poskim, including the Rambam, invoke the oaths as being in full force and inviolable, and none have ruled otherwise.


    >>>In fact, the Zionists caused the Holocaust and also contributed to it, as the gedolim noted and, liHavdil, secular writers as well.

    This comment focuses on the end of that sentence

    One of the many, many reasons I became so disillusioned with the extreme anti-Zionist haskafa I once believed in was the hypocrisy I saw in it’s theoreticians and propagandists. One of their many hypocrisies was that they viewed anything coming the secular world as completely off limits. Yet when it came to Zionism that haskafa and belief of their was out the window.

    A book like “Perfidy” written by a mechalal Shabbos b’farhesia and a Zionist to boot was treated with reverence almost as if it were a haskafa sefer written by a gadol hador who agreed with their haskafa. (For the most part they had no problem making fun of Gedoley Torah who didn’t agree with their haskafa) Had the author written on any other topic it would have been banned reading. Had he been making claims about anything they weren’t interested in believing it would have been dismissed out of hand because you can never trust such people. But since he wrote what they wanted to believe it was treated with total reverence and unquestioning belief.


    The author of the “Haflaah” maintains that The Three Oaths apply
    ONLY to those who are in the exile of Bavel, and not in other lands.


    Smerel, you’re misunderstanding.

    Ant zionists, aka the Torah world, were not anti zionist because of perfidy or the stories he told.

    We are antizionist because the gedolei Torah were and are, because nationalism is a non jewish ideology grafted onto Judaism.

    Perfidy is treated the same as a Christian pastor admitting his role in the Holocaust. We don’t trust zionists, Christians, evolutionists, maskilim, or anyone else who’s not a Torah jew.

    However if they admit to something bad that they and their cohorts have done, it is indeed believable, and it underscores their crimes, that even one of their own will admit to it, after feeling guilty of betraying his people.

    We have no positive feelings towards the mechalel shabbos kofer that was Ben Hecht, but his writings serve as a testimony from within that accursed, heretical shmad group. Nothing more.


    Ben Hecht admits to nothing. The book is limited to accusations about others. For things Ben Hecht was not even a witness to. The extreme anti-Zionist crowd puts him on such a pedestal and he is so central to their belief system and ideology because they seem desperate for validation coming from mechalel shabbos and koferim. . (Ben Hecht is very far from the only person who this is true about)


    Square, where does the haflaah say that?


    smerel: that’s nonsense. Hecht and Perfidy is merely a footnote among the Gedolim and others who express the crimes of zionism. His book might contain various truths, and this might be mentioned sometimes, but he is very very far from being central to anyone.


    Either that, or you’re hanging around fanatical neturei karta people.

    But you will never hear this from yeshiva people, or satmar, Munkatch, yerushalmis, or any other group in the Torah world. Rav avigdor miller quotes perfidy in his “rejoice o youth” and says that he was a kofer who exposed zionists; nothing more.


    Smerel, I’m as anti zionist as they come, and i have never seen anyone put ben hecht on a pedestal or praise him.

    We don’t need affirmation; we have a mesorah. As for his claims, rav michoel ber weissmandl writes similar things in eng case

    And he was definitely admitting something by saying that his fellow zionists had collaborated with Nazis and contributed to the Holocaust. The fact that a zionist says that is just more historical evidence.

    I think you’re looking to find hypocrisy where it doesn’t exist..maybe a rebbe of yours was hypocritical, maybe a rabbi you know gave you a bad taste for the Torah world, but your claims of us making ben hecht into some kind of hero or hanging on his every word are just not true.

    I’m close to many elements of the yeshiva world, all of which are anti-Zionist, and none have had anything different to say about hecht than what i wrote above. Satmar, on the other hand, often don’t know who he is. They don’t need to debate zionism with their neighbors like we do in yeshivos.

    yankel berel

    where is the hafla’a ?

    yankel berel

    Even if [this is debatable] the creation of the medina was against the torah,
    the EXISTENCE of the medina is not. [lehol hadeyot]

    Dismantlement of the medina is a clear invitation to the direct …… of all the Jews in EY [chvs’h].
    The only al pi derech hateva’dike force standing between the immediate mass pikuach nefesh of the yidden on one side and the murderous intentions and plans of the barbarians surrounding us , is the IDF, the extention of the medina.

    You can say WHAT YOU WANT about who brought us to this situation , it will not make one iota of a difference.
    Pikuach Nefesh is Pikuach Nefesh is Pikuach Nefesh.

    Irrespective of it source.
    We [and all yidden] are enjoined to do whatever possible in regard to p/n.

    Is the medina an end of itself? NO , chas veshalom
    Is the medina a means to an end? YES

    It is a means to an end – of keeping Yehudim and their property in EY safe.
    For the time being , the only means to that end.


    Yankel: At best, the State is like a mamzer. We don’t kill a mamzer.


    Loving the mental gymnastics on this thread. The No True Scotsman fallacy is in full display re: Ben Hecht.
    Anyway, it’s funny how anti-Zionists view Zionists as a monolith. Anti-Zionists should love that the Zionists of the time were divided between Lehi, Irgun, Haganah, etc. Not to mention the many types of thought (e.g. cultural, political, religious (which they will deny), practical, etc.)
    I attended anti-Zionist yeshivas for part of my life, and I can attest to what Smerel says regarding the mentality surrounding Ben Hecht. The attitude of “read Perfidy, case closed” only demonstrates the closedmindedness of many people.
    For the record, I read Perfidy; I know what it says. It was an accusation against a specific Zionist who should (but doesn’t) get the posthumous de Haan treatment. Needless to say, treating Perfidy, a book covering a specific portion of history, as some kind of sacred text (as I’ve seen, and don’t tell me I didn’t), is misappropriating the sacred and the profane.


    >>>Smerel, I’m as anti zionist as they come, and i have never seen anyone put ben hecht on a pedestal or praise him.

    On a personal level, no, they don’t praise Ben Hecht. On a theological level his book is considered the ultimate unquestionable truth. I grew up reading anti-Zionist propaganda and the book was frequently referred to. To this day the Natruna website of Yaakov Shapiro and his ilk (currently Torah Jews) sandwiches Perfidy between their haskafa seforim that are available for download. As in two links down from something written by Rav Elcohonan Wasserman. And one link above Yirmiyahu Cohen (a major theoretician of theirs) That is how much parity and value they give to it.

    It goes without saying that although the people accused were alive at the time that Perfidy was written and their side of the story is easily available no hint of it, let alone a refutation, is ever given in anti-Zionist literature.


    chiefsmerel: The difference between the various Zionist factions was about the same as the differences between the different communist factions, such as between the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, the Anarchists and Socialist Left Revolutionists.

    Perfidy and Hecht is and was exactly as Avira described above.


    Shmerel, where did you go to yeshiva and which rosh yeshiva ever spoke that way?

    I’ve been in basically every anti zionist circle around; it’s just not true. Perfidy is the icing on the cake, but it’s not the reason why anyone’s antizionist.


    It took Communism about 75 years after they took power to fall in the USSR. Perhaps it’ll take about the same time frame for Zionism to fall.



    Your moving the goal posts

    Lets back up

    Square said “The Three Oaths are Agadic Midrash, and therefore they are
    NOT Halachically obligatory [they are not legally binding].”

    UJM replied “he Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz”

    I commented how unusual this topic is, as I cant think of any other halachic discussion where a Piskei Riaz was te first mareh makom

    You replied “is that they aren’t dinim, but they are realities that chazal warn us about.”

    To which I replied “So Its just a bad idea, not assur.”

    so we agree! . The shalosh shavuos are not a halchick issur in the classical sense, just like Square pointed out.

    . Much like there is no halacha obligating one to engage in Tefila*/doron/milchama when in galus and dealing with goyim (your example, though one I was surprised to see you mention) , it is good advice, in fact the best advice, who else to get advice from, if our mesora. Same is true here,

    As an aside the whole Ben Hecht thing is odd. Ben Hecht was an ardent Zionist. He was opposed to Labor Zionism, using his book as an anti-zionist argument is nonsensical

    (* tefila of course is an obligaiton bshas tzara, but not because of Yaakov)

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 362 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.