The State of Israel & the 3 Oaths {Daf Hashavua Iyun Sugya Kesuvos Daf 111a }

okay good morning friends we have a major topic today regarding Al the gar on tells us the story we're going to read it quickly inside and we're going to see what of the applications for um the modern day applications of this I would like to give a word of introduction that if you have strong feelings about this subject because you belong to a certain group then I would just either strongly recommend you listen to a different share or you uh um allow yourself to uh to look at this subject in a uh unbiased way we're we're learning it as a sugya like any other the tells us on slipped away from wanted to go anyone who goes up from you'll be they will be brought to and there you will be until I visit you and R Zer didn't want RAB Huda to enforce that he remain in B Because anyone who goes up from what those that is referring to the sacrificial vessels of mikash and what does rabuda say RAB Huda says no that there's a different p that indicates that you cannot go up to it's not only referring to the vessels and what did hold that is CL cannot go up cannot go up meaning Rashi says all of Israel together um with Force fine and the gar says that you can all go up by force Yehuda held you can't even go up as an individual and r z did not want rev Yehuda to force that he stay behind in Babel but everybody would agree that to go up to Israel by force together bazak would be a violation of these three Oaths the obvious question is how does that play out in terms of the establishment of what is known as the modern uh day state of Israel was that was establishing the state of violation of these three Oaths it was not done peacefully it was done through the war of independence um much blood was spilled it was done through Mass immigration so is that called is that a violation of if it is a violation of the three Oaths the question would be May one participate in the activities of such a state that was formulated through the violation of these three Oaths we are this is not a political subject this is halic subject okay so what I would like to bring to your attention to you is 10 or 11 approaches of halachically how could uh there be a state a modern State whether it's a religious state or an irreligious state but a state it is um is is the creation of a state the violation of this I would like to share with you 10 or 11 approaches in the of so to speak how to circumvent uh these uh Oaths as it is well known one of the great ad uh strongly maintained that the establishment of the state was a violation of these Oaths that was the opinion of the Saba in uh in a number of his works and I want to show you today what many of the hold about this subject I actually gave the she in two parts about I don't know 13 or 15 years ago and now I would like to revisit it but just so to speak chapter headings really it requires many hours um the first collection of sources is of r r SCH um and he wrote a why and he has an essay of why the establishment of the state was not considered a violation of these Oaths the first one was now my family comes from Sak definitely if there's any City that I I stem from it would definitely be sakov my grandmother was the daughter of the last R of sakov and I believe her father was a student of the son of wrote like this by the way the gar listed three Oaths one oath was we would not forcibly go up to number two we would not rebel against the nations of the world and number three that the nations of the world swore they would not enslave us uh excessively so first of all which is found in really it's worthwhile to see it inside um but for the sake of time I just want to give you so to speak the uh chapter headings in O in through he says like this normally he says what is the force of such a what are the parameters every as a man swears others make them swear and the recipient accepts it so now who exactly swore when we have this what do you mean if it was through that he said it so then he should have gathered all of Israel that they should be like did me what are you going to say did what did an event take place that God made the Jewish people swear they would not go up till to land of Israel says we don't find historically that hasem gathered that gathered the Jewish people because of this and from other proofs these Oaths mean God made the Jewish Souls take us upstairs in the sh like it says in the that it's similar to when God makes the soul take an oath before the soul is born swear you're going to be a sadic and you're not going to be a Russia you know about that GAR before a person is born every person takes an oath swear you're going to be a sadic and you're not going to be a Rasha but never the nevertheless even though God made every soul swear they'll be a sadic and won't be a Russia he also imposed the Shu on them in this world on Hari that they have to the T why why did God have to make the Jewish people swear again the answer is because has no reality on the soul would not incur punishment says the fact that our our souls swore we wouldn't go up to Israel great but that's not binding on our bodies says that is not because this is a of why don't we say question when God made us swear that we be a shua that we have that God made us swear we would be a sadak and not a Russia why is that but aren't we in other words like this the says that if you take a to it's not cuz we already swore on that's we'll see that in about two months that if you swear to take a it's you already swar in you're going to take a question why did the gamar say you ready why didn't the gam say you already swore that you'd be a sadic and you wouldn't be a Russia the answer is because thatu is not binding it's it's only on the soul but it will not be binding on the G so the first approach is that yes there are Oaths that we sore we wouldn't go up to isra but it's a spiritual oath it does not have halic uh restriction it does not bind our body only our soul and therefore it's not brought into the arena okay so that's the first approach of the another approach is the maral of Prague the maral learns in this that these Oaths are look at number 21 in the god decreed God decreed and God decreed that we would not rebel against nations of the world these are not o s these are decrees these are decrees question by the way uh we have we have the manuscript of the mar his there he says gim gazer question okay it's it's a Gaz are we obligated to be M A Gaz I have a question let's say God decreed in this week's par you have to work hard so you you're not to turn on the air conditioner cuz God uh decreed that we have to sweat is there a Mitzvah to sweat when you go to work cuz God decre it you have no obligation fulfill decrees in fact if you could if you win the lottery do you have to return the money because God decreed you have to sweat for your parasa no you're allowed to keep the money these are decrees but if you could get around them of course you can and should man it's a decree that we won't be to have is but if you could get it of course you can and then you should and then you have to these are not Oaths the word oath the maral says doesn't mean shua it means Gaz question someone's about to die so you should let them die because God decreed that everyone should die one day no you're obligated to go against that gazer the gazer is God's business your business is to keep the guy alive so God swore we wouldn't have a go God decreed but if you could get it your businesses to get it that's that's another approach R brings based on the in the and based on in he interprets it as Gaz in the newly found manuscript of the maral onus there he says that's the second approach and even was saying it's only the individuals but but as a nation it's it's so user so he's saying that the obviously rabuda held that it was binding or even the first approach right that it's a it's a on the okay but rabuda held it was binding be the held it was binding okay I hear it's a valid point unless look you know to say that r z really held it was not binding for these reasons but he didn't want to argue on R um argue on RAB Huda doesn't sound like it it sounds like he only argued in that that it's only sh but as an individual you could go but as a seor you're not allowed to [Music] okay here's another approach we have a letter thator simov dsk wrote in um response to the Bal for Declaration of 1917 and maybe it was read in Sano in Italy he uh the letter says so the enlightened Nations decreed that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people and since the fear of theu has departed now here it's an interesting L that used he doesn't call the it's more like a fear that God said if we violate them he's rendering us hefa but now that we don't have to worry about it so almost you see it wasn't an it was just a frightening prediction of what could happen if we if we violate it but anyway R Sim says with the permission of the governments so now now the to settle is returned it's on every person to support with all of his ability to this Mitzvah so this this is another approach um raban brings that um this letter became uh public by Riner in his biography on and one of the lines is um that in in the aftermath of the bord Declaration so it's no longer considered said by force it's no longer by force so that's the third approach that after the Baff declaration and certainly after the United Nations uh recognize the state there's no longer a violation a fourth approach is um together with the two this is what rean offers together with the two God also made the nations of the world swear that they would not subjugate us too much when they violated their end and there's no question they did so then uh all bets are off by the way the stier in the igra um the K the Arta dealing with the issue of whether voting in the elections in Israel is considered a violation of these Oaths um he says something very important and interesting he says the tin the SBA he says he doesn't understand he said for sure when the state was founded it was not so he is disagreeing with all four reasons meaning he doesn't agree that it was not binding like AB said it was only on their souls or he doesn't agree that to the moral that it was only a decree or he doesn't agree that the bow Flor decoration gave us r or that once they violated their end we could violate our end the Stifler learns that the establishment of the state was indeed a violation of the Oaths but he says but now that there is no other ruling party in the state of Israel then the the uh there's no Pro problem voting in other words just because the establishment maybe was in violation of the Oaths but once it's once the uh government is there then that's the reality and deal with it okay so those are four approaches I'm going to briefly share with you a bunch of others um in the uh in the he brings that he says sh he says basically because of all the tragedies and the persecutions and the pgrs and the devastations that happened to the Jewish people uh there's no question that uh in order to preserve CLA Israel it was uh it was permitted in other words the circumstances called for uh creating such a Haven and that would override any uh binding nature of these Oaths that that's what he wrote in the okay then the the the which is not so well known the ha says something very important the says the whole iser of being Y is only from B and nowhere else it was limited to going up from B it's the whole is and the opinion of was only if it's if you're but not from other countries not from Russia not from America here the says in on our BL okay so the the learns it's D from B the on says that the of is only if you build the B the prohibition is only if you build a temple if you don't build a temple then you're not violating then you have a mar is take a look over here number eight that opinion of there any individual could go means to go up and rebuild the walls but if you don't go up and build the Ralls you're not violating now the walls of Y may have already been built according to the the is of sh is it's not a matter of military might it's a matter of rebuilding the the walls of Yim another Mar the mara on the page here says that what happened in times of then he asks there's AAR in that you were despised because you didn't all go up in the times of Ezra which implies that the Jewish people in the times of Ezra all needed to go up so the gar masma that the reason why Mia didn't come in the times of Ezra is cuz not everyone went up how many times did we mentioned that the reason why uh Ezra penalized the leim is because the leim didn't want to go up to rebuild the second bik so that implies that you could be says the there are other that you could be the holds you could be so in other words this gar that's cited oh be okay that's uh that's R's opinion is that just the opposite the reason because we were not that's why Mia didn't come that's a ninth approach you ready for number 10 number 10's a Whopper brings from that all of these restrictions were only binding for one 1,000 years after that all bets are off we only need to be Eng A Thousand Years thousand years are long up so after Thousand Years the Oaths were only taken for Thousand Years okay who does this come from himself says there was a great oath to uh to God that we would not arouse Redemption until God brings it himself but say it's only a thousand years so that's a good one no you're right you can't go up to Israel by force yeah but uh we're in the year we already did the time who says that the and then one more this is gmak you ready for this so rer didn't want to go up there's re Zer went to the marketplace to uh he wanted to buy something he saw a guy who was weigh way good get out of here your fathers destroyed the temple no my fathers didn't destroy the temple he went to [Music] the he heard that the rebi was teaching that if the Jewish people would have forced their way up in the times of the second B mikdash then the second B mikdash would not have been destroyed that the reason why the second base was destroyed because we were not not everybody came back like the says that guy who was weighing in the marketplace he was right it's my father's fault that the temple was destroyed because we didn't go up I what do you mean but is the he's the that you're not to be the answer is he was the balra until this am him he was wrong and he retracted in fact the says when he went up there he fasted 100 F fast that he should forget his Babylonian teaching I mean you can't help but think which Babylonian teaching did Reb Z want to forget how could you not think he wanted to forget the Babylonian teaching that said he's not to go up so This lends support to the idea that R although at first he said that the oath was he may have retracted that and indeed he himself went up which doesn't show he retracted but he did DAV and he did Fast and pray that he should forget what he taught in B in any event these are some of the sources regarding the suya so you have the AER who says that it's a spiritual Shu it's not really binding you have the maral who says it's a Gaz you have the idea of R now those two reasons RI pointed out don't really fit into the meaning all the reasons right they don't really fit into the gamar because RAB Z didn't want RAB Huda to keep him there how could he have kept him there if it's not really binding you have the reason R May s that after the B for declaration we have permission to go up we have the reason of r that they violated their end you have the idea that at a time of Sor might be different you have the who says that it's only user to go up from you have the idea of the in that it's only us to build the B mikdash you have the mar it's only us to build the walls you have the mar on our page that there's a and it's you have that was only binding for a thousand years and you have the possibility that R himself the B MRA retracted this teaching anyway everyone should follow the uh the perspectives of their personal and we should that we you know have a good day everyone so um we're going to try for tonight okay if you can Al question if the Vatican today were to release uh the the CLE that belong to death would we be able to take to