3 Shevu'os

Simcha, I have been saying that here on YW for years. Not only that, but the Maharsha clearly brings the gemara in Chidushei Agados (small font), not Chidushei Halachos (large font).

As far as Hashkafa goes, I totally agree. One must be nice and menschlach to one’s host country and not rebel against them, unless it is pikuach nefesh like Nazi Germany or the like.

My main question is why that menschlachkeit does not extend to our own brethren who now rule over EY. Why are we allowed to insult, degrade, deligitimize the current govt and the Medinah? Where did all the hashkafa go? Are they any more illegitimate than say the govt of Henry the 8th in England whose hobby was chopping off his wives’ heads?

Furthermore, the founders of the Medina got permisission in advance from the relevant authorities of their host countries, and from the British (the White Paper) to set up a state. So there was no rebellion involved.

If Rav Elyashiv called the USA a medina shel chessed, can anyone tell me how EY treats its citizens any worse? They have allowed Torah institutions and shuls to flourish in addition to creating an advanced and free society where everybody can be as frum as they want. Where did all the hashkafa go?

All the kindness the govt shows and services they provide are ignored, and no hakaras hatov is shown. Some claim a single maysa of Yaldei Teheran or Yaldei Teiman is the reason for the negativity. What about all the good which is 1 million times more? In addition, there were negative incidents in the USA, too, including the lynching of a Jew, Leo Frank, in the South years back. That didn’t stop Reb Elyashiv or Reb Moshe from constantly praising the USA. Why is Israel any different, especially when it is our own brethren in charge?

Pashute Yid; The essential difference between the Agudah (Agudat Israel) and the Old Satmar Rebbi (R. Yoel Teitelbaum ztz”l) is, that today, when there is a “Medinah” (A sovereign state of Israel, run by Jews.) we have to abandon some of the principles of Kanaous, (Opposition to the Zionist idea of acquiring an independent state.) of which the Agudah was one of the foremost players in pre-war Europe. That is Agudah’s view. But the Satmar Rebbi’s “Shittah” (Policy/ideology) is that the (Any) government in Israel formed by Jews is illegitimate and no participation that supports a national government is allowed. But he was a realistic and practical person, so he allowed participation in Municipal elections. But some “Super Kanaim” twisted his words to forbid participation in Municipal elections, too. Also, years ago, the campaign was against “Bechiros”. Now, it’s “Bechiros Ha Temeos”.

R’ Shlomo Aviner has published volume one of a sefer responding to every taana in v’yoel moshe. I recommend it to anyone interested in the subject.

“arba shevuot” are mentioned in the hoshanah for Chol HaMoed Sukkot. Anyone have an explanation?

Charlie, you sure keep us on our mental toes!

The Gemara in Kesubos 111a says that there are six Shavuos:

1. Not to go up en masse.
2. Not to rebel against the nations.
3. The nations should not be too harsh on us.
4. Not to reveal the end.
5. Not to push the end.
6. Not to reveal our secrets.

The Gemara first mentions the first three alone, and then brings the rest in the name of Leivi. People often refer to the ‘Three Shavuos’ because of the facts that it is separated in the Gemara, and that the first three pertain directly to the Galus.

In the Hoshanos, four are mentioned because we are referring to all of the Shavuos that are related to Geula. Two of them, not to reveal our secrets and the one for them not to press us too much, aren’t directly related to the Geula.

This is such an old discussion…..”YAWN” Rav Zvi Hirsch Kalisher- a talmid of R’Akiva Eiger- wrote his sefer to answer all of these questions and in it he answered all these kashyas.

IIRC, R. S. R. Hirsch said of Rabbi Kalischer: “What he considers a big mitzvah, I consider not a small aveirah.”

YWN inserted my comments ,but they were truncated. The words on the present comment did not sound as harsh as the words are now. I said to “observateen’ that he should substantiate the quote from R’s.r.Hirsch, Otherwise he would be “insulting” a godol bejisroel- meaning R.S.R hirsch.

Actually, IF there is such a quote it clearly refers to R’Zvi Hirsch kalisher’s attempt to restore “korbonos’ on the Har Habaiys.ON THIS point, there were strong diasgreements between the gedolim of that dor-including R’akiva Eiger and the Chassam Sofer. On that- i can see Rav Hirsch saying what “observateen” mentioned, as it possibly included d’oraisas. It certainly had nothing to do with the ‘sholosh shevuos”.

Itche srulik= the sefer is called “derishas zion”. I’ll try to quote the relevant passages.

The Rambam did hold that they should be kept, as he writes in his Iggeres Taimon. The only arguable point is if it is a Halacha, to the extent that one would be called an Avaryon for violating it. I never see the other 3 Shavuos getting the same harsh Kanaus. Many have been accused of trying to bring Mashiach before its time. They were never referred to as Ovdey Avoda Zara because of that. The Gemara in Shabbos calls Tzlafchad a Tzadick when considering him as one of the Ma’apilim.

I actually find this art point to be a strong Kasha on the Shita. I didn’t find anywhere in the Satmerer Rebba’s Sefarim that discusses it.

There is also another debate: Were the 2 Shavuos actually violated? The land was legally given to the Zionists, so they weren’t rebelling against the nations in that sense. As for the other Shavua, that would only be a violation if the whole Klal Yisroel would come together as a crusade. We find that in the days of Ezra, it was held against us that we didn’t go up Bechoma. Could it be that what the Zionists did is called Bechoma and what the Yidden did at the time of Koresh is not?

Perhaps you can call the bombing of British installments, a rebellion, perhaps not. However, that never seems to be the argument.

itchesrulik: thanks for the encouragement. I have the sefer (published by Mossad Harav Kook) and I will exprapolate the relevant passages concerning the sholosh shevuos. Do you think that the Mod’s will allow me to start a new thread based upon this?

Haleivi: I read the whole of Iggeret Teiman (in translation, of course) and I had to wait till the LAST paragraph in the letter to find what you are saying. The letter is very long and the rambam just has ONE paragraph concerning this oath (one oath only). He does say ( quoting shir hashirim 2-7 and 4-8) that we should not ‘awaken’ the “love”-meaning the redemption, early. However, it is abundantly clear from the whole iggeret that he means to say this only when someone declares himself to be the messiah (see letter) which ,of course, is scarcely the case nowadays with Eretz Yisroel.

Furthermore- the Rambam writes that this can only bring catastrophe and that the people will perish AFTER this has been done. For now, Eretz Yisroel remains a thriving place.

Lastly, nowhere in the “Jad” does the rambam mention these shevuos, suggesting that his words in the Iggeret were meant to discourage people from following pseudo-messiahs, not as an absolute injunction.