The agreement of Agudath Israel to the establishment of a state before the coming of moshiach is based on the rulings of the Gedolei Torah. However, those rulings depend on two basic conditions, which are far from reality and possibility: 1) the state must be conducted in accordance with Torah and tradition; 2) there must be peace with the Arabs. The second condition is in order to fulfill the oath against going up as a wall (Kesubos 111a). This oath forbids us to take any military action or conquest of the land against the will of the Arabs and the governments of the world. The oath prohibiting rebellion against the nations refers to revolution by military force. Regarding the oath against forcing the end, there may be different opinions. In my opinion, there is no prohibition on founding a state without the Temple. I do not believe that under the current circumstances it is possible to have a state according to Torah law. Rabbi Silver and Rabbi Bloch of Telz do believe so. In any case, we would consider the founding of a state to be a disaster and a misfortune.” (Letter written in Dec 1944, printed in Mikatowitz Ad Hei B’Iyar, p. 340)
Rabbi Tzvi Weinman, author of Mikatowitz Ad Hei B’Iyar, comments on this in a footnote:
It is not clear where he derived the information about the opinion of Rabbi [Eliezer] Silver. Rabbi Silver himself in Kol Yisrael issue 15, from the 22nd of Tevet 5706, expresses himself more clearly: ‘Not all of the Jewish people agrees to the demand for a Jewish state at this time, especially since it will be accomplished through protest and threats, which involve transgression of the oath that Hashem placed on us not to go up as a wall, meaning with strength, and that we should not force the end – even through excessive prayer.”
Rosenheim wrote in a 1943 article:
The seizure of Eretz Israel by armed military units is forbidden to us by an oath which G-d placed upon the Jewish people. The commandment of settling Eretz Israel has limitations placed upon it by Halacha, namely the risk of life or deadly danger. We do not have the right and certainly not the duty to cause the certain or possible destruction of Jewish lives through the observance of the commandment to settle the land.
If it were a certainty that after the present war there would arise in Eretz Israel a Jewish commonwealth based entirely on Torah, whose public institutions, educational system and economy would sanctify the name of G-d, then we could count on His special protection. But even under those circumstances, we would not be exempt from the obligation of examining whether such a commonwealth would indeed provide a salvation for the unfortunate Jewish people or whether it might not, on the contrary, become the cause – G-d forbid! – of a new Jewish destruction.
Whether the developments in Eretz Israel will proceed peacefully or whether the commandment of settling the land will be carried out of its bounds depends, in so far as human concepts are concerned, on an honest understanding with the Arab people and an absolute renunciation of attaining Jewish demands by Jewish or foreign (British or American) guns.
It is political madness to believe that a small Jewish minority, organized either as a state or a commonwealth, can possibly maintain and defend itself amidst a block of states comprised of millions of Arabs.
Unfortunately, however, it has now become necessary to recall that self-evident fact. At a meeting of young Jews several years ago, Ben-Gurion, a Zionist political leader, put forward the dangerous slogan that the Jewish people, because of Britain’s anti-Jewish Eretz Israel policy and the Arab threat, can rely only on its own physical strength. And since Ben-Gurion mentioned British policy, it cannot be taken for granted that he had in mind only legal defense against direct armed attacks by Arabs. It appears that people here are quite seriously calculating the idea of a conquest of Eretz Israel independent of any international regulations of the matter. This is playing with fire. It is a game against which we must protest – the sooner and louder the better. (Article by Rosenheim in the Jewish Voice, New York, May 1943, and later published in the book Comfort, Comfort My People, a collection of essays and speeches, selected and edited by Isaac Lewin, page 82)
Here there seems to be a contradiction. At first he forbids any war due to the oath, but afterwards he writes that it would be permitted for the sake of a Torah-based Medina. It could be that the second half of the quotation means that even a state based on Torah will bring destruction upon the Jewish people because of the oath. Even if Hashem does protect the Jews during the war, it will only be temporary mercy from heaven, but in the end there will be a destruction due to the violation of the oath.
Rosenheim mentioned the oaths again in a speech in 1943.
In deference to the solemn oath imposed upon the Jewish people by our Talmud for the entire period of Galus, and also because of realistic political considerations, we firmly reject any reference to military power in relations between Jews and Arabs. We do not wish to live in Palestine on the edge of the sword. Elementary political reason requires us to express that openly, without diplomatic circumlocutions. The world and the Arabs must know that peaceful understanding and cooperation are the goal of Jewish policy in Palestine. (Speech delivered at the fourth convention of American Agudath Israel in Ferndale, New York, printed in Orthodox Tribune, New York, October 1943, and reprinted in Comfort, Comfort My People, page 104)
I Will Await Him 
Leave a comment