Rabbi Yitzchok Breitowitz, popular speaker at Ohr Somayach in Jerusalem, has given a lecture on Yishuv Eretz Yisroel and the Three Oaths, available at https://outorah.org/p/198379.
He is to be commended for telling his audience that the Oaths are a very serious argument against the existence of the State of Israel, one that is not easy to answer. Furthermore, he admitted that this approach to the state used to be a widely held opinion before 1948, when, he claims, it became a minority opinion.
Unfortunately, the shiur contained many inaccurate statements and quotes.
At 38 minutes Rabbi Breitowitz quoted the Brisker Rav as saying that when the state was established, it was a smile from Hashem after the Holocaust. (He admitted that he could not reconcile this with the Brisker Rav’s absolutely anti-Zionist position.)
Actually, the Brisker Rav made this comment in reaction to the UN resolution of November 1947, not the establishment of the state. Here is the quote as Rav Wolbe brings it: “The resolution of the United Nations to establish a State was a smile from Divine Providence, but those who had power over it ruined it.” (Bein Sheishes Le’asor, p. 145)
שמעתי שהגאב”ד דבריסק זללה”ה התבטא: “מהסכמת או”מ להקמת המדינה היתה חיוך מאת ההשגחה העליונה, אך השולטים בה קלקלו אותה.
At 41 minutes, Rabbi Breitowitz quotes the Chofetz Chaim as saying in reaction to the Balfour Declaration: “The oath has now been annulled.”
What he actually said is recorded in the footnotes of Chofetz Chaim Al Hatorah, Parshas Bo:
In the winter of 5678 (1917-1918) when they told the Chofetz Chaim about the simcha that had spread in Jewish homes because of the Balfour Declaration, the Chofetz Chaim burst out crying and said, “What is the point of this simcha? Hakadosh Baruch Hu promised us, ‘And you shall spread out west and east and north and south’ – here is a sure promisory note, which Hakadosh Baruch Hu will pay up when the time comes. Now some people come and admit to a small part of Hakadosh Baruch Hu’s promisory note, and everyone is happy about this declaration, and they see it as a sort of redemption. They are satisfied with a little… they don’t wait for more… Oy, what has become of us…” and he continued crying.
The Chofetz Chaim’s son, Reb Leib, used to relate: “When the British government issued the well-known Balfour Declaration regarding Eretz Yisroel, the Chofetz Chaim saw it as an arousal from above regarding the redemption. At that time he quoted the comment of the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh on the verse, ‘a tribe will arise from Israel’ (Bamidbar 24:17). But he said, I am afraid that the irreligious will ruin it, G-d forbid. He would said that many times there have already been times of favor, but those generations ruined it.”
Rabbi Breitowitz probably meant to quote the alleged letter from Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk saying that after the San Remo Conference, “the fear of the oaths has departed.” This may actually mean that now, mass immigration to Palestine was permitted, to the extent that the Mandate government permitted it. It did not necessarily mean that all the oaths, even the one against forcing the end of exile, are annulled.
At 41 minutes, Rabbi Breitowitz says that the Satmar Rebbe’s response to this argument was that yes, there was a UN vote but it came after aggression committed by Jews such as the blowing up of the King David Hotel.
Actually, in Vayoel Moshe Siman 16, the Rebbe goes further than that and argues that “going up as a wall” includes any strong action, not necessarily war or terrorism such the acts of the Zionist paramilitary organizations before 1948. Massive immigration or political pressure is also included.
In Siman 86, he says that the UN vote did not help because 1) the UN was not the owner of the land to give it away; 2) the Zionists took more than what the UN gave them; 3) the oath against “forcing the end” still applies to a state, even with gentile permission.
At 43 minutes Rabbi Breitowitz quotes Rabbi Meir Simcha as saying that the oath upon Israel and the oath upon the nations not to persecute Israel too much are an agreement or package deal. Of course, since he already attributed Rabbi Meir Simcha’s quote to the Chofetz Chaim, he had to give Rabbi Meir Simcha a different quote that he never said.
The argument that the oaths are dependent on one another was first invented later, in 1957 by Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Friedman, Shailos Uteshuvos Netzer Matai v. 1 Siman 10.
At 46 minutes, Rabbi Breitowitz claims that one Zionist response was that “going up as a wall” only refers to rebuilding the Temple. It’s hard to respond when no source is cited. He may have meant those who quote the Vilna Gaon’s commentary on Tikkunei Zohar 26, which says that “forcing the end” refers to building the Temple. But to my knowledge, no one has ever made this argument regarding the oath against going up as a wall.
At 55 minutes, Rabbi Breitowitz mentions the Bar Kochba revolt, which had Rabbi Akiva’s support. What happened to the Three Oaths then? he asks. This argument is ridiculous because if Bar Kochba was really the messiah, as Rabbi Akiva thought he was, then the Three Oaths had no relevance. The whole point of the oaths is to forbid the Jews from doing on their own what moshiach is supposed to do.
Rabbi Breitowitz then adds that “some say” that the oaths were a Rabbinic enactment, made in response to the Bar Kochba debacle. Again, he doesn’t say who the “some” are. The Midrash Shir Hashirim 2:7 does say that Bar Kochba violated the oaths, as did the Bnei Ephraim in Egypt over a thousand years earlier. If we say the oaths were invented after Bar Kochba, then the Midrash must be a falsified document, making it seem like a Rabbinic law really came from the Torah and existed long ago. One suspects that Rabbi Breitowitz’s source, if there is one, must be some academic scholar who doesn’t believe in the integrity of the Midrash.
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch does write in his commentary on the Siddur, “When the uprising led by Bar Kochba proved a disastrous error, it became essential that the Jewish people be reminded for all times of an important fact; namely, that they must never again attempt to restore their national independence by their own power; they were to entrust their future as a nation solely to Divine Providence.” However, note that he says “reminded”; he doesn’t say that the Sages created the oaths at that time.
I hope Rabbi Breitowitz will make accuracy and citation of sources a priority in the future when discussing such a consequential subject.
I Will Await Him 
Leave a comment