The Three Oaths - Wikipedia

[sstr]

Hello everyone,
The Wikipedia article on the 'Three Oaths' is currently under construction. Thus far there are two Jews working on it: Me, presenting mostly the religious Zionist view, and another Jew, apparently Haredi and strongly anti-Zionist.

As my knowledge regarding this topic is limited and I have next to no access to reliable sources relating to it, I have decided to call on anyone here who is interested in helping out to please sign up on Wikipedia and help us out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

Note: PLEASE try to remain apolitical. Simply present the positions of other reliable authorities - refrain from original research or your own interpretations.

Thank you.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

I dont know if you have access to Rav Kahane's sefer Or' Harayon Volume 2. He writes a chapter about it (I dont know, but I think its kind of long to write all of it down there).
  Bli Neder, I will try to help out a little, later on, G-d willing. ( I could tell you off the top of my head, but it wouldn't be as professional as needed with the exact sources, etc- But bottom line is that their were Oaths, BUT the nations violated them first, then Rav Kahane brings proof from Tannach for example the case with King David Alav Hashalom, and his battle with Moav and Edom, in Aram Naharia and Aram Tzova (I think thats the place, not sure), where the enemies bring proof that the Torah says not to attack them, and theirs an oath, then King David goes to Sanhedrin and says that they violated the Oath first, thus freeing Israel from their Oath, and then they battle. Same goes with Samson Alav Hashalom, etc.

[judeanoncapta]

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.

The tragedy is that after 1500 years, it is being used by Jews to advise against the one revolt that actually succeeded.

And the real tragedy is that after 1500 years, the Jewish people with few exceptions have forgotten what Aggadata is and also what the Geulah is.

[Lubab]

The three oaths are completely and 100% true for all time. But they do not apply to the Israel situation because Israel did NOT take the land by force, there was no other kingdom there at the time, they merely made a state where there was none and defended themselves  when attacked.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

The three oaths are completely and 100% true for all time. But they do not apply to the Israel situation because Israel did NOT take the land by force, there was no other kingdom there at the time, they merely made a state where there was none and defended themselves  when attacked.

 Yes Israel did (justifyably)- their were the British, it was technically (according to international standards their land for the time being). Also before that the land belonged to the Turks. And Israel did take the land by force from them (read history and the underground movements that did the bombings, etc.).
  The oaths say not to rebel, and go up en mass from the nations to the land of Israel, so if you are right then you do not support millions of Jews living in Israel right now, because it is a violation of the oaths. BUT we must also know that the Oaths were violated by the nations, as it says - G-d was a little angry and they abbeted the evil and gave Israel much more persecuation and holocausts then were tolerable, and they broke the agreement first thus freeing Israel from their part.
 - It is basically a contract, Israel -does not rebel agaisn't the nations and does not go up to the Land en mass and by force, and the nations do not persecuate Israel too much. And before anyone asks whats too much, I think it is clear that the Holocaust was wayy and beyond too much and precisly why right afterwards their was a bigger justification of why their had to be a State of Israel (And I also believe that G-d had to show, (or at least tried) the Haredim and those who believed that we cant do anything because of the oaths, that they were/are not in affect anylonger since the nations violated their part.
  This is also the reason why we are in the type of Geula process that we currently are in, becuase since the nations swore that they would not overly burden Israel, and they failed, they cause the end of days to come prematurly, and the salvation comes out of this and not through repentence, which is the process of"In its time" and not "I will hasten it".

[Shlomo]

I dont know if you have access to Rav Kahane's sefer Or' Harayon Volume 2. He writes a chapter about it

Is it still out of print? I've been trying to get a copy for almost 2 years now.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

I dont know if you have access to Rav Kahane's sefer Or' Harayon Volume 2. He writes a chapter about it

Is it still out of print? I've been trying to get a copy for almost 2 years now.

 I just checked Amazon- it costs $200  + shipping. ( thats for volume 2, but volume 1 is $25 which is very very well worth it). 

[TorahZionist]

I just checked Amazon- it costs $200  + shipping. ( thats for volume 2, but volume 1 is $25 which is very very well worth it). 

That's a 2nd hand copy.
Some is taking advantage of the fact that the book is out of print.

[judeanoncapta]

The three oaths are completely and 100% true for all time. But they do not apply to the Israel situation because Israel did NOT take the land by force, there was no other kingdom there at the time, they merely made a state where there was none and defended themselves  when attacked.

Your statement is 100% false. Both in your rather childish beleif that three oaths were made on our behalf in heaven. But also in your ludicrous statement the Zionists did not take the land by force.

There was another kingdom there at the time. The United Kingdom. Great Britain.

The Zionists went into complete rebellion against a gentile kingdom and organized mass immigration of Jews to Israel, breaking both of the oaths that supposedly apply to the Jewish people. The third oath applies to the gentile kingdoms who, of course, repeatedly broke their part of the bargain.

If you truly beleive these "oaths" apply for all time, then we are truly in error and Neturei Karta are correct in their ideology. A prospect that should frighten you, but does not frighten me because I don't have the mind of a child when it comes to reading Aggadata.

There is a reason that so much of Midrash seems like fairy tales. Because most of it was meant for children.

Therefore a good suggestion to help you understand these oaths is a very simple proposition,

GROW UP!!!!!!

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

I just checked Amazon- it costs $200  + shipping. ( thats for volume 2, but volume 1 is $25 which is very very well worth it). 

That's a 2nd hand copy.
Some is taking advantage of the fact that the book is out of print.

 Definitly, I just accidently pressed the one click ordering for volume 1- and it was express. Lucky for me im on my other email and I found out and called them and canceled before they shipped. It came out to like $40 something with quick shipping (And I also have both volumes).

[Shlomo]

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

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

By the way any Jew living in Queens or who can come to Queens, who wants to borrow one of the Rav Kahane or Rav Benyamin Kahane books (or some of the other books that I have, including some volumes of Likutei Moharan, or others PM me.

[Lubab]

"Rising up like a wave/swarm" I believe is the language used there. Everyone needs to be joining together to use force en masse, and that's not what happened here. 

There's no question there was a small underground movement that used force and that applied political pressure to the British but in the end the British and the U.N. etc. AGREED to give it to us.

So it was not what the gemarah was referring to. Nor is it clear that these oaths are legal prohibitions at all.

Whenever JNC and his Rabbi have trouble explaining something they like to call it Aggadata so it doesn't really apply and they don't have to deal with it. It's an easy way out of any debate but they don't understand the depth of the Aggadta in the first place which is why they dismiss it and lump everything else they don't understand into that category. 

He and his Rabbi are the ones that really need to grow up and dig deeper into their learning before dismissing what they can't explain as Aggadta.

At the same time they have a lot to learn from "Tinokos Shel Beis Raban" about Emunat Chachamim

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

Either way, whether it applied or not, Rav Kahane had the best answers brought down, explaining clearly why they dont apply anylonger (assuming even if they did apply).
 Judea I think it is safer to use Rav kahane's answer becuase with your answer, even if true, still would leave people doubt, and its a good question if that Aggadita applies or not, etc. But with Rav Kahane's answer it is saying yes it applied, both Israel and the nations made an Oath, they violated it thus freeing Israel from their obligation. And then he brings clear proof from the Torah of similar situations. I believe a serious Hacham would not be able to go agains't the answers.

[Lubab]

What I don't understand about that answer is, the pact is between us and G-d, not between us and the nations so I wouldn't think the nations breaking their oath would have any impact on our deal with G-d.

I think the real answer is that we didn't do it en mass as you said and that there's no indication that this is a halachic statement at all.

[Tzvi Ben Roshel1]

What I don't understand about that answer is, the pact is between us and G-d, not between us and the nations so I wouldn't think the nations breaking their oath would have any impact on our deal with G-d.

I think the real answer is that we didn't do it en mass as you said and that there's no indication that this is a halachic statement at all.

 Rav Kahane writes " and their oaths were interdependent" , he then brings proof of similar situations for example- (Bereshit Rabbah, 74:15) and much more. For example- just to summ it up-it is just like when G-d writes in the Torah not to attack Moav, but once they attacked Israel and violated their oath, so was Israel freed from their part, and David then could and did attack them. And other similar situations.
  The pact or Oaths are between us and the nations, obviously they did not take place "officially" like we made a contract or something, but "Aggadically" or Metaphorically it is an understanding. Maybe just like g-d asked the nations if they would accept the Torah- it could be their representative angel (like in this case).
   With your second statement you do realise that you are contradicting yourself completly from what you said first.

[Lubab]

What I don't understand about that answer is, the pact is between us and G-d, not between us and the nations so I wouldn't think the nations breaking their oath would have any impact on our deal with G-d.

I think the real answer is that we didn't do it en mass as you said and that there's no indication that this is a halachic statement at all.

   With your second statement you do realise that you are contradicting yourself completly from what you said first.

No I'm not. It can apply for all time as does all the words of Chazal in the Talmud but not be a legally binding thing e.g. it's lesson applies for all times regarding a certain kind relationship we have with G-d.

[judeanoncapta]

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.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

"Rising up like a wave/swarm" I believe is the language used there. Everyone needs to be joining together to use force en masse, and that's not what happened here. 

  Have you read at all about how the early yishuv was defended against the Arabs?  (btw, Arabs were a majority in the land at that time as well).

And I would also point out that were it not for the Jewish Underground, which really wasn't as small as you suggest, because often their operations were aided, abetted, designed with and participated in by the Haganah even though after the fact the Haganah and erev rav dictators tried to pin it all on the scapegoat revisionist factions (whom they helped at times for certain bombings), were it not for this underground, the British would NEVER have left, and the British even admit that.

There's no question there was a small underground movement that used force and that applied political pressure to the British but in the end the British and the U.N. etc. AGREED to give it to us.

It was only the violence that led to the British even consulting the UN in the first place.   And they were secretly hoping the UN would refer it back to them who could then stay there indefinitely.   Look up Earnest Bevin.  This stuff is documented.  Political considerations led to the decision to consult the UN, but it was the violence that necessitated any action on the matter in the first place.   But the UN then said there should be a UN committee to decide on it.... and eventually the UN resolution. 
(Also keep in mind, that while Israel certainly had the better arguments - there was like a 7 point summary by Israel in favor, with 7 point response by Arabs in opposition to the resolution - all the Arab points were full of lies and half truths and were just rationalizations for jihad quite obviously, while the Israel claims were historically accurate and made sense, this can be found in "genesis 1948 by Dan Kurzman" and I'm sure other works as well - despite having better arguments, it took serious bribery, espionage and other political intrigue to get the votes the way Israel did!)   

I don't think it is beneath mentioning that it's absurd that the Jewish nation would be bound by gentile law (A UN resolution?  Please!) rather than Jewish Torah law. 

 The british wanted to keep their empire.   The Balfour Declaration many years earlier was an empty promise and complete deception.  This is documented and evidence reflects it.  Consider for instance:  "transjordan" to the hashemites.
I think there is just no escaping the fact that violence is what led to our success in Israel.   It was just violence.   You seem to suggest that if it was the violence as the main factor, then according to the 3 oaths, it wasn't just?

[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.

[GoIsraelGo!]

The three oaths are completely and 100% true for all time. But they do not apply to the Israel situation because Israel did NOT take the land by force, there was no other kingdom there at the time, they merely made a state where there was none and defended themselves  when attacked.

You are correct....Israel has been home to the Jews for over 6 thousand years. Long long before Islam was created by that EVIL MADMAN Mohamed.
The Muslims have no right for even 1 inch of Israel...not 1 inch of land! 

                                                                                 Shalom & L' Chaim Yisrael

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The three oaths are completely and 100% true for all time. But they do not apply to the Israel situation because Israel did NOT take the land by force, there was no other kingdom there at the time, they merely made a state where there was none and defended themselves  when attacked.

You are correct....Israel has been home to the Jews for over 6 thousand years. Long long before Islam was created by that EVIL MADMAN Mohamed.
The Muslims have no right for even 1 inch of Israel...not 1 inch of land! 

                                                                                 Shalom & L' Chaim Yisrael

I have to agree with your comment, but it seems you are confused about what 'the three oaths' refers to.

[GoIsraelGo!]

The three oaths are completely and 100% true for all time. But they do not apply to the Israel situation because Israel did NOT take the land by force, there was no other kingdom there at the time, they merely made a state where there was none and defended themselves  when attacked.

You are correct....Israel has been home to the Jews for over 6 thousand years. Long long before Islam was created by that EVIL MADMAN Mohamed.
The Muslims have no right for even 1 inch of Israel...not 1 inch of land! 

                                                                                 Shalom & L' Chaim Yisrael

I have to agree with your comment, but it seems you are confused about what 'the three oaths' refers to.

You are correct too, I was only in agreement about Israel always being home to the Jews. My post was refering to that only. Thanks for the post reply. 

                                                                          Shalom from Dox 

[judeanoncapta]

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 God 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?

[Lubab]

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....................

I have a third option. You buckle up and try to understand what it really means that he killed him "with G-d's name". Nah forget it, it's too much work...let's just reject the statement altogether and say it's just for children.