Three Oaths

The Midrash and the text upon which it expounds

The context of the Talmudic dialogue containing the Three Oaths is a discussion in which attempts are made to defend Rav Zeira's desire to leave Babylon and go to the Land of Israel. It begins on Ketubot 110b and continues on 111a (where the Three Oaths are plainly conveyed). The Gemara quotes R. Yossi ben R. Chanina:

Why/What are these Three Oaths? One, that Israel should not storm the wall {RaShI interprets: forcefully}. Two, the Holy One adjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world. Three, the Holy One adjured the nations that they would not oppress Israel too much.

The Midrash is in large part an exegetical analysis of three separate verses in the Song of Songs, and naturally reflects the traditional interpretation, which sees the entire book as an allegory for the relationship between God and the Jewish people. The three verses are:

Other midrashim concerning the Three Oaths

There are several other Midrashim that pertain to the Three Oaths and they are primarily recorded in Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah which is also known as Midrash Hazita:

Another word: Before the day שֶׁיָּפוּחַ (sheyafuaḥ), breathes—before that day the peoples יָפוּחַ (yafuaḥ), expire. And the shadows flee—governments that dominate them. I will hurry to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense (Song of Songs 4:6). Said the blessed Holy One 'I will betake myself to shake the peoples from Jerusalem, the הַר הַמּוֹר (har ha-mor), the mountain of myrrh,' as is written, Jerusalem on הַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה (har ha-moriyah), mount Moriah (2 Chronicles 3:1). And to the hill of frankincense—the Temple that is in Zion, as it is written, Lovely in heights, all the earth's joy, Mount Zion (Psalms 48:3). And it is written, To seize the earth's corners, that the wicked be shaken from it (Job 38:13)—as one holds a garment to shake all the filth from it.

Rabbi Yose said, the blessed Holy One will eventually be revealed in earthly Jerusalem, and purify it from the filth of the peoples, before the day of the peoples is complete. For Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Dominion over Israel lasts only one day, and that is a day of the blessed Holy One which is one thousand years [cf. BT Sanhedrin 97a; Bahir §5: Each day of the blessed Holy One is a thousand years, as it is written, For a thousand years in Your eyes are like yesterday gone (Psalms 90:4)]. This is what is written, He has made me desolate, faint all the day (Lamentations 1:13)—one day, and no more.

Rabbi Yose said, If they are subjugated more than one thousand years, it is not because of the King's decree, but rather because they do not wish to return before Him [in repentance to the Land of Israel]. And it is written, And it shall be, when all these things come upon you, [the blessing and the curse that I have set before you, that your heart shall turn back among all the nations to which YHWH your God will make you to stray] (Deuteronomy 30:1-2), and, Should your strayed one be at the edge of the heavens, from there shall YHWH your God gather you. (ibid. 4)

Maimonides

Rambam cited the Three Oaths in his famous Epistle to the Jews of Yemen (Iggeret Teiman). It was written around 1172 in reply to an inquiry concerning the crisis the Yemenite Jews were then going through. A decree of forced conversion to Islam which had thrown the Jews into panic. Coupled with this crisis was the rise of a Messianic movement started by a native of Yemen who claimed he was the Messiah which served to further increase the confusion within the Jewish community. In the course of Maimonides attempt to strengthen the morale of the Yemenite Jews. In the Epistle he states:

Solomon, of blessed memory, foresaw with Divine inspiration, that the prolonged duration of the exile would incite some of our people to seek to terminate it before the proper time, and as a consequence they would perish or meet with disaster. Therefore he warned them (to desist) from it and adjured them in metaphorical language, as we read, "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please." (Song of Songs 2:7, 8:4). Now, brethren and friends, abide by the oath, and stir not up love until it please (Ketubot 111a).

Bahya ben Asher

The Mid Thirteenth Century commentator Rabbeinu Bachya, was one of the first to formulate a comprehensive Torah commentary based on the four principles denoted by the word "PaRDeS". In his commentary on Genesis 32:7 he wrote:

... and it is written "And Hezekiah prayed before God" (2Kings 19:15). So too we are required to follow in the way of the Patriarchs and to restore ourselves so that we may be graciously accepted and with our fine language and prayer before God, may He be exalted. However, to wage war is not possible (Song of Songs 2), "you have been adjured daughters of Jerusalem, etc." You have been adjured not to engage in war with the nations.

Nachmanides

Ramban did not explicitly discuss the Three Oaths, however he did maintain that it is incumbent upon Jews in every generation as a positive commandment to attempt to conquer the Land of Israel. In his glosses (Hashmatot) to Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot on Positive Commandment #4 he wrote:

That we are commanded to take possession of the Land which the Almighty, Blessed Be He, gave to our forefathers, to Avraham, to Yitzchak, and to Yaakov; and not to abandon it to other nations, or to leave it desolate, as He said to them, You shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land and dwell in it, for I have given the Land to you to possess it, (Numbers, 33:53) and he said, further, To Inherit the Land which I swore to your forefathers, (to give them,) behold, we are commanded with the conquest of the land in every generation.

Nachmanides' position here is untenable if he maintains that the Three Oaths are Halachically binding. Accordingly, it would appear that Nachmanides implicitly rejects the Three Oaths as Halachically binding, and that to treat it as such would be to effectively nullify a biblical commandment.

The anti-Zionist response to this is that Nachmanides' words "we are commanded with the conquest of the land in every generation" mean every generation until the era of exile. One of the established rules for counting the 613 commandments in the Torah is that we do not count one-time-only commandments, such as God's command to count the Jews in Numbers 1:2. Nachmanides' intent here is to prove that conquering the land was not a one-time-only commandment that applied to Joshua's battles; rather it applied to King David and, by extension, in every generation. This justifies counting it among the 613, even if it does not apply during exile, just as numerous commandments associated with the Temple are counted despite the fact that they cannot be kept during exile. Nachmanides does say explicitly later in the piece that the commandment to live in the Land applies even during exile, but this means strictly living there as an individual - not conquering, since that would conflict with the Three Oaths.

It has also been proposed that Nachmanides' intent was that even the commandment that a Jew should live in the land as an individual during exile applies only when living in the land is consistent with exile, that is, when a non-Jewish government rules the land. But living under a Jewish government such as the State of Israel might itself constitute a violation of the oath. Nachmanides felt no need to mention this exception to the commandment because he did not foresee the rise of a Jewish government in the Holy Land before the messiah.

Of note is that Rashbash who was himself a descendant of Nachmanides, understood this particular biblical obligation to be binding on the individual level but not on the collective:

In truth, this commandment is not a commandment which includes the entirety of Israel in the Exile which now exists, but it is a general principle as our Sages stated in the Talmud in Ketubot, that it stems from the Oaths which The Holy One, Blessed be He, made Israel swear not to rush the End, and not to ascend like a wall.

Nevertheless, Nachamnides himself explicitly states in his Hassagot (Positive Commandment #4):

[The sages] made many other such emphatic statements regarding this positive commandment that we are commanded to possess the Land and settle it. It is therefore an eternal positive command, obligating every single individual even during the time of Exile as is known from the Talmud in many places.

Rabbi Chaim Zimmerman in his book, Torah and Existence explains his solution to the contradiction between Nachmanides's position and the Three Oaths. First, he makes a distinction between settling the land and conquering the land. The commandment is realized by settling the land, and conquering is merely a preparation for the core obligation of settlement. The obligation to settle the land does not necessarily violate the Three Oaths. Rabbi Zimmerman adds that the Three Oaths only apply to invading the land by force. He writes:

... the difficulty in the Ramban which says that the mitzva of kibush prevails in our time against the oath, dissolves. The oath, shelo yaalu bechoma means explicitly that we cannot storm eretz-Yisrael from chutz-laaretz. But when the Jews are in eretz-Yisrael, there is surely a hechsher mitzva of kibbush-haaretz. How can the Jews be in eretz-Yisrael without the aliyah "bechoma"? The answer is very simple. If many Jews came to eretz-Yisrael individually, or by permission of the nations, then once they are there, there is a command of kibbush.... There was never an oath upon the people who were in eretz-Yisrael.

Maharal

Maharal discussed the Three Oaths in two different locations, in his work Netzach Yisrael and in his commentary to Tractate Ketubot. In his work Netzach Yisrael he wrote:

כי פירוש 'בדורו של שמד' היינו במדה שהיה לדורו של שמד, שהיו דביקים בה דורו של שמד, ובאותה מדה השביע אותם שלא ישנו בענין הגלות. כי דורו של שמד, אף על גב שהגיע להם המיתה בגלות, לא היו משנים. ועוד פירוש 'בדורו של שמד', רוצה לומר אף אם יהיו רוצים להמית אותם בעינוי קשה, לא יהיו יוצאים ולא יהיו משנים בזה. וכן הפירוש אצל כל אחד ואחד, ויש להבין זה

Another explanation of the Midrash's statement (he is speaking of Shir Ha-Shirim Rabba 2:20 that begins "ורבנן אמרי השביען בדורו של שמד") that God adjured the Jewish people in a generation of Shmad (religious persecution Jews, or decrees against Jews): that even if they will threaten to kill them with difficult torture, they will not leave [the Exile] nor will they change their behavior in this manner

Rabbi Chaim Vital

The 16th Century Kabbalist, Rabbi Chaim Vital expressed the view that the Three Oaths were only binding for the first thousand years of Exile. He wrote:

'I made you swear, daughters of Jerusalem...' this great oath to God was that they should not arouse the Redemption until that love will be desired and with good will, as it is written 'until I desire,' and our Sages already said that the time of this oath is a thousand years, as it is written in the Baraita of Rabbi Yishmael in Pirkei Heichalot (in a comment on Daniel 7:25)..., and similarly in the Zohar II:17a...that it is one day of the Exile of the Community of Israel...

Debate on the appropriate understanding of Maimonides

Religious Zionists suggest that in Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen, he explicitly interprets the oaths metaphorically, and not literally. As it states there "Therefore he admonished and adjured them in metaphorical language (דרך המשל, lit. by way of metaphor) to desist." Therefore, they maintain, that Maimonides did not consider them to be Halachically binding.

A member of the Haredi community, Rabbi Chaim Walkin points out in his book, Da'at Chaim, that Maimonides discussed the Three Oaths only in the Epistle to Yemen, but not in his Halachic work, the Mishne Torah. R. Walkin postulates that this is because while Maimonides saw these oaths as important, he did not consider them to be legally binding as Halacha, only that they serve as "warnings that these actions would be unsuccessful".

Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum (the Satmar Rebbe) however, in his book Vayoel Moshe noted that the Rambam cites the Three Oaths in Iggeret Teiman, in a way that makes it appear that he is discussing binding Halachah. In using the description "metaphorical", Maimonides is referring to the nature of the text of the Song of Songs, and not to the Three Oaths themselves. The Satmar Rebbe however did not consider the breaking of the oaths a halachic issue, but rather a form of heresy. He stated that "the oath was not given to heretics but to all Jewry; and even if the whole Government were pious like men of old, any attempt to take their freedom prematurely would be to deny the Holy Law and our faith."

Debate on the appropriate understanding of Maharal

Religious Zionists argue that Maharal considered the oaths to be a Divine decree (which has thus subsequently expired). They rely upon his commentary to Ketubot which more explicitly indicates that he understood the Oaths to be binding insofar as it is up to God to permit the circumstances wherein Jews can engage in said activities, but it is not binding insofar as Jews are not actually prohibited from engaging in the acts the Oaths are concerned with. They maintain that there is a certain degree of ambiguity in what he has written in Netzach Yisrael and therefore his position must be seen in such a manner, for "anything to the contrary yields a contradiction within the Maharal's own writings", which would clearly be undesirable.

However, the position of Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum (the Satmar Rebbe) in respect to whether Maharal understood the Oaths as prohibitively binding upon Jews is based primarily upon what was written in Netzach Yisrael. It is uncertain whether he considered and factored in Maharal's position in his commentary on Ketubot. (Whether this is due to his not having had access to it, not having been aware of it, or having viewed the text as a forgery is unknown.) However, according to his understanding of the Maharal any violation of the Oaths is absolutely prohibited, even on pain of death.

In response to Zionists who quote the Maharal's commentary on Ketubot, anti-Zionist writers have said that even if the oaths are to be seen as decrees, it was obviously not God's intent that the Jewish people should keep trying to return to the Land of Israel and build a state until they hit the right moment. In view of the harsh consequences of failure ("I will declare your flesh ownerless like the gazelles and hinds of the field"), this would be as foolish as playing Russian roulette. Furthermore, the success of the State of Israel so far is not proof that the decree has been annulled, since the future of the state is still uncertain.

Zionist arguments that consider the Three Oaths

An overview of some of the primary claims made by Religious Zionists concerning the Three Oaths:

Anti-Zionist arguments that consider the Three Oaths

An overview of some of the primary claims made by anti-Zionists concerning the Three Oaths:

Many Haredim who subscribe to the anti-Zionist view still immigrate to the Land of Israel. Their rationalization is that they do so only as individuals and families, but not as members of the organized mass-immigration, and that they come to the Land solely to live there, not in order to conquer it or rule over it. Such Haredim accordingly do not believe themselves to be in violation of the Three Oaths.