The Three Oaths - Sources

' . The three verses are: I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please (Song of Songs 2:7). I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please (Song of Songs 3:5). I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem: Why should ye awaken, or stir up love, until it please? (Song of Songs 8:4). There are several other Midrashim that pertain to the Three Oaths and they are primarily recorded in Shir HaShirim Rabbah which is also known as Midrash Hazita: R. Yossi bar Chanina said, There are two oaths here, one for Israel and one for the nations. Israel swore not to rebel against the nations [R. Yossi bar Chanina views Israels two oaths in Ketuvot as just one], and the nations swore that they would not overly burden Israel, for by doing so they cause the end of days to come prematurely. Rabbi Chelbo says...And do not ascend like a wall from the Exile. If so, why is the King Messiah coming? To gather the exiles of Israel. When Reish Lakish would see Jews from the Exile gathering in the marketplace in the Land of Israel he would say to them, 'Scatter yourselves.' He said to them: 'When you ascended you did not do so as a wall, and here you have come to make a wall.' Rambam cited the Three Oaths in his famous Iggeres Teiman: 1 " 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. Shlomo Hamelech, 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 appointed time, and as a consequence they would perish or meet with disaster. Therefore he admonished and adjured them in metaphorical language to desist, as we read, "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please." (Song of Songs 2:7, 8:4). Now, brethren and friends, abide by the oath, and stir not up love until it please (Kesubos 111a). Ramban did not explicitly discuss the Three Oaths. Rashbash who was himself a descendant of Ramban, understood this particular biblical obligation to be binding on the individual level but not on the collective: "In truth, this commandment is not a commandment which includes the entirety of Israel in the Exile which now exists, but it is a general principle as our Sages stated in the Talmud in Ketubos, that it stems from the Oaths which The Holy One, Blessed be He, made Israel swear not to rush the End, and not to ascend like a wall." (Responsa Rashbash, 2.) Rabbeinu Bachya, formulated a comprehensive Torah commentary based on the four principles

The Three Oaths - Sources

denoted by the word "PaRDeS." In commentary he wrote on Bereishis 32:7: his oath does not tacitly mean that the Jewish people are free to do so as well. Historically, atrocities prior to the Holocaust have not prompted claims of violating the oaths by the gentiles. 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 with torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them. 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. 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. Not only are the Oaths binding according to the consensus of authorities, including the Ramban, even if the nations give permission, but Israel was created against the will of the Arabs, who were the residents of the land at the time - the UN is not a Sanhedrin HaGadol that speaks for everyone. The fact is, Hanagnahs, Irguns, Stern Gangs and a War of Independence was waged in order to create Israel - which hardly constitutes a "peaceful ascent into the land", which is what would be needed to mitigate the Oaths even if we accept the premise; even if we accept the the Balfour declaration as "permission" to create a 2

and it is written And Hezekiah prayed before God (2 Kings 19:15). So too we are required to follow in the way of the Patriarchs and to restore ourselves so that we may be graciously accepted and with our fine language and prayer before God, may He be exalted. However, to wage war is not possible (Song of Songs 2), you have been adjured daughters of Jerusalem, etc. You have been adjured not to engage in war with the nations. Maharal discussed the Three Oaths in Netzach Yisrael, Ch. 24. He 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. The Maharal says that these oaths represent absolute prohibitions that one must sacrifice one's life before violating. In technical terms, these oaths are yehareg ve'al ya'avor. It is better to be martyred than to violate these oaths.: ' ' , , , . . , ,' ' , , . Another explanation of the Midrashs statement (he is speaking of Shir HaShirim Rabba 2:20 that begins ) that G-d 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. The oaths are between the Jewish people and God, and the gentiles and God respectively. Theoretically, if the gentiles would violate their

The Three Oaths - Sources

Medinah, what the Balfour declaration intended is not in fact what happened - instead of a peaceful coexistence with the Arabs, violence and bloodshed took place to create the Medinah. 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. 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 not 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. Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violated theirs but we still cannot violate ours. The Oaths are not Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is 3 forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says You may not 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.) The poskim cite the oaths as halacha, as I cited above. The Oaths are brought down l'halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. And secondly, there is no such thing as "just" an aggadic passage. Aggadah informs our religious outlook and cannot be ignored. Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah. Third, 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 making a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doing 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. Kuntres Shavuos: "Agadita is also considered Halchah, as is proven from the Gemora in Eruvin (13b), that the disagreement between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel was decided by way of vote, that noach lo shelo nivra. Thus, psak halachah is also applicable to Deos, and that is what is referred to as Hilchos Deos and Chovos Halevovos, for the difference [between Halachah and Agada] is only in respect to how and with what they are fulfilled: The Chovos HaEvarim are fulfilled with the limbs, and the Hilchos Deos are fulfilled with the understanding of the mind of those who accept the Torah this idea the Rosh Yeshiva ZTL planted within us very much, pertinent to the fundamentals of Hichos Deos and Chovos Halevovos." The Rambam paskens in several places regarding hashkafa as well as action-Halchah, and the fact that he codifies 13 Ikarim in Mishna Torah is the simplest example of that.

The Three Oaths - Sources

The Chasam Sofer, in his last Teshuva on Yoreh Deah, points out that there is an opinion in the Gemora that of R. Hillel - that there will be no Moshiach (rather, Hashem Himself will redeem Klall Yisroel). Of course, one of the Rambams 13 Ikarim is belief in Moshiach. If so, he asks, why would R. Hillel not qualify as a heretic? The Chasam Sofer answers that if anybody nowadays would hold like R. Hillel he would indeed be considered an apikores, but when R. Hillel said this, the Halachah that Bias HaMashiach is a required belief had not yet been paskened and therefore it was, at that point in time, permitted to hold such an opinion. Today, however, after the dispute between R. Hillel and his peers has been paskened, anybody who holds like R. Hillels opinion is a heretic and has no share in Olam Habah. But besides the Ikarim there are many nonhalachic disputes the Rambam paskens. As but one example of many, the Gemora in Brachos (34b) brings a dispute between R. Yochanan and R. Avohu whether a Baal Teshuva is on a higher level than someone who never needs Teshuva in the first place, or someone who never sinned is higher than the Baal Teshuva. The Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 7:4) rules that a Baal Teshuva is on a higher level than someone who never sinned. There is no practical instruction here; just a Hashkafa. Another example is the Gemora in Sanhedrin (91a) regarding what will be when Moshiach comes. ' The Rambam in Hilchos Melachem only cites 4 the opinion of Shmuel, not R. Yochanan. The Abarbanel (Yeshuos Meshicho end of ch. 7) asks on the Rambam that the Halachah is like R. Yochanan when disagreeing with Shmuel. Clearly, the Abarbanel understood the Rambam to be paskening this Agada like one side, and he voices his disapproval, as based on the principles of Halachah he should have rules like the other side. The Abarbanel does not think to explain that because this is Agada, with not practical Halachic difference, the Rambam is entitled to follow whichever opinion he chooses. There is a Halachah that says you must have the right Hashkofos. Lo sosuru acharei levavchem, You may not follow your heart, meaning, you may not believe meenus (apikursos). The Mishna Brura rules (his source is Sefer Hachinuch almost word for word, but without attribution) that apikursos includes any opinion that is contrary to Daas Torah. Meaning, even if you follow all Halachos, if you have an opinion that conflicts with that of the Torah, you violate this laav. Hashkafa can often be Halachicly binding. Sometimes a Hashkafic violation can be worse than a Halachic one such as in the case of an Apikores vs. a Mechalel Shabbos. There is a simple proof from the Gemora, which is said over in the name of both Rav Hutner and Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, that we pasken hashkafa: "nimnu vegamru - noach lo shelo nivrah". "They counted and ruled" according to the majority - noach lo shelo nivrah, a purely hashkafic, non-halachic issue, ruled due to the majority count. Someone who tries to live Halachicly without proper Hashkofos will not succeed. At best, he will be living a schizophrenic, self-contradictory Jewish life, and he will be in a constant state of spiritual disarray trying to reconcile his Halachic lifestyle with his Hashkafic deficiencies. Jewish

The Three Oaths - Sources

Halachah and contradictory. Secular Hashkofos are list there is another list of all those that hold even with reshut its still prohibited to violate the Oaths. I merely listed the more famous ones but the ones that are not so common to people I wrote the main points of what the say so people know it. 1) The Piskei Riaz on Kesuvos 111a, the Maharsha in chiddushei halachot Kesuvos 111a Responsa Rivash in Siman 110, Responsa Rashbash in Siman 2, Hagahos Vchidushei haRashash on Kesuvos 111a, Hagahos Yaavetz on kesuvos 111a, the Hagahos Vchidushim of R Aryeh Leib Yalin in the Yafe Einayim on Kesuvos 111a, the Megillas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam mitzvah 4, the Ramban in Sefer HaGeulah at end of chapter 1 in the Chavel edition on pg. 274, the Rambam in Igeres Taimon, the Maharal in Netzach Yisroel siman 24 , The Kaftor ViPherach (Perek 10 daf 197), the Responsa Maharshdam Chelek Choshen Mishpat Siman 364 daf 60b, Peat Hashulchan Hilchos Eretz Yisroel Siman 1 seif 3,Otzar Hachaim Kitzur taryag Mitzvot 59,Reponsa Chatam Sofer Yoreh Deah Siman 220, Harav Yakov Emden in the Sefer Migdal Oz at the end of Aliyat ahava ot 7, also brings the prohibitions of the oaths and states praiseworthy are the believers and sons of believers.. that do not go up aliya bchoma and RYakov Emden in Sefer hashimush daf 66b where he states we can not ask even for our land not with cheil or koach since we already have sworn not to make aliya bchoma and not to rebel against the malchut.. and the oaths are brought in the Siddur Yaavetz (Rav Yakov Emden) as brought by the Hirsch siddur pg .703 quoted on pg.137, in a teshuva on Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisroel from the Gadol of Minsk Hagaon R' Yerucham Y.L. Pearlmen ZTZL Bsini Krach 6 page 213, the Aruch Hashulchan in Choshen Mishpat Siman 2 seif 1, Roggachevor Gaon in Tikun Olam,Munkatch in the beginning of the sefer the oaths are also qouted lihalacha ,and in Responsa Tzofnas Paneach 143 ot 2,Rav Shmuel Salant in (Gilyon Tzefunos, year 3 5

Rav Yitzchok Hutner ZTL once described the incongruous Halachic Judaism syndrome as comparable to someone who puts on his shirt in the morning and accidentally buttons the lowest button in the wrong hole. Instead of undoing it, he decides to solve the problem by putting the next button in the wrong hole as well, and he keeps buttoning up his shirt like that, always one hole off, thinking everything is OK. Until he gets to the top of the shirt. Now he has to either undo the entire shirt, or wear it lopsided. So, too, Rav Hutner said, are those who want to reconcile Halachah with the values and way of life of society. It is lopsided. You can maneuver around the Halachic pitfalls again and again, but eventually you will see that it doesnt work, you paint yourself into a corner, and there will be no choice except to either undo your entire philosophy or live with a self-contradictory Judaism. Not only are the Oaths binding according to the consensus of authorities, including the Ramban, even if the nations give permission, but Israel was created against the will of the Arabs, who were the residents of the land at the time - the UN is not a Sanhedrin HaGadol that speaks for everyone. The fact is, Hanagnahs, Irguns, Stern Gangs and a War of Independence was waged in order to create Israel - which hardly constitutes a "peaceful ascent into the land", which is what would be needed to mitigate the Oaths even if we accept the premise; even if we accept the the Balfour declaration as "permission" to create a Medinah, what the Balfour declaration intended is not in fact what happened - instead of a peaceful coexistence with the Arabs, violence and bloodshed took place to create the Medinah. Here is the list of many of the authorities that bring down the 3 oaths or part of them holding we must abide by them and after this

The Three Oaths - Sources

koveitz 1,pg 46),the Mei Hashiloach on Masechet Shabbos 47b Perek 4 bmah tomnin, Tosfos Hashalem from the Baalei Tosfos on Yisro 19:12 which also brings down the oaths, (Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk also the author of the Ohr Sameach) in Meshech Chochma on parshas Vayechi 50:24 brings down that which the oaths prohibit not to go up to eretz yisroel bchoma and says this is a limud ldorot that we should not go up bchoma and not like the bnei Ephraim did before the keitz and states only until a Navi from Hashem comes and tells us can we go!, Rabbeinu Bachya in Vayishlach 32:8 , The Melo Haomer R Aryeh Leib Tzanz on Koheles 8: 2 [author of the Magen Alef, Chiddushei Teshuvos HaMaharaal and of Teshuvos Meshivos Nefesh, which has haskamas from the Ohr Chadash and the Noda B'Yehuda (Tzlach)] who explains that we must not rebel against the nations under the oath in Kesubos 111a., The Even Ezra on Shir Hashirim 3:9,the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh in Rishon Litzion on Shir Hashirim 2:7, the Bear Hagola perek 25 ot. 5, the Chida in Chomat Anch on shir hashirim 3:14, the Chekel Yitzchak on Parshas Vayara, the Drashot Chasam Sofer daf 152 lzayin adar sheini parshas Vayikra 586, the Yafeh Kol on Shir Hashirim Rabba 2 :20 (dibur hamskil shelo yaalu kchoma and im kein) who explains Rashi byad chazaka as meaning even with reshus its still assur to break the oaths but only until moshiach actually comes. The Yismach Moshe in Tehilim Tefilas Moshe Mizmor 127, the Kli Yakar in Sefer Eir Giborim Parshas Vayishlach who holds we can not have certain wars because of the 3 oaths, the Ksav Sofer in Drashot Ksav Sofer drush lishabat shuva 426 where he brings the 3 oaths that we must abide by to prove that davening for the Geuala is not going to remove the ol malchut. The Responsa Levushei Mordechai Mahadura Tlitai on Yoreh Deah Siman 49 brings the Oaths and the Ahavoson Yonason that even with reshut it still assur to violate the oaths, the Lechem Shlomo in drasha 76 also brings it is assur today to be koveish eretz yisroel as we see the Bnei Ephraim 6 were punished for transgressing the oaths as they left mitzrayim early, the Maharitz Chiyus in Kol sifrei Maharitz Chiyus (Sefer Torat Neviyum Hamechuna Ele Hamitzvot in his teshuva to the Maharam Sofer) also brings the 3 oaths as binding, the Yalkut Meam Loez Parshas Vieschanan page 296. Rav Dov bir Trievish the head of the Beis Din Raba during Yimei HaGRA and also the author of the Revid Zahav in Shir Chadash on shir Hashirim brings the 3 oaths and states their source is really from har Sinai that we sweared to keep them. The Markevet Hamishna on bishalach 2:6 states on the Midrash Rabba Bereishis 36,13 brings the Oaths from Kesuvos 111a as binding, the Maskil el Dal in Chelek 4 Klall 3 Prat 4 Shaila 5 holds the 3 oaths from Kesuvos 111a as binding and explains how yiraim and tzadikim did not transgress this aveirah and states how he has no ruling and it did not come on his data at all to suspect after them with these since its Mitzvat hashem and Divrei Neviem which was precious in their eyes since they are sworn not shelo yimridu vshelo yaalu bchoma-not to rebel against and not to go up to Eretz Yisrael with force, (also brings it down in klall 10 prat 5 sheala 1), the Noda B'Yehuda in Koveitz Kerem Shlomo Year 16 Chodesh Iyyar 5753 page 7 see there for exact words) has a response in regard to rebelling against ones country and says he transgresses the oath of shelo yimridu and quotes from hilchos kesubos on daf 111a the Oaths that we can not go up bchoma and conquer Eretz Yisroel and we can not rebel against the nations of the world., The Noam Elimelech on Vayikra at the end of dh O nefesh- also brings down the Oath we can not be docheik the keitz as binding, The Sefer Chareidim on the Torah in Parshas Vayishlach brings the prohibiton of the Oaths down, the Akeidat Yitzchak in shaar 26, the Paytanim including Rebbi Shlomo brebi yehuda in Yotzer lyom 1 of Pesach in the piyut that starts Or yesha and Rebbi Meshulam brebbi Klonimos in

The Three Oaths - Sources

Yotzer lyom 2 of Pesach are even Mazkir the Oath down as the Maaseh Oreg explains the piyut all as the commands on Klal Yisroel not to violate the oaths in kesubos, and the Mateh Levi explains the piyutim with the binding prohibitions of the oaths in Kesubos 111a, the Sefer Zechus Avos by R Avraham Galanti warns us not to violate the 3 oaths in kesuvos 111a, The Shearit Yisroel in Siman 44 daf 118 by R Yisroel Zeav Mintzburg quotes the 3 oaths in kesuvos 111a and states the violation of them causes all the Tzarot that befall klall yisroel and now. R Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin in Pri Tzadik on Parshat Vieschanan ot 1 brings the 3 oaths as binding and asks why we even need the oaths of shelo yaalu bchoma and shelo yimridu if we have shelo yadchiku et hakeitz we should include them and R Tzadok explains that we need those oaths to teach us even if it would come to our heads that we think we are ready for the Geuala we still can go up bchoma to Eretz Yisroel becaue of the oath of shelo yaalu bchoma and the oath of shelo yimridu bumot haolam also teaches even if we see the reshaat hagoyim that we would be fit to be redeemed we still do not know if we are fit for the Geuala. In the kuntres Shomer Emunim Rav Shaul Barach Av Beis Din of Kassuei also applies the oaths as it is prohibited to go to eretz yisroel bchoma, Sefer Admorei Belz Chelek 3 page 245- the Sar Shalom Mibelz ZTZL quotes his father that brings from the Maharal the discussion of the Oaths that even if they want to kill us binu kasha we still can not violate the oaths-and he states and from this it comes out we must believe in hashem and trust in his yeshua only. And further on page 257 from Rav Yissachor Dov miBelz that states we must stay in Galut under hanhagat hashem and the Chasidim that were in the Dorot Rishonim Viachronim never even thought to establish a Melucha since its against our Rabboteinu Zal. The Ramchal in Sefer Tefilot HaRamchal- tefilla 168 that speaks about his generation that accepts the suffering of Galus since they keep 7 the Oaths as it says Hishbati etchem bnos yerushalayim btzvaot. HaRav Shimshon Refael Hirsch in Chorev page 435 also applies the 3 oaths, The Shirei Shlomo on Shir Hashirim 8:4 brings the oaths and says hashem made us swear so that chas vishalom we should not think to be oleh bchazaka Kichoma ..,the Shlah Hakadesh in Torah Shebichtav Parshas Mishpatim in drush lparshat shekalim says we can not make a war because of the Oaths. Also the Shlah on Maseches Taanis drush lparshat matos also brings oath of dechikat hakeitz and the Shlah in Torah shebchtav Parshas Shemos Drush Viateh Titzaveh #1 brings the prohibition of the Oaths, the Shem Mishmuel on Parshat Vayigash also brings the prohibition of the Oaths. The Shoel Umeishiv in Divrei Shaul parshat shemos dh habah quotes the prohibition of the 3 oaths in kesovos 111a and also quotes Harav Hagaon Avraham and states he is maarich on this issue in his sefer Tzror Hachaim in Cheleck Keitz Hayamim, so that source is the Sefer Tzror haChaim in Cheleck Keitz hayamim which was nidpas in Amsterdam year 5580,the Mahari Shportosh in Kitzur Tzizit Novel Tzvi daf 50b also brinsg the prohibition of violating the 3 oaths, the Radvaz in Migdal Dovid Shir hashirim #2 daf 22b brings the prohibiton of the 3 oaths form hishbati etchem and states the yisod that they are oaths of the neshama, Rebbi Yehuda the son of the Maharam Challavah in Imrei Shefer on Parshas Vayishlach writes we have to make sure not to be machzik in a milchama because that would transgress the Oaths of hishbati etchem bnos yerushalayim, Harav Hagon Tzvi Hirsch Laheron in Responsa Riva on Orach ChaimYoreh Deah Siman 1 applies the 3 oaths lihalacha stating we can not go up and conquer eretz yisroel, The Arvei Nachal on Parshat bo also brings the prohibition of the 3 oaths, the Abarbenel in Yeshuos Meshicho Cheleck 1 daf 11b also brings down the prohibitions of the 3 oaths in Kesuvos 111a, the Rokeach on Shir Hashirim 2:7 also warns not to violate these oaths especially shelo yimridu, Reb Moshe

The Three Oaths - Sources

miKassov in Leket Ani Moadim and in Leket Ani Purim brings the oaths as binding in the Gemara in Kesubos as binding lihalacha, the Kitzur Alshich on Shir Hashirim 2:7 also brings all the prohibitions of the oaths in the Gemara in Kesubos 111a, Harav Yakov Emden in the Sefer Migdal Oz at the end of Aliyat ahava ot 7, also brings the prohibitions of the oaths and states praiseworthy are the believers and sons of believers.. that do not go up aliya bchoma. The Responsa Avnei Nezer Siman 454 and 455 ,the Responsa Minchat Elazor Chelek 5 siman 12 , the Responsa Yad Mordechai daf 120-121,The Chazon Ish ZTZL also brings the 3 shvous lihalacha which may be recorded in Mishkenos Haroim p. 1195 and Uvdos Venhanhagos Lveis Habrisk Chelek 4 pg. 309 and can be found regarding the oath of dechat hakeitz in Zecher Ldovid pg. 153.,Harav Elchonon Wassermen holds the 3 shvuos lihalacha explicitly in Ikvesa Dmeshicha at the end of seif 27 and also in Yalkut Mamarim daf 54 applies the 3 oaths lihalacha, The Responsa Minchat Yitzchak in Chelek 10 Siman 10, the Kedushat Tzion on Tanach pg 92, in Or liyesharim from the sefer Daas haRabbanim there is a collection of michtavim from the Gedolim of Poland and some of these michtavim contain them holding of the 3 oaths as binding-HaRav Betzalel of Lubavitch in (Michtav 10), the Av beis din of Krashov R Gavriel Zev Asaolaka in (Michtav 42) applies the 3 oaths lihalacha, Reb Shabtai Rappaport Av Beis Din Pintshov in (Michtav applies oaths lihalcha, Rav Simcha Bunim Av Beis Din in Zachlin (who was a talmud chaviv of R Mendel Kotzker) in (Michtav 12) also applies the Oaths lihalacha.,Rav Yehuda Leib Rosh Av beis din of Avisad in (Michtav 35) also applies oaths lihalacha, Rav Yonasan Stief Ztzl in Limudei hashem chelek 1 ot 310 daf 235 ,the Brisker Rav ZTZL in Uvdos Vihanhagos lbeis habrisk chelek 4 pg. 187, Rav Moshe MiKassov ztzl in (leket Ani Moadim), The Stiepler Rav ZTZL (Kehillos Yaakov) in the sefer Karyana Deigarta # 205 in 8 chelek 4, Michtavim Umaamarim of Rav Elazar Shach ZTZL Volume 1 letters I:12. Harav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin ZTZL in Kisvei Rav Henkin vol 2 5719 #109, vol 2 in the haskomos, vol. 1 #206, vol. 2 p. 103 also applies the 3 oaths lihalacha, Vyoel Moshe (maamar shalosh shvuos), Igros Divrei Emuna pg. 225 from Toldas Ahron Rebbe who also brings the Oaths as binding. 2) Here is a list of all the authorities that hold even with permission from the nations of the world we still have to keep the oaths.- the Ramban in Sefer HaGeulah at end of chapter 1 in the Chavel edition on pg. 274 and the Ramban in his Sefer Haemunah Vihabitachon on pg. 369, the Maharal in Netzach Yisroel siman 24 ,Rav Yonason Eyebushitz (in Ahavas Yonason on Parshas Vieschanan) and the Yefas Toar also say clearly that even a peaceful, with-permission ascent to EY=it is prohibited according to the Oaths. The Yafeh Kol on Shir Hashirim raba 2:7, the Bracha Meshuleshes in Chullin Perek 5 Mishna 3 (author of the Bnei Yissaschar), Rav Bentzion Sternfeld the Rav of Bilsk (older conetmporary of the Chofetz Chaim who's haskama is printed in the Mishna Berura) in Shaarei Tzion in Parshas Zachor siman 4, all hold even with permission from the gentiles it is still prohibited. The Abarbanel writes in (Mashmia Yeshuah, Mevaser 2, Nevuah that Hashem himself will bring us back from galus to Eretz Yisroel which will be permanent in contrast to the time of the bayis sheini when the Jews returned to Eretz Yisroel by the permission of the Persian emperor Cyrus which was allowed b/c it was temporary. The Akeidat Yitzchak in shaar 26, The Tzafnus Paneach on daf 199 Mahadurat R' Avraham Lieffer based on the Zeis Raanan on Yalkut Remez 227, and furthermore the Magdanut Avraham who is the Baal Kanfei Nisharim on shir hashirim 8:4 all hold that even with permission it is still prohibited to violate the oaths. the Av beis din of Krashov R Gavriel Zev Asaolaka in Ohr

The Three Oaths - Sources

leyisharim michtav 42 applies the Oaths and holds even with permission it is still assur!, The Responsa Levushei Mordechai Mahadura Tlitai on Yoreh Deah Siman 49 brings the Oaths and the Ahavoson Yonason that even with reshut it still assur to violate the oaths thus subscribing to his view. The Ksav Sofer in Chelek 1 daf 24 dibur hamskil Viyafeh quotes from his father the Chasam Sofer that by yitzias mitzraim they heard them say Tziu Maitanu- Leave from us (meaning they gave them permission) however the am hashem strengthened their emuna and they did not leave since they were commanded on al yeitza ish mipetach beito and it was this zechut that they were redeemed, so too in the future during chevlei moshiach we will have this nisayon and we must choose like they did.( ie. we can not go even with permission from the Goyim to bring the Geula.) Rav Yerachmiel Yishaya Mintzberg in Rishfei Aish page 23 says even if all the nations of the world give us reshut to go to eretz yisroel similar to the geula shniya bimei ezra we still can not accept but the Geula has to be from the hands of the redeemer himself like it was in yeztias mitzrayim, The Responsa Yad Mordechai daf 120-121 applies the oaths lihalacha even with reshut from goyim, the Responsa Minchat Elazor Chelek 5 siman 12, Harav Yirmiyahu Cohen also implies from the Rashbash in Siman 2 and the Peas Hashulchan in Hilchos Eretz Yisroel Siman 1 seif 3 in the book In the footsteps of the flock on page 216 that even with permission its still assur to violate the oaths. He implies it since they hold that the oaths are a reason to say that the mitzvah of yishuv eretz yisroel must not be obligatory since if it was then all Jews would go there and this would be a violation of the oath. But why couldnt they have answered simply that the oath forbids taking the land by force, but if the ruling power gives permission for any or all Jews to immigrate, they are obligated to come? Evidently it was obvious to them that the oath forbids any mass immigration even with permission from a ruling power., (Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk also the 9 author of the Ohr Sameach) in Meshech Chochma on parshas Vayechi 50:24 brings down that which the oaths prohibit not to go up to eretz yisroel bchoma and says this is a limud ldorot that we should not go up bchoma and not like the bnei Ephraim did before the keitz and states only until a Navi from hashem comes and tells us we can go! (This may imply that only if a Navi Hashem tells us we can go, but not reshus from the umos). Also important to note is not only the fact that the Shevuos are quoted l'maaseh in Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim and have been used throughout the ages, but also that there has been nobody who disagreed with them or their binding nature until the Zionists came around. Important to note in this context is that even the rabbonim who the religious zionists consider their forerunners, recognized the binding nature of the oaths. When R. Zvi Hersh Kalisher defended his movement to make settlements in EY, he insisted that he would never think of doing so if it means antagonizing the ruling powers of the land, as that would constitute a violation of the Shevuos. He said that others who have tried an "aliyah" idea earlier, who came illegally using force were nichshal and bordered on violating the shevuos but he is not like them (writings, p.204). Also R. Alexander Moshe Lapidos defends the colonist movement by saying that they would never violate the oaths by taking the land form the turks by "sword and bow" nor do they have any plans of creating a government there. (Shivas Tzion 1:p.35)