First, what would be the logic behind this? Violating the oaths of exile is akin to heresy: it is an implicit denial that Hashem is the one to decide when the bring about the redemption. If someone is a heretic once, are they allowed to continue being one?
The Brisker Rav said, “Two things are certain. Zionism is idolatry, and everyone in Eretz Yisroel stumbles into Zionism.” If someone worships an idol once, is he allowed to keep worshipping it again and again?
Alternatively, we can look at the Three Oaths as simply oaths. If someone takes an oath and then violates it once, is he allowed to keep violating it?
Even if we treat it as a simple prohibition like other areas of the Torah, if someone bought chometz on Pesach, is he allowed to keep owning it? If a kohein marries a divorced woman, is he allowed to stay married to her?
The concept of “bedieved” – that something can be forbidden, but permitted after the fact, applies only to 1) Rabbinic prohibitions that were originally structured that way, such as cases when a woman is forbidden to get married but “if she did get married, she may stay”; 2) cases where the facts are in doubt, such as in monetary law when one litigant grabs the money from the other; 3) disputes in halacha, where initially we try to fulfill all opinions, but if someone followed the lenient opinion, he need not do the mitzvah again. But in Torah prohibitions where all agree, there is no leniency for bedieved.
This claim is often associated with quotes from certain gedolim. For example, here is a letter from the Steipler Gaon, printed in Karyana D’igresa v. 1:
Letter 205: If voting in the elections involve a violation of the Three Oaths.
Motzaei Shabbos Mishpatim 5721 – Feb 4, 1961.
I received your letter and was very happy that, thank G-d, even in Pittsburgh you are learning Torah diligently and deeply…
The main argument of the Satmar Rebbe based on the Three Oaths is not understandable in my humble opinion. Certainly, at first it was against Jewish law, but now that there is no other government, it seems that there is no prohibition as far as the Three Oaths. And as far as being a member of parliament, is it not true that even in the non-Jewish countries in all places, all the gedolim of past generations agreed that being in the parliament was important, and no one ever suggested that there might be something wrong with it, as if one is agreeing to their views, Heaven forbid.
It is claimed that the Steipler meant that although it was originally forbidden to make a state, now that it’s here, it’s permitted to keep it. (Rabbi Hershel Schachter, B’ikvei Hatzon p. 216)
Actually, as we see above, the Steipler was asked about the Satmar Rebbe’s argument that voting in Israeli elections is prohibited. The asker had asked him about voting, and his reply is that although the state violates the oaths, those who participate in its elections do not. The reason is simple. When one votes in an Israeli election, he is not deciding whether the state should exist or not exist. He is just deciding whether one candidate or the other should win the election.
Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky later clarified in a letter that that this was what his father had meant.
Additionally, the title of the letter makes it clear that the question was only whether voting is a violation of the oaths.
The Satmar Rebbe, on the other hand, held that by voting one is sending a representative to become part of the Knesset, and thus he has a share in the sin of maintaining a state and transgressing the oaths, among other sins (Vayoel Moshe, Shalosh Shvuos 1:141).
In any case, the Steipler does not say that the state itself is permitted after the fact. If an election were held to decide whether the state should exist or not, perhaps the Steipler would hold that one should vote to disband it (e.g. by extending citizenship to non-Jews).
It makes sense that the Steipler meant it this way, because Rabbi Reuven Grozovsky said exactly the same thing. Here is the relevant quote from Bayos Hazman:
Another one of the reasons given for opposition to Zionism was that joining it would be helping to transgress the oath that the Jewish people must not go up as a wall (Kesubos 111a), and also because Zionism would place the Jewish people in physical danger from our Arab neighbors, as well as spiritual danger, lest the land spit out its inhabitants when they defile its holiness, G-d forbid. Now, I will not speak about whether there was a transgression of the oath, given the actual situation that arose, but one thing is for certain: that participation in the elections or joining the coalition do not involve transgression of the oath, and they do not lead to danger. For if there is, G-d forbid, another war, we would be forced to take part in it, and we would do so willingly, because of the rule that if one comes to kill you, kill him first. And on the contrary, to the extent that our voice is heard, we will use it to convince them to forego their victories in order to avoid bloodshed and provoking war. Also, participation in the elections or even in the coalition is not an expression of approval of the founding and building of the state, for it is not expressing any opinion, whether positive or negative.
Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin (Teshuvos Ibra, Chapter 9, p. 209) did indeed forbid the state l’chatchilah but permit it bedieved. But his reason is due to danger. Here is the quote:
And when the movement began to establish a Jewish state with the excuse that the nations had worsened the exile and oppression of the Jews, and transgressed the oath, therefore, according to those who founded the state, the prohibition of the oaths no longer applied, most of the gedolei hador did not agree with this. Yet those who were zealous for the Jewish people established the state with hthe permission of the nations, and they succeeded. But Yaakov our forefather said regarding this, “You have ruined my reputation, to make the dwellers of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, into my enemies” (Bereishis 34:30). And Chazal say, Yaakov Avinu did not want his sons, Shimon and Levi, to do what they did, but despite that, once they did it, he said, “What can I do? Leave my sons to fall into the hands of the nations?” He arose and girded himself with his sword in battle against them. Therefore, it is our obligation in our era to help the state with all our power, both with our bodies and our money, and with any other influence that we may have, because it is not only for this government; it is for the entire Eretz Yisroel, even those who were opposed to the founding of the state.
The problem of how to give up the state safely is one that everyone must face. Raising this problem is not the same as saying the state is permitted “bedieved”. Rather, it is like any other sin in the Torah which is pushed aside in case of danger to life.
In the years since Rav Henkin wrote these words, many have lost their lives in the state’s wars and in terror attacks. It is far from clear that keeping the state is a safe option. Our job is to try to find a safer alternative.
I Will Await Him 
Leave a comment