On the meaning of the Brisker Rav’s statement that there cannot be freedom from the nations before moshiach

Dear Rabbi Cohen,

On page 297 (p. 202 in the Hebrew edition), you quote the Brisker Rav as saying:

The Rambam (Melachim 12:2 and Teshuva 9:2) says that moshiach will redeem the Jewish people from their subjugation to the nations. Anyone who believes that it is possible to be redeemed from subjugation to the nations without moshiach is lacking in full belief in moshiach. (Nesivos Raboseinu v. 1, p. 127)

ועל האומרים שאין בהמדינה שיעבוד מלכיות אמר מרן שהוא כפירה, כי מבואר ברמב”ם (הלכות מלכים יב,ב, הלכות תשובה ט,ב) שאין עד ימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד מלכיות בלבד, והאומר שגם לפני ביאת המשיח כבר נסתלקה שיעבוד מלכיות הרי זה כפירה בביאת המשיח. (נתיבות רבותינו ח”א ע’ קכז)

But on page 200 (page 130 in the Hebrew edition) you write:

Even if mass immigration with the permission of the nations is allowed, founding a sovereign state is a different story – it involves the oath against forcing the end of exile. Also, Chazal say clearly that we will not achieve political independence until moshiach comes: “The only difference between the present era and the days of moshiach is our subjugation to the nations” (Shabbos 63a). The Avnei Nezer never permitted any kind of political sovereignty.

That implies that you are taking the statement of Chazal אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד – “The only difference between the present era and the days of moshiach is our subjugation to the nations” – as a prohibition. But the Brisker Rav is taking it as a matter of belief. It’s not that it’s prohibited to achieve independence – it’s impossible. Thus you are going against the Brisker Rav.

See what I bring on page 359 of the Hebrew edition about the Maaneh Chochom. (This section was not in the English edition, but is now available here on this site.) The words of the Brisker Rav imply that his view is similar to the Maaneh Chochom. The difference is that the Maaneh Chochom uses this to prove that the current state is still exile and is therefore permitted, whereas the Brisker Rav – as we know from all his other statements on the subject – was strongly opposed to the state. How does the Brisker Rav’s view make sense internally?

It must be that the Brisker Rav did not mean to say that it is impossible to violate the Three Oaths. There are different levels of independence and freedom. The lower level (the level of the current State of Israel, which is as independent as any other country in the world) is possible to reach and violates the Oaths. The higher level is impossible to reach now, and anyone who thinks that the state might or should reach this level at some point in the future before moshiach is a kofer, according to the Brisker Rav.

I read what you wrote. But in my humble opinion, the words of the Brisker Rav are very simple, and they are not connected to the Maaneh Chacham at all. There are some who are infected by Zionism, and they believe that the state is a success. However, anyone who has eyes can see that the state does not save anyone, or attain success in any way. Of course, exile has not always been on the same level for us. Even though Eisav hates Yaakov, and many tragedies have happened in the past, there were good times when Jews lived peacefully – for example, in the time of the sages of the Mishna and the Gemara, when the non-Jewish leaders such as Antoninus and Shvor Malka respected them. And the Jews had a Reish Galusa who used to administer punishments and rule over them. And so too in Spain, during the Golden Age, they lived with peace and success – for example, in the times of Rabbi Shmuel HaNagid and Don Yitzchak Abarbanel. And in the same way today, those of us who live in the country of kindness,America, during this time live in great peace and prosperity. And if not for the fact that the Zionists ruined things, we could have lived in peace even in Eretz Yisrael.

The Zionists have not succeeded in taking off the yoke of exile, but on the contrary, they have made things much worse. Anti-semitism has increased because of them in the entire world. There have been cruel murders, may Hashem save us. If they were successful, as you write in your argument against the Maaneh Chacham, if they were successful in solving the problem of anti-semitism, making Jews prosperous and building the Temple, then we would have a question, and we would have to say the kind of answer that you said. However, now, when even entry into Har HaBayis causes hatred and murder, what kind of question is there?

This is similar to the story of Reb Chaim Volozhiner, who was approached by a man who explained the verse of the Slichos as follows: “I will mention, O G-d, and I will cry out when I see every city built in its place, but the city of G-d is lowered to the nethermost depths.” He explained that “ir” does not mean a city, but rather hisorerus – inspiration and the closeness to Hashem. And he explained that Jews are lacking in their inspiration to serve Hashem. But Reb Chaim Volozhiner replied, if it were true that the other cities of the world were destroyed and Jerusalem was built up nicely, then I would understand why you needed to make up this new explanation. But now that Jerusalem is destroyed and the other cities are built, I would prefer the simple meaning of the Slichos.

What you are saying would be true if the Brisker Rav had said, “We are still living under the subjugation of the nations, despite the state.” But what he actually said was a quote from the Rambam who rules according to the Gemara that “there is no difference between this world and the days of moshiach except the subjugation to the nations.” He clearly meant that not only has this subjugation not ended now, but it is impossible for it to end at any time in the future before moshiach comes.