The Three Oaths - Wikipedia

[Lubab]

judeanoncapta, you know... you can argue a point without the personal insults.

I apologize for offending you.

My animus comes from the knowledge of the incredible damage done to Jewish minds by Lubab's view of Aggadata.

I have to fight ideologies that I feel are killing the Jewish people.

I would be lacking in Ahavat Yisrael if I equivocated on such major issues such as these.

Thank you for being such a patiot! We all know that Lubab is the greatest danger to the Jewish people. Your ahavat yisroel should be an inspiration to us all. But remember. When you use personal insults you are not fighting an ideology you are fighting.

People who don't understand these statements of Chazal and just believe them are lacking in understanding.
People who reject them are lacking in faith in Chazal.

Neither group is completely right. You need to keep your faith in the words of Chazal, keep research'ing until you truly understand what they are saying. That is the true path of Torah.

By your logic you probably also believe that the splitting of the sea and the 10 plauges are too magical to be have occured and are just children's stories...that leads directly into denail of belief in the miracles of G-d and Tzadikim which the Rambam defines as heresy.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

judeanoncapta, you know... you can argue a point without the personal insults.

I apologize for offending you.

My animus comes from the knowledge of the incredible damage done to Jewish minds by Lubab's view of Aggadata.

I have to fight ideologies that I feel are killing the Jewish people.

I would be lacking in Ahavat Yisrael if I equivocated on such major issues such as these.

Thank you for being such a patiot! We all know that Lubab is the greatest danger to the Jewish people. Your ahavat yisroel should be an inspiration to us all. But remember. When you use personal insults you are not fighting an ideology you are fighting.

People who don't understand these statements of Chazal and just believe them are lacking in understanding.
People who reject them are lacking in faith in Chazal.

Neither group is completely right. You need to keep your faith in the words of Chazal, keep research'ing until you truly understand what they are saying. That is the true path of Torah.

By your logic you probably also believe that the splitting of the sea and the 10 plauges are too magical to be have occured and are just children's stories...that leads directly into denail of belief in the miracles of G-d and Tzadikim which the Rambam defines as heresy.

 I think he was saying something else. Obviously things like the splitting of the sea, etc. occured, in reality, But what he is trying to say that one should not take Aggadatah literally because the essence of it is to teach on a different intellectual level and not something which we would call "down to eath" or reality.  Also in these instances he said WHY these particualr ones had to be said- in order to change certain behavior of the times (which was necessary or felt necessary for the time).

[Lubab]

judeanoncapta, you know... you can argue a point without the personal insults.

I apologize for offending you.

My animus comes from the knowledge of the incredible damage done to Jewish minds by Lubab's view of Aggadata.

I have to fight ideologies that I feel are killing the Jewish people.

I would be lacking in Ahavat Yisrael if I equivocated on such major issues such as these.

Thank you for being such a patiot! We all know that Lubab is the greatest danger to the Jewish people. Your ahavat yisroel should be an inspiration to us all. But remember. When you use personal insults you are not fighting an ideology you are fighting.

People who don't understand these statements of Chazal and just believe them are lacking in understanding.
People who reject them are lacking in faith in Chazal.

Neither group is completely right. You need to keep your faith in the words of Chazal, keep research'ing until you truly understand what they are saying. That is the true path of Torah.

By your logic you probably also believe that the splitting of the sea and the 10 plauges are too magical to be have occured and are just children's stories...that leads directly into denail of belief in the miracles of G-d and Tzadikim which the Rambam defines as heresy.

 I think he was saying something else. Obviously things like the splitting of the sea, etc. occured, in reality, But what he is trying to say that one should not take Aggadatah literally because the essence of it is to teach on a different intellectual level and not something which we would call "down to eath" or reality.  Also in these instances he said WHY these particualr ones had to be said- in order to change certain behavior of the times (which was necessary or felt necessary for the time).

Yes with the addition that he get's to decide what is considered Aggadta and what is not based on his understanding or lack thereof.
If you read Moreh Nevuchim you will find the answer to what he means that he killed the Egyptian with the name of G-d. Prayer works. That is reality also.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The Three Oaths were a rhetorical device used by Chazal to try to calm down the rowdy Jews who kept on trying one disastrous revolt after another.

Please provide source/evidence or at least the rationale for this explanation.   This will be helpful to defending your stance, but it is also I think necessary for those without as much knowledge as you on this issue (myself included).   This answer seems to presume a lot of unseen information.

I'll give you an example to demonstrate this. There is a Midrash that says that in the story where Moses killed the egyptian for beating a Hebrew actually Moses used the name of G-d to kill this egyptian. Zapping him, as it were, with magical killing power.

Now, you can take the infantile position that Moses actually did zap him with magical powers....................

 OR you can realize what a Rabbi might say in order to calm down a Jew who reads the Torah seeing that Moses killed the Egyptian oppressor, I will go out tommorow morning and kill a few Roman soldiers.

But if you tell this person that in happened in some magical fashion and therefore such things can only be done in a magical fashion so don't go out and kill Romans, got it?

But how does one determine which midrashim to apply this to and which not to?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Although the one you mention does seem an obvious choice.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Maybe someone will answer it better then me, -but maybe it does not mattter which Midrashim were in fact reality and real as long as we understand the message. For example some are blatently not pshat- for example check the stories of Rabbah Bar Bar Chanah in Bava Batra- where he talks about different things like a frog large as a city (Hagrunia) which was 60 houses, and a serpent comes by and swollows it...... which anyone would easily see that it is stories, yett one should not mistaken them and take them lightly either, they have emmense depth to them, and each story teaches many things, deeper and deeper. Their are even long lessons on the stories themselves, and the revelations that each bring.
 Then their are other things like for example Moshe saying G-d's name and the Egyptian dieng. It could have actually happened, and it could have not. Either way how we should see it is, yess we can learn from it, can learn for example the power of prayer, or anything else the Hachamim might reveal about it, BUT at the same time not limit ourselves in other things. Ill explain- we should not look at that event and then come to the wrong comclusions, to something that contradicts other things, expecially Halacha. One should NOT then say, ooh if you know the name of G-d and are on the level of Moshe, THEN you can kill someone evil like the Egyptian for doing what he was, but if not then it would have been wrong for Moshe to have done soo.  - Its the conclusion that counts.

[Raulmarrio2000]

I don't know about Jewish Halacha. I didn't even know about these oaths. But I think an oath swearing not to rebel against the Nations is not valid nowdays if it was made under the concept of what ancient nations and their policies were .At that times, the Nations (Gentiles) based their authority in might only. Most of them, if not all, were despotic moanrchies. Now ALL the nations claim to base their authority on justice and reason, and have given all peoples the right to fight for freedom. It is true that most of them are just hypocrites, but they have given the permission anyway. Even dictaorships have (hypocritally) accepted the UN and rejected colonialism. Noone is revolting against them, they have freely renounced their "right" to rule the world based on power.
When the Nations openly admitted being despotic, Jews had to expect only a miracle from Heaven not to be ill-treated, and must not use human means to defend themselves. They just kept the oath not to rebel and miracleously the nations would keep their oath not to oopress them too much.
Now that the Gentiles have formally renounced despotism, Jews are free to fight for the rights Gentiles have already recognised to all Peoples.
Take this example: Let's suppoose I live under an absolute monarchy and since I am not a nobleman, I am denied some rights. If I make a vow not to rebel against the Govt, but then that regime chnages and becomes a democracy granting me all rights.... but the govt. discriminates against me anyway... Would I violate the vow, if I make a lawsuit under the law??? Surely not!!! Since it is not rebelion.
In international matters, not only lawsuits but force is also accepted. Don't Nations recognise the right to fight for freedom now??? Don't they suport the right of every people to have a Sate???
At that time, there were no States, but Empires.

[q_q_]

The Three Oaths were a rhetorical device used by Chazal to try to calm down the rowdy Jews who kept on trying one disastrous revolt after another.

Please provide source/evidence or at least the rationale for this explanation.   This will be helpful to defending your stance, but it is also I think necessary for those without as much knowledge as you on this issue (myself included).   This answer seems to presume a lot of unseen information.

I'll give you an example to demonstrate this. There is a Midrash that says that in the story where Moses killed the egyptian for beating a Hebrew actually Moses used the name of G-d to kill this egyptian. Zapping him, as it were, with magical killing power.

Now, you can take the infantile position that Moses actually did zap him with magical powers....................

 OR you can realize what a Rabbi might say in order to calm down a Jew who reads the Torah seeing that Moses killed the Egyptian oppressor, I will go out tommorow morning and kill a few Roman soldiers.

But if you tell this person that in happened in some magical fashion and therefore such things can only be done in a magical fashion so don't go out and kill Romans, got it?

But how does one determine which midrashim to apply this to and which not to?

One has this problem with all midrashim, is it literal or not, and if not, then what does it teach.
(see, one could say they are not literal oaths, but then say that it teaches what it says it teaches,so it makes no difference!).

Most rabbis -do- believe the midrash (literally), that Moshe literally killed the egyptian with the Shem HaMeforesh. A divine name with special powers.


If you want to say that it is literal, then you have to answer the questions of consistency. e.g.
OK, so we are under the 3 oaths. They weren't literally made. But if they apply, then when do they apply?  How do we explain chanukah(revolt against the greeks)? or Rabbi Akiva's choosing of Bar Koziba/Kochba - revolt against romans. 


Now. KahaneBT, you're a logical person..
If you listen to a shiur why not produce a summary of it?

Here, at this link, I produced a summary of one of rabbi bar hayyim's shiurim.  It is the one you were wondering about
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?topic=22537.0


You actually participated in that thread.. I guess you forgot.
If you search for breakdown you would pick up that thread.

You may forget.. But you are logical, and if you go to the trouble of listening to a one hour shiur, it would be a great service if you produced a summary of the shiur..
(I don't know about you.. But I know that for me, if I have listened to a shiur, and absorbed it, then summarising it is not a problem.. I often pause it and tap things into notepad anyway while listening to it.  It's the listening and absorbing it that takes the most time)