The Zera Shimshon’s opinion on the oaths

(This question relates to p. 258 of the book I Will Await Him.)

Happy Chanukah,

I was learning Zera Shimshon on Vayeishev, section 8, and found an explicit reference that holds that if gentiles oppress us more than the measure, we’re not allowed to exit the golus.

I looked up that Zera Shimshon. He is saying even if the gentiles oppress us spiritually, like the Greeks in the Chanukah story, who didn’t let us keep the Torah, we are not allowed to rebel. This is against the famous Chofetz Chaim that Reb Elchonon brings, who says that when there is an anti-religious decree, it is allowed to fight back physically (quoted in I Will Await Him, p. 136).

It seems the shitah of the Zera Shimshon is the exact opposite of everyone else. In his commentary on the Megillah he permits the oath (at least the oath not to rebel against the nations) in the case when the nations are trying to kill us physically. But he forbids it in a case of anti-religious decrees. The other commentators say the opposite: they forbid it even when the nations attack first, since we don’t find that the oaths are interdependent, but they allow it in the case of anti-religious decrees.

Thanks for showing me this. 

Hello,

Happy Chanuka,

My questions:

1) Why should we even consider the subject of the Shvuos in the Chanuka story if they had a Bais HaMikdosh at the time, which according to the Ramba”m (Sefer HaMitzvois, Shoresh 14) is what makes us permissible to wage war?

2) I would argue that the Zera Shimshon on Megilas Esther agrees that physical extermination is not a reason to trangress the shvuos, but in this particular case there was a danger to the entire Jewish people, and this would upset the seder of golus, as the Maharal says that that was the purpose of the third oath. When the Zera Shimshon compares it to a pact between two people, he means only this point: that if they transgress their oath so far as to commit complete genocide then it is permitted, not because the oaths are interdependent but because otherwise there won’t be a Jewish people left and that is the point of the shvuos: to keep the gzeiras hagolus intact. So for example according to what I am saying, during the Holocaust it would not have been permitted to fight back, like in the Warsaw Ghetto, because although the Nazis were trying to commit genocide, they didn’t have all the Jews in the world under their power so the concept of saving the whole Klal Yisroel did not apply. Whereas according to way you learned the Zera Shimshon – that the oath against rebellion becomes permitted – that would have been allowed.

3) Do you have an explicit reference of the Satmar Rav ZL speaking of spiritual extermination and agreeing with the Chofetz Chaim that it’s allowed to fight? I do believe the story he brings in Vayoel Moshe 1:75 was a gezeras shmad, spiritual oppression, yet the Maharam Galanti did not allow the Jews to rebel. Also, the above mentioned story in Portugal was brought down with more detail in the Shach Al HaTorah (Rabbi Mordechai Hakohein of Tzfas), Parshas Vayeilech (Devarim 31:28).  “As happened in Portugal when the king announced that whoever does not convert to Christianity will be burned, and there were some Jews who said, where is the place of burning? And they brought their children and wives, rejoicing with drums and dancing, throwing themselves into the fire. This was the bad thing that befell them. And this happened because they desecrated the name of Heaven in the times of the Shoftim, as it says: They worshiped the idols and the baalim and the ashtaros, therefore they came back as a gilgul and sanctified the name of Heaven in public and threw themselves into the fire.”

So, it means that the Satmar Rav holds that spiritual shmad, and physical extermination do not push off the shvuos. Just as Zera Shimshon, as above.

With all due respect to the Chofetz Chaim and Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, I think the Satmer Rav ZL researched more in depth this subject of the shvuos.

Looking forward to your comments,

1. It may be true that during the times of the Beis Hamikdash there was no issur of the oaths. I mention this on p. 465. But the Rambam in shoresh 14 is not a proof to that because the Rambam is just saying that you need a king and a Sanhedrin to wage wars, but it could be there was a time in history when we had the king and the Sanhedrin and still it was ossur to make a war because of the Shvuos. 

2. This whole piece in Zera Shimshon Vayeishev is difficult for me because if the shvuos really did forbid what the Chashmonaim did, then how were they allowed to do it? Yes, Hashem made a miracle, but still the Chashmonaim took action themselves. 

3. Like I say on p. 137 there is no proof that the Satmar Rav argues with the Chofetz Chaim and it could be a) that was the very reason the Jews of Portugal had to ask the question or b) the question there was to take over the kingdom and that was something the Chofetz Chaim was not matir. When we can prove that the Satmar Rav argued with the Chofetz Chaim then we can start to think about who was right. 

To answer why the Chashmonaim went to war, we could say that they found an insinuation in the Torah  – see Rashi on Devarim 33:11.  This was meant to be used at the time. a tradition, or something they knew… perhaps.

It can’t be that the Jews asked whether they were allowed to fight Portugal, because there is a rule לא בשמים היא  – the Torah is not in Heaven.  

I think the Chofetz Chaim meant not a real war against the communists in this context, but to show public disregard for the communist’s rules. Like civil resistance. Even though they would been killed a lot, it would eventually make the people react because of the sacrifice of those who stood firm to their principles.

I don’t see why you have a problem of “the Torah is not in Heaven”. My point is they were not asking a halacha shailah to Hashem, they knew it was mutar in general but they were asking whether to do it in this particular situation. Like asking the Urim Vetumim.