Refuting the Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot]

>>>Smerel – that was AFTER the gezerah min hashomayim was batul and they were given permission to fight

What is this assumption based on? Of course you don’t look first to fight you try the other methods first but had the gezorah not been botel why do you assume they would not have fought back? Chazal say the parsah of Yaakov and Esav in V’Yislach is to teach us that preparing for milchoma is also a way to deal with those who threaten us. Do you think Torah haskafa is otherwise? Based on what?

Mdd – the kings of malchus beis dovid were all from the command of Hashem that kings should come from him. In malchus yisroel, yeravam was made king by a navi, but only some wrested power through takeovers; they all had the din of a melech nevertheless.

Where did you get that all food was under the “hashgocha” of ovadia?

Smerel, it’s the simple chain of events. They only assembled an army after haman was defeated and mordechai was made viceroy. It was clear that the gezerah was batul and the king expressly told them to be omed al nafsham. In such a case, when we have Hashems favor we are assured victory, and not one Jew died.

Aaq, gedolim have cheshbonos for things – we know from people who were there at the time how the chofetz chaim felt about rabbi kook, going so far as to nock his name upon hearing that the latter had praised the mechalelei Shabbos soccer players.

It could be the chofetz chaim did address zionists at some point in writing; I’m not familiar.

Avira > we know from people who were there at the time how the chofetz chaim felt

I think you wrote about this before, I do not recall exactly what it is. What is the chance that the people “who were there at the time” are ideologically aligned with you? We all often tend to believe unconfirmed sources that align with our own position.

My information comes from a 2-volume collection of Ch Ch letters published & translated by a pro-yeshiva velt organization, so I am not afraid that they show some pro-modern bias or omissions. To the opposite, they do not hesitate to add yeshivish geshmak – when Ch Ch writes about anti-religious books, they add in italics: all media, internet. When Ch Ch mentions anti-religious schools, they translate “secular schools”. So, I am pretty sure if there were any additional material, it would be there. I may have missed something, of course, but most other themes – build chadorim, mikvaos, shabbos are repeated in multiple letters and are impossible to miss.

Avira,

Back to that topic for a minute

“Halevi, where do you see Rashi deviating from the pashut teitch of the machlokes?”

It is true that Rashi is not the deal breaker here. What I see in Rashi and the כלומר, implying that the Pshat doesn’t read right out of the words, is that it goes along with the flow that there is no מחלוקת of מציאות.

Neither Rebbi Yochanan, nor Rebbi Yosi say expressly that Hashem will actually perform miracles to fulfill false proclamations, and in fact this never happened. This is why the Gemara quotes the Maamarim in this order, ending with Rebbe Akiva.

Although Rebbe Akiva clearly argues in the Pshat of the Pasuk, in that it can’t be that the Torah would discuss miracles happening for a false prophet, there is no practical argument. All agree that you ignore a prophet, no matter what kinds of miracles he shows you, and even if he was once a true prophet.

And here, too. I agree, and have written as much, that you can’t prove any Shita based on special experiences. (Aside, perhaps, for the שלש שבועות in that the whole point is that it won’t work out.) My entire point is a complaint against the attribution of wondrous success to an angel, rather than to Hashem. Of this, there is no precedent.
___

“As for your diyuk in the lashon of the braysoh, the fact that the “Torah” gave AZ power is no different than the “Torah” “giving” permission for things; the same way the beginning of the maamar is that the Torah understood the depths of how AZ works… it’s Hashem who made the Torah eithe way.”

This doesn’t work. The Torah is the Halachos. הן הן גופי התורה. It is a Sefer. The Sefer can indeed give permission for us to do something, and then we can decide to do so if we want to. The Torah is not what enables me to stretch my arms.

That the Torah delved into the mindset of the idol worshipers, is a statement about the Sefer.
___

“Look at Rashi on the pasuk; he comes laafukei your diyuk between Hashem/Torah on the word memshalah. Rashi on the pasuk writes that the miracle will happen either in the sky אות), or the land (מופת) and that אעפ”כ, לא תשמע לו, וא”ת מפני מה
נותן לו הקב”ה ממשלה לעשות אות, כי מנסה ה….”

אי תנא תנא

This Rashi does indeed sound like your description, that Hashem gave the false prophet the ability to perform miracles.

However, being that this actually never happened, where and when was this power given? Obviously, it is referring to being able to trick people, it perform כישוף. After all, כישוף is מכחיש פמליא של מעלה, which is quite a ממשלה.

And even with regard to signs in the sky, mentioned by Rebbi Yochanan, and you wondered how anyone can fool people about that, there is the famous legend of Columbus threatening to blot out the light of the sun. To those near him, there is absolutely no way to explain that away. This is why it is important to take Rashi’s paraphrase of Rebbi Yosi to heart.

Rashi is informing us of the correct Hashkafa which is that absolutely nothing can revoke the Torah, and if you see the greatest miracles, just know that it is a test.

Having said that, I realize that Rashi’s words ring stronger with your approach. I will say, though, that when you look around at all Meforshim you only see descriptions of כישוף, for example in the Ramban, and the Malbim spells it out as a matter of course.

The most extreme case would be the Medrash שיר השירים רבה פרשה ז:ט, about the ציץ causing the statue to talk. But these are all different than actual miracles. Regardless, if a miracle happens to you you thank Hashem, all while not accepting changes in Halachah because of it (חרוב, אמת המים).
___

“And i didn’t read the gemara backwards – rebbe yochanan is quoted first, but that doesn’t mean that the maskanah is not like him. He is an amora and halacha k’basra, we follow amoraim because they knew what the tannaim said and still said their statements. I’m sorry if i presented it as if the gemara sequentially went with rebbe yochanan – you’re correct that it did not, but that would only he significant if we’re talking about shitos of other amoraim, where sequence shows us the maskanah.”

The only time the Gemara would bring a Braysa that differs from an Amora would be as מיתבי, תניא כוותיה or מסייע ליה. Otherwise, it adds to the Sugya without affecting the words of the Amora.

There would be no other reason to quote it in reverse. In my reading, there is no מחלוקת, and the Gemara is truly only adding.

About the Basrai thing, that term was only said from after רבא. But you are probably referring to Nida 7 אין למידין הלכה מפי תלמוד. It is true nonetheless, that we would follow the Amora’s Hachraa.

To sum it all up: True that we do not change Halacha because of a miracle, even an unexplainable one. But in actuality, Hashem will not perform a real miracle to prove a lie. This second point made Rebbi Akiva reinterpret the Pasuk, while Rebbi Yosi explained it as lowering to the mindset of the impressed worshipers. And either way, the recipient of a salvation looks only heavenward.

Avira, you write: “It is true that the brisker rov and his talmidim did not stress rhe shvuos; they focused more on how twisted nationalism was, the עקירת הדעת that it champions, its “new” jew who is not a galus yid, its high casualties in terms of deaths…

But rav chaim soloveitchik said repeatedly that zionism is indeed avodah zara. Rav elchonon wrote that many times too.”

But all this doesn’t apply anymore.

>>>Smerel, it’s the simple chain of events. They only assembled an army after haman was defeated and mordechai was made viceroy

Again you are not answering the question. You are assuming that had the gezora not been botel they would not have made an effort at self defense. To the extent that you believe it proves that you shouldn’t. Based on what? Of course the sequence of events was that way. Trying to fight is never first step. Particularly when the other side is a lot stronger than you and almost certainly going to win.

Chazal say the parsah of Yaakov and Esav in V’Yislach is to teach us that preparing for milchoma is also a way to deal with those who threaten us. Do you think Torah haskafa is otherwise? Based on what?

You should however teach some of your pacifist haskafa to some of your antizionist friends. As above their endless seeking out confrontation and fights is what caused my disillusionment with that movement and it’s beliefs . The Zionists for their part don’t act nearly as standoffish towards their enemies

Seems like satmar rav when speaking against zionists used language which even according his own shitah are not clear cut halaha.
Its mutar for a rebbi who wants distance his pupils from dei’oth kozvot to exaggerate the danger of the ideology he is cautioning about.

It is plausible the Satmar rav used this heter in his fights against zionism.

“I have a sibling who fell into the trap of modern liberalism, and she told me that she can’t accept a God who says that 2 people loving each other is wrong just because of their gender. ”

Unfortunately, the response to these complaints have been weak. In truth, trying to formulate logical and mathematical explanations for any moral rule will sound out of touch. Murder is worse than just inhibiting someone’s right to live. Can you explain why?

The ספר הישר says that Apikursus can only be avoided, and is way too hard to rectify.

There seems to be a huge dismissal of the 1923 ratification by the League of Nations that this gave the Zionists permission to make a state. I am aware that the Satmar Rebbe zt”l virulently argues on this idea. However, this idea was said by R’ Meir Simcha of Dvinsk zt”l, who was viewed by many as the gadol hador of his time.
This isn’t to say the tziyoinistim were correct in their shmad. But legabay the 3 Oaths it wasn’t an issue. The Maharsha on Kesubos 112a makes the same point by bayis sheini- once the Persian government gave reshus it was muttar , even though the local Shomronim opposed them.

The Steipler takes an interesting approach. Yes it was a violation of the 3 Oaths but ee avid mahani- now that Israel exists it has the right to exist.

The Satmar Rebbe zt”l is also a major deah to be sure.
I was listening to the halacha headlines podcast and the host mentioned that one of the big advocates for the Satmar position goes on goyishe and Arabisher places to share his views. Did the Satmar Rebbe zt”l approve this? As far as I know he was against Neturei Karta. Thanks in advance.

To clarify, the Briskers and Satmars sound almost similar in their rhetoric on the tziyoinistim. However, they differ on these 2 major points:
1. The Briskers follow the Rambam and shulchan aruch not nistar. So the 3 Oaths are not an inyan to them.
2. They argue on the Satmar Rebbe’s maaseh Satan. In nigleh, the Satan is a weak angel who isn’t powerful enough to command armies and overturn war. The Satmar approach was based on nistar which has the Satan as more powerful and indeed closer to the Christian “devil”.
After 10/7, the americans told the israelis to expect a certaindeath toll based on their experience in Falluja. The current Israeli death toll is 10% of that, 90% less. So if you say the tradiitonal Satmar pshat in maaseh Satan, the Stmar Rebbe zt”l would explain this miracle the same way. However, if you explain maasah satan away as the experts say it wasn’t a miracle, then Satmar would be forced to call this a miracle, which is ridiculous. This is also a maaseh Satan to them not a miracle. Brisk would call it a miracle done for the shomerei shabbos and lomdei Torah, not that the apikorsim and kofrim are raui to nissim like this.

Anon, so now I became Satmar?

You asked for one mention. You got it and now “you can’t”. And, it’s the Gemara’s conclusion. Rav Nachman said מסתברא כמאן דאמר מלאכי זו עזרא.

LerntminTayrah: The Satmar Rebbe ztvk’l regularly paid for advertisements in the New York Times to state Orthodox Jewry’s opposition to the State of Israel. He also multiple times organized protests outside the Israeli Consulate in Manhattan as well as other protests against the State of Israel.

Unfortunately, the response to these complaints have been weak. In truth, trying to formulate logical and mathematical explanations for any moral rule will sound out of touch. Murder is worse than just inhibiting someone’s right to live. Can you explain why?

The answer is quite simple. The reason for any and all moral rules is simply “because that is the will of G-d.”

Whatever G-d wants, is moral to do. Whatever G-d prohibits, is immoral to do.

@Helevai,

You answered it yourself, מסתברא . That’s not a clear indication, even if you want to say he was a Navi. So there is no one that said he was a Navi. He had no Neviah that we are aware if, and yet, he seems like a Zionists violating the oaths.

LerntminTayrah: I’m not sure what stira you’re imagining. The Satmar Rebbe asked Rav Avigdor Miller zt’l to write up some of the advertisements against the State of Israel that he put in the New York Times. The Rebbe himself attended protests against the State. All this is in the public record and can be attested to by the multitudes of those who were around during the Rebbe’s lifetime. He never changed his shitta one iota.

Also, he was never against Neteurei Karta. In fact, the founder of NK – Rav Amrom Blau shlita – was very close to the Rebbe. The clowns today who call themselves NK and attend demonstrations organized by Goyim are not the original or even the real NK; they just usurped the NK name. The Rebbe didn’t speak against the NK; he spoke against clowns who acted inappropriately. And the Rebbe organized his own protests against the State of Israel that were only attended by frum Yidden; he never joined, or authorized anyone to join, any protests setup by Goyim (like the clowns you’re referring to do.)

But he certainly did want to the Goyim to know that the Orthodox Jewish position was in opposition to the State of Israel and the State’s policies, actions and public positions. That was the very purpose of his newspaper advertisements and public protests.

> they just usurped the NK name

who stole the original ones? or they had no followers except the usurpers?

AAQ: The original one are still in Yerushlayim. NK is Litvish, Nusach Ashkenaz, founded by descendents of Talmidei HaGRA.

Ha;eivi, try שם הגדולים להחיד”א
ח”א סי’ ריט
I am getting this from the daf- yomi.com kuntres on daf 112

I listened to an interesting Halacghe Headlines podcast, where the tziyoinish podcaster had an interview with Rav Eihchhorn shlit”a, a talmid muvhak of Rav Meir Soloveitchik zt”l. He got Rav Eichhorn to admit that while the medina shouldn’t have been created, at this point there is no Arab country that can take over and provide safety for yidden, so the medina is needed.

LerntminTayrah: That isn’t much of an “admission”. If a mamzer is born, you can no longer do anything to unborn him.

UJM, it certainly is an admission, since NK clearly doesn’t hold that way, and Satmar didn’t hold that way. NK is trying to eliminate Israel even now, even though it means millions dead, because they view the state as Maaseh satan- sitra achra.

“LerntminTayrah: That isn’t much of an “admission”. If a mamzer is born, you can no longer do anything to unborn him.”

Right, and you wouldn’t demonstrate in the streets against the poor kid. Nor would you, I hope, incessantly demean the child. That is the point of the קריינא דאגרתא. They shouldn’t have done it, but they did. Now it’s here and let us get on.

Neturei Karta is still trying to dismantle the state. Do we all agree they are wrong?

I’ve been busy the past few days – just wanted to note that nowhere does the Satmar Rav say that the soton has any independent power, chas veshalom. He brings many examples of maysoh soton, such as the image of Moshe dying on har sinai, which is in medrash rabbah, as times when the soton was tasked with making signs to test klal yisroel.

The state is no different; its success, the satmar rov says, is a test for our emunah – will we use it as a proof that something against the Torah (a secular state calling itself Jewish with apikorsus definitions of a jew, non Torah law being practiced, pride parades, mixed army, etc…) is good and that we should celebrate it, and think that it represents us as Jews, or will we see that such things are a test….בפרוח רשעים כמו עשו, when the wicked prosper…. that’s already in pesukim.

Others say that the state’s success was because of the frum people there. The chazon ish said after the Holocaust there was a tremendous ais ratzon, and if the yidden wanted moshiach, he would have come… instead they wanted the state, so they got it in ways that require siyata dishmaya. But that doesn’t make it a good thing.

Tha main difference between satmar and the majority was how distant we ought to be from the government; can we ignore our obligation to defend not only our rights but influence people, especially sefardim, who we might lose to the zionists if we don’t join the government? Satmar says what can we do? We are anusim mipnei hadin. Agudah says the din is that we can, and that such a thing isn’t hischabrus.

No malaach, weak or strong, does anything besides what Hashem tells is to do; that’s its nature.