Rabbi Yoel Kahn (1930-2021), an important rabbi in the Lubavitch community, leader of the team of scholars who memorized and transcribed the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s addresses, once wrote a letter arguing that Jewish independence and self-determination before the coming of moshiach is an impossibility according to Jewish belief; therefore, it follows that the current State of Israel must not really be independent. The letter was later published (in 2007 and again in 2014) as a booklet entitled “Maaneh Chochom.”
According to the title page, the letter was supposedly written in defense of the Satmar Rebbe and his sefer Vayoel Moshe. But actually, the letter claims that the Satmar Rebbe’s position was misinterpreted by his followers, and that the actual meaning of Vayoel Moshe is in line with what he, Rabbi Kahn, believes.
One of Rabbi Kahn’s central arguments is that Zionism is kfira, heresy, because according to the Ani Ma’amin, there is no way that a Geulah can come before Moshiach. But his surprising conclusion is that since the state of Israel does exist, it must not be Geulah, and therefore it is permitted to found and participate in the state. Here is one sample quote from section 14 of his booklet.
Another strong proof that a country like this, which must remain under the influence of the other nations, is not freedom or Geulah at all, is from the fact that we see that in the year 1948, such a country was actually established. If we say that even such a state is also considered freedom and redemption, then we would have a problem: Doesn’t the Torah say explicitly, and isn’t it one of the 13 principles of faith, that Moshiach will redeem the Jewish people from exile? And included in this belief is the idea that before the coming of Moshiach, there will not be any redemption, and until the last moment before the coming of Moshiach, the Jewish people will be in exile under the subjugation of the nations. If so, how is it possible that such a government was created before the coming of Moshiach? In other words, if you say that even a sovereign state under the influence of other nations has the status of freedom and redemption, then it will come out that in the year 1948, a country was created that is already redemption. And that is the opposite of what the Torah says: that before Moshiach, there will not be any redemption. From this, it can be proven that a country like this, which is under the influence of other countries, is not freedom or redemption at all. This proof is strong and irrefutable.
Now, one might ask, according to this logic, the Three Oaths are rendered meaningless, because it is impossible to transgress them. Any action taken by Jews before the coming of Moshiach will by definition be categorized as a part of exile and not a transgression of the oaths. However, Rabbi Kahn continues and explains there that it is still possible to violate the oaths. If we do these actions with the intent of redeeming ourselves, with the goal that the state should be independent completely, not under the influence of the nations at all – then we are violating the oaths. But one who establishes or participates in such a state and has in mind that this is just part of exile does not transgress the oaths, according to Rabbi Kahn.
Now, it is true that we find areas in halacha that depend on a person’s intent. For example, one who bows down to an idol because he believes in it is liable to the death penalty in Judaism. But on the other hand, one who bends over in front of an idol in order to pick up some coins from the ground is not liable to the death penalty.
But the problem here is that Rabbi Kahn’s logic leads to absurdity. Today, he is arguing that the state of Israel is really under the control of other nations (although it is not so obvious that the governments that the Jewish people had in the times of the First and Second Temples were any less controlled by other nations). But in any case, what would Rabbi Kahn say if the time comes that the State of Israel does reach complete independence? What would he say if the entire Jewish people comes and lives inside that state? What would he say if they rebuild the Temple? What answer would he then provide to explain the difference between this and true redemption? How then would he justify participation in such a state with the argument that it is merely part of the exilic process?
This is the problem that arises when a believing Jew creates a stumbling block for himself, by saying, “I believe with perfect faith that such-and-such will never happen.” When the thing does come to pass, he is plunged into a crisis of faith, and is then forced to provide creative answers for why events are not what they seem to be. (See the famous study of cults called “When Prophecy Fails” by Leon Festinger.) And for the same reason, the great rabbis of all generations warned against believing in any particular person who claims to be the Messiah – because if he turns out not to be, they will either give up hope on the messiah completely, or abandon Judaism, or else they will devise creative answers to explain the facts on the ground, such as “the Messiah is not dead”, or “the Messiah will come back to life soon,” or “the Messiah converted to Islam in order to extract the sparks from the kabbalistic shells.”
Rabbi Kahn’s mistake is that the oaths are not predictions or promises by Hashem. It’s not that we are obligated to believe that a Geulah, a redemption before the coming of Moshiach will never materialize. Rather, the oaths are severe prohibitions on doing certain actions. There is no difference what intent those people have in mind when carrying out these actions. And it could be that the actions will succeed, and there will indeed be an ingathering of the exiles and a completely independent state before Moshiach. But those who carry it out are transgressing the prohibition.
Let’s use an analogy: A family had a beautiful table, covered with the finest dishes and food. A prophet came and said, “You have sinned, and Hashem is taking away the table. You are forbidden to have a table until Hashem gives it back, and He will not give it back until you repent.” The table was then taken away. The family promptly went out and bought a new table and dishes, saying, “Hashem said He wouldn’t let us have a table until we repent. We didn’t repent, so this cannot be a table. It is just a piece of wood on four legs. So we are not violating the command of the prophet.”
Another analogy: The Gemara says in Avodah Zarah 55a that sometimes worshipping idols seems to be effective. People go to the idol lame, and come back walking. When there is a drought, they worship the idol and rain comes. The Gemara gives two explanations for this: 1) The sickness or the drought just happened to go away at the same moment that the person worshipped the idol. 2) Hashem gives idol worshippers a chance to slip, in accordance with the principle that he who tries to defile himself is given opportunity to do so.
Once a Jew saw his non-Jewish neighbor go to his temple of idolatry when sick, and come back healed. The Jew then went through the following logical steps: The Rambam says in his Thirteen Principles of Faith that it is only worth praying to Hashem, and it is not worth praying to anything else. This non-Jew got healed, so it must be that what he prayed to was Hashem, not an idol. So I will go and worship it too.
His Jewish friends were shocked to see him going to the temple of idolatry, and said to him, “How could a good Jew like you have suddenly become an idol worshipper?” He replied, “Chas veshalom. I am praying only to Hashem. You are all heretics. How could you not believe that the idol is Hashem? The Rambam rules explicitly that it is. He says that idols do not answer prayers, only Hashem does. If this idol answers prayers, it must be Hashem!” They tried to explain to him that sometimes Hashem lets people to go astray in the path they want to take, as the Gemara says in Avodah Zarah, but he replied, “You cannot rule halacha from an Aggadta Gemara. Anyone can find a Chazal to support anything. But I have an explicit ruling of the Rambam on my side.”
The moral of both these stories is the same: you cannot do one thing and call it another. A table is a table and an idol is an idol. Similarly, the Torah commands that only moshiach is allowed to gather the exiles, bring Eretz Yisroel under Jewish control and set up a government there. You cannot do all these things before moshiach and then call it exile based on the argument that by definition, any situation before moshiach’s coming is exile.
I Will Await Him 
Leave a comment