Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Three Oaths

The Three Oaths (Hebrew: שלוש השבועות, Shloshet ha-Shev'ot) constitute a midrashic interpretation in the (Ketubot 111a) of three verses from the (2:7, 3:5, 5:8), positing oaths sworn by upon the Jewish people not to "ascend the wall" into the en masse or by force, not to rebel against the nations during , and upon the nations not to oppress the Jews excessively. This aggadic passage, introduced by Rabbi Zeira as a caution against premature return from Babylonian , underscores a theological emphasizing patience for divine over human-led initiatives to end galut (). In contemporary Jewish discourse, the oaths feature prominently in opposition to by ultra-Orthodox anti-Zionist factions, such as and Hasidim, who contend that the founding of the State of in 1948 breached the prohibitions against collective ascent and rebellion, thereby precipitating divine disfavor absent Messianic advent. Pro-Zionist rabbinic authorities counter that the oaths lack strict halakhic force as non-legal , apply narrowly to violent conquest rather than gradual settlement or individual , and stand nullified by gentile violations through events like , which exceeded permissible oppression. The debate highlights broader tensions between passive waiting for and active national revival, with the anti-Zionist invocation representing a minority view amid widespread acceptance of 's existence as providential.

Origins in Jewish Texts

Talmudic Source in Ketubot

The Three Oaths are introduced in the Babylonian , Tractate Ketubot 111a, within a discussion on the permissibility of ascending to the during exile. Zeira, intending to relocate from to , encounters opposition from Yehuda, who cites 27:22 to argue that must remain in until a divinely ordained , deeming premature mass a of a positive commandment. This sets the stage for Yosei bar Hanina's exposition, linking the oaths to the triple repetition of the verse from 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4: "I adjure you, O daughters of , by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, that you not stir up or awaken love until it pleases." The Talmud interprets each iteration as corresponding to one oath imposed by God: first, that Israel (shelo ya'alu bechomah) should not ascend to the Land of Israel en masse or forcibly, likened to breaching a wall; second, that Israel should not rebel against the nations (shelo yemred Israel al ha'umot); and third, that the nations should not excessively oppress Israel (shelo yehepu ha'umot et Israel me'od me'od). Rashi glosses bechomah as prohibiting a collective, aggressive return, while the passage frames these as mutual restraints during the galut (exile), ensuring orderly divine restoration rather than human initiative. This aggadic derivation draws on midrashic , treating allegorically as a between and , with the oaths underscoring fidelity to exile's terms until messianic fulfillment. The juxtaposes these with prior oaths (not to calculate the end times or reveal eschatological secrets), emphasizing their role in preserving cosmic order. No explicit halakhic enforcement is prescribed here, positioning the oaths as interpretive principles rather than binding .

Biblical Prooftexts and Midrashic Derivation

The Three Oaths, known in Hebrew as Shloshet HaShevuot, are midrashically derived in the Babylonian , tractate Ketubot 111a, from a homiletical of three nearly identical adjurations found in the . These verses— 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4—each state: "I adjure you, O daughters of , by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awaken love, until it please." The Talmudic sugya, discussing Rabbi Zeira's intention to ascend to the after fasting to forget Babylonian teachings, invokes these repetitions to prohibit premature toward . The "love" (ahavah) is allegorically interpreted as the Divine presence () or the end of , with the adjuration warning against arousing it before its divinely appointed time. In the derivation, the first binds not to "ascend " (shelo ya'alu ba-choma), meaning not to enter the en masse by force or in defiance of authorities, as this would breach the exile's boundaries like breaching a wall. The second prohibits from rebelling against the nations (shelo yemredu ba-umot), ensuring submission to the geopolitical order during dispersion. The third , directed outward, adjures the nations not to oppress excessively (shelo ya'avu ha-umot et Yisrael me'od yoter mi-yode'a), limiting to prevent and allowing for eventual . This tripartite structure arises from the threefold repetition of the verse, with the explicitly linking the oaths to the formula "I adjure you" (hishba'ati etchem), transforming poetic imagery into halakhic constraints on national behavior. The midrashic method employs gezerah shavah (verbal analogy) and allegorical reading, common in rabbinic exegesis of as a for God's with . While the verses' plain sense addresses romantic restraint, the recontextualizes "daughters of Jerusalem" as representing the nations or in , and the "field" as the of . No direct biblical narrative equates to the oaths; their authority stems from this aggadic , binding in rabbinic tradition despite lacking explicit legislation. Later commentators, such as on Ketubot 111a, affirm the oaths' derivation without altering the core linkage to these prooftexts.

Classical Interpretations

Views of the Rishonim

Rashi interprets the first oath, shelo ya'alu bechad milah, as a against the Jewish people ascending to the en masse and in a forceful manner, likening the collective ascent to breaching a wall. He explains the second oath as barring rebellion against the nations of the world during exile, while the third oath constrains the nations from excessively oppressing Israel. Rashi's glosses focus on elucidating the midrashic derivation from without deriving practical halakhic prohibitions against immigration or settlement efforts. Tosafot, expanding on the Talmudic discussion, address interpretive challenges in the oaths' phrasing but do not elevate them to binding law precluding aliyah; they reconcile the passage with precedents of permitted return from Babylonia, emphasizing contextual limits rather than absolute bans on collective action. Nachmanides (Ramban), while not directly commenting on Ketubot 111a, asserts in his Torah commentary (e.g., Numbers 33:53) that conquering and settling the Land of Israel constitutes a perpetual positive biblical commandment applicable in every generation, including through force if required to expel inhabitants, without referencing the oaths as a countervailing restriction. This view prioritizes the mitzvah of yishuv ha'aretz over aggadic constraints. Maimonides (Rambam), in (Hilchot Melachim 5:9-10), praises relocation to as meritorious even under non-Jewish rule and endorses acquiring the land by any means, including conquest, indicating no deference to the oaths as prohibiting proactive settlement during . The Rashba and Ritva offer glosses on the sugya that clarify textual derivations but treat the oaths as homiletic rather than halakhically operative for barring . The Ran similarly glosses the passage without incorporating it into practical rulings on land settlement, aligning with predecessors who subordinate it to the ongoing of dwelling in . Across , the oaths receive explanatory treatment as but not as enforceable prohibitions against individual or organized return, consistent with historical instances of facilitating despite .

Views of the Early Acharonim

The Maharal of Prague (1525–1609), in his commentary on Ketubot and Netzach Yisrael (chapter 24), interpreted the Three Oaths as manifestations of a divinely ordained exile (galut) that demands patient acceptance and submission to the nations, prohibiting any collective, forceful ascent to the Land of Israel as a violation of the established cosmic order. He emphasized that the oath against "ascending the wall" (shelo ya'alu ba-choma) forbids mass rebellion or immigration that challenges gentile sovereignty, viewing such actions as disruptive to the redemptive process, which unfolds gradually through divine intervention rather than human initiative. The Maharal's approach underscores the oaths' role in fostering ethical restraint during exile, equating violation with hastening redemption prematurely, akin to the sin of the spies in biblical tradition. Rabbi Shmuel Eidels, known as the Maharsha (1555–1631), in his Chiddushei Aggadot on Ketubot 111a, differentiated the prohibition's scope, ruling that it bars only large-scale, collective efforts to reclaim the Land by force, while permitting individual or small-group , as these do not constitute "breaking through the wall" en masse. This nuance aligns with his aggadic , which treats the oaths as symbolic of relational boundaries between and the nations, rather than absolute halakhic bans on all return. Rabbi Chaim Vital (1543–1620), disciple of the Ari Zal, advanced a temporal limitation in his writings, asserting that the oaths bound the Jewish people solely for the initial millennium of exile following the Temple's destruction in 70 , after which their force lapsed around 1070 . This Kabbalistic perspective frames the oaths as provisional safeguards tied to specific phases of divine concealment (hester panim), allowing for later redemptive shifts without violation. Early like these generally upheld the oaths' aggadic authority as cautionary against premature national revival, prioritizing fidelity to exile's spiritual demands over political activism, though their interpretations varied in permitting limited, non-confrontational return.

Halakhic Status

Aggadic Nature and Binding Force

The passage detailing the Three Oaths in the Babylonian , tractate Ketubot 111a, constitutes —a genre of encompassing interpretive narratives, ethical exhortations, and midrashic derivations from biblical verses, distinct from halakhah, which prescribes enforceable legal obligations. This aggadic sugya midrashically extracts the oaths from three verses in (2:7, 3:5, 5:8), framing them as divine impositions on and the nations during , without embedding them in a legal framework or deriving practical rulings therefrom. As such, aggadah generally does not serve as a basis for psak halakhah, per the principle articulated in classical sources that homiletic material yields ethical guidance rather than codified law. Regarding binding force, major rabbinic authorities maintain that the oaths lack halakhic enforceability, as they represent non-legal vows imposed by divine decree rather than mutual human covenants subject to talmudic oath laws (shevutot). The explicitly rules that such oaths hold no obligatory status in halakhah, emphasizing their role in elucidating providential processes over imposing prohibitions. Similarly, (Ramban) implies their non-binding nature by upholding the biblical of settling the (Numbers 33:53), which would be nullified if the oaths prohibited collective return. The absence of the oaths in authoritative halakhic compendia like ' Mishneh Torah or the further underscores their exclusion from practical jurisprudence. Nevertheless, certain poskim, particularly in anti-Zionist circles post-19th century, ascribe moral or quasi-halakhic weight to the oaths, contending that aggadic pronouncements on divine will can constrain actions even absent strict legal form, especially where they align with broader exilic norms against forcible redemption. This view posits potential sin in violation, akin to defying prophetic-like guidance, though it remains contested and uncodified, often reconciled with countervailing commandments like yishuv Eretz Yisrael. Empirical observation reveals no historical enforcement mechanism, as mass aliyot occurred periodically (e.g., under Ezra in 457 BCE) without rabbinic invalidation on oath grounds. Thus, while the oaths inform theological understandings of exile and redemption, their halakhic force is negligible in mainstream decisional law.

Conditions for Validity and Potential Violations

The Three Oaths, originating from an aggadic passage in the (Ketubot 111a), are not classified as halakhically binding legislation, lacking the enforceability of formal shevuot (oaths) governed by specific validity criteria such as intent, absence of coercion, and precise formulation. Rabbis like the Maharal of , in his commentary on the , explicitly state that such narrative-derived oaths carry no legal force within halakhah, distinguishing them from codified prohibitions. Similarly, (Ramban) omits them from halakhic discussions of settling the , arguing that treating them as obligatory would contradict biblical commandments to inherit and dwell in the land (e.g., Numbers 33:53). Their interpretive validity is contextualized to the era of (galut), commencing after the destruction of Temple in 70 , during which are exhorted not to end the prematurely through . This framework posits the oaths as a theological restraint until divine via the , rendering them inapplicable post-redemption or if the 's conditions fundamentally alter, such as through gentile breaches of the third oath via excessive oppression (e.g., historical expulsions or , cited by some as nullifying reciprocity). Potential violations encompass two primary Jewish obligations: ascending to the Land "as a wall" (b'choma), interpreted as mass, forcible or without prophetic sanction, and rebelling against host nations, such as subverting their or inciting upheaval. Unlike halakhic oaths, which incur penalties like lashes or sacrifices if transgressed intentionally, these carry no prescribed judicial consequences; instead, aggadic sources warn of spiritual repercussions, including prolonged or akin to historical calamities. Certain rabbinic authorities, including the Chofetz Chaim, have invoked them exhortatively against premature state-building, viewing violations as defiance of divine will despite the non-legal status, though major codes like ' or the omit enforcement mechanisms.

Modern Applications and Debates

Anti-Zionist Perspectives Invoking the Oaths

Anti-Zionist Orthodox Jewish groups, including Hasidim and , interpret the Three Oaths as divine prohibitions against any collective human effort to end (galut) prior to the Messianic redemption, arguing that the Zionist establishment of the State of in 1948 directly contravenes these oaths. They contend that the first oath, prohibiting Jews from "ascending the wall" en masse, forbids organized mass immigration and state-building initiatives like those of the Zionist movement, which facilitated the return of over 700,000 Jews to between 1948 and 1951 through political and military means. The second oath, against rebelling against the nations, is seen as violated by Zionist efforts to end dispersion by force, including the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, rather than awaiting divine intervention as per Talmudic in Ketubot 111a. Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe (1887–1979), articulated this view extensively in his 1959 treatise Vayoel Moshe, where the opening essay dissects the oaths as binding restrictions derived from midrashic interpretations of Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, and 8:4, emphasizing that exile serves a redemptive purpose that human impatience desecrates. Teitelbaum maintained that even permissions from gentile nations, such as the 1917 Balfour Declaration or post-Holocaust international support, do not nullify the oaths, citing historical precedents like the Portuguese Jews' forbiddance to resist expulsion in 1492. He further argued that violations precipitate divine retribution, linking events like the Holocaust—claiming over 6 million Jewish deaths from 1939 to 1945—to Zionist agitation against traditional quietism. Neturei Karta, formed in in 1938 as a splinter from Agudat Israel to intensify opposition to , publicly invokes the oaths in protests and declarations, asserting the state's secular foundations and territorial conquests—such as the capture of in 1967—epitomize oath-breaking by imposing a premature . Their position holds that true redemption requires messianic fulfillment without alliance with irreligious forces, rejecting participation in institutions as complicity in rebellion. These groups, though comprising a small fraction of world Jewry— numbering around 65,000 adherents by 2020—persist in disseminating this interpretation through publications, international demonstrations, and online platforms, framing as a theological .

Zionist Rebuttals and Reconciling Interpretations

Religious Zionists have advanced several interpretations to reconcile the Three Oaths with the establishment of a , emphasizing that the oaths do not preclude organized settlement or in response to . One primary rebuttal posits that the third oath—binding the nations not to oppress excessively—was violated through historical antisemitic violence, thereby nullifying Jewish obligations under the first two oaths. For instance, (1881–1921, killing thousands) and (1941–1945, resulting in the systematic murder of six million ) are cited as breaches exceeding mere subjugation, releasing from prohibitions against mass return or resistance. Another reconciling approach argues that Zionist actions did not constitute "ascending as a wall" (Ketubot 111a), interpreted as a forbidden mass forcible conquest, since early settlement involved legal land purchases and under and mandates rather than violent overthrow. By 1947, Jewish agencies had acquired approximately 7% of Mandatory Palestine's land through negotiation, with proceeding gradually (e.g., 1882–1903: about 35,000 immigrants) before the defensive 1948 war. Religious Zionist rabbis like Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman's student Rabbi Yoel Teichtal, in Eim HaBanim Semeicha (1943), contended post-Holocaust that such violations by nations permitted active redemption efforts, framing as a response to divine signals rather than rebellion. Rabbi and his son Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook offered theological reconciliation by viewing Zionist pioneering as the "beginning of sprouting" (atchalta d'geulah) of messianic redemption, a natural process aligned with providence rather than oath violation. In Olat Reiyah (page 377), Rabbi A.I. affirmed the oaths' validity but distinguished non-coercive settlement from prohibited hastening, cautioning against extremism while endorsing legal state-building under frameworks like the (1917). This perspective, echoed by rabbis such as Yechiel Michel (author of Aruch HaShulchan), holds that changed geopolitical realities—international recognition and defensive necessities—supersede aggadic constraints, prioritizing empirical Jewish survival over passive exile.

Contemporary Rabbinic Discussions

In contemporary rabbinic discourse, Haredi anti-Zionist leaders, including successors to Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum in the Satmar community, uphold the Three Oaths as a divine prohibition against collective Jewish return to and sovereignty over the Land of Israel before the messianic era, viewing the State's establishment as a violation that delays redemption. Groups like Neturei Karta explicitly invoke the oaths in their rejection of Zionism, arguing that the oaths bind Jews not to "ascend the wall" en masse or rebel against the nations, and they cite this in public protests against Israeli policies. Religious Zionist rabbis counter that the oaths lack halakhic force, being aggadic or homiletic in nature rather than legally binding, as articulated by Menachem Kasher and , who emphasize that such interpretive oaths do not override biblical commandments to settle the . Avraham Rivlin of Kerem B'Yavneh further contends that the oaths are nullified by gentile permissions for Jewish return, such as the 1917 and 1920 , and by the nations' own violations through excessive oppression, exemplified by , which released Jews from reciprocal obligations. Rabbi , in a 1956 address, argued that international recognition via the 1947 UN Partition Plan effectively granted gentile consent, rendering the oaths inapplicable to modern Israel's founding through diplomatic and defensive means rather than forcible . Rabbi J. David Bleich, in his analysis of the oaths as a contractual framework between , Jews, and nations, notes their interpretive limits but implies that post-exilic developments, including statehood, must be weighed against broader halakhic imperatives like and . These debates persist in shiurim and publications, with proponents on both sides attributing empirical events—like Israel's military successes or ongoing exilic challenges—as validation of their positions, though Zionist interpreters prioritize observable national revival as evidence of divine intent overriding the oaths.

References

  1. [1]
    The Three Oaths and the Opposition to Zionism
    Feb 5, 2023 · The Talmud's discussion moved on to highlight that there are three oaths mentioned by King Solomon, One, so that the Jews should not ascend ...
  2. [2]
    The Three Oaths ("Shalosh Shavuot"), Rav Avraham Rivlin - Torah
    The first oath is, "shelo yaalu bachoma," that the Jews should not forcibly, "break through the wall," and enter Eretz Yisrael. The second is that the Jews ...Missing: tradition | Show results with:tradition
  3. [3]
    The Three Oaths & the Three Gifts | Mayim Achronim
    Sep 17, 2024 · The third oath was that, in turn, the gentile nations would not oppress the Jews too much. In other words, Jews should be allowed to live in ...
  4. [4]
    https://www.israeladvocacy.net/knowledge/judaism-and-zionism/three-oaths/
  5. [5]
    The Three Oaths dilemma dividing Jewish Zionists from anti-Zionists
    Jun 13, 2018 · The Talmud cites three oaths which G-d administered: “One oath was that Israel would not make Aliyah 'as a wall'; and one oath was that G-d ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  6. [6]
    Three Oaths – Does the Talmud forbid a Jewish State?
    Rabbi Zeira introduced a line from the Torah, which became known as the 'Three Oaths', which he believed put restrictions on Rav Yehuda's belief.
  7. [7]
    Religious anti-Zionism and the 'Three Oaths' | The Jerusalem Post
    Jun 27, 2019 · In a well-known Talmud passage, the Sages record three vows taken when the Jews went into exile in the post-Temple era.
  8. [8]
    Exposing the 'Anti-Zionist' Lie About the Talmudic 'Three Oaths'
    Aug 9, 2024 · Every one of the right-wing arguments made for Zionism and the necessity of the Jewish state had been validated and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
  9. [9]
    504) The 'Three Oaths': Theologies of Cancellation and Resurrection
    Mar 9, 2025 · The Three Oaths were designed to engender a non-militaristic and exilic ethos within the Jewish people after the defeats of the Bar Kochba ...Missing: primary | Show results with:primary
  10. [10]
    Ketubot 111a - Sefaria
    Three are those that we said and explained above. The other three oaths are as follows: That those who know should not reveal the end of days; and that they ...Missing: exact text
  11. [11]
    Ketubot: 111a - The Talmud - Chabad.org
    בָּבֶלָה יוּבָאוּ וְשָׁמָּה יִהְיוּ עַד יוֹם פׇּקְדִי אוֹתָם נְאֻם ה׳ וְרַבִּי זֵירָא הָהוּא בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת כְּתִיב. “They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that ...Missing: Shelo ya alu bechad milchama
  12. [12]
    Ketubot 111a-b: Oaths That Bind - Aleph Society
    May 24, 2015 · Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina understands that there are three oaths that bind the Jewish people in their relationship with the non-Jewish world.Missing: exact | Show results with:exact
  13. [13]
    Masechet Ketubot 111a-112b - Orthodox Union
    Dec 21, 2007 · Rabbi Yossi ben Rabbi Chanina understands that there are three oaths that bind the Jewish people in their relationship with the non-Jewish world.Missing: exact text English
  14. [14]
    https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.111a?with=Rashi&lang=bi
  15. [15]
    Ketubot 111.a - Steinsaltz Center
    Three are those that we said and explained above. The other three oaths are as follows: That those who know should not reveal the end of days; and that they ...
  16. [16]
    https://www.sefaria.org/Song_of_Songs.2.7?lang=bi
  17. [17]
    Ketubot 111a
    Insufficient relevant content. The provided excerpt from Ketubot 111a on Sefaria (https://www.sefaria.org/Ketubot.111a?lang=bi) contains only a cookie notice and no Talmudic passage discussing the Three Oaths from the Song of Songs, including specific oaths, interpretations, or midrashic explanations by Rabbi Zeira or others. No Hebrew text, English translation, or substantive discussion is present in the given content.
  18. [18]
    Ketubot 111: Three Oaths - Julian Ungar-Sargon
    Oct 25, 2022 · Rashi interprets the first oath to mean that the Jewish people should not return to Israel by force, all together (in fact, some manuscripts ...Missing: 111a | Show results with:111a
  19. [19]
    Tosafot on Ketubot 111a:1:1 - Sefaria
    111a:1. 1. בבלה יובאו ושמה יהיו - אע"ג דהאי קרא בגלות ראשון כתיב י"ל דבגלות ... Ketubot 111a:1. ״בָּבֶלָה יוּבָאוּ וְשָׁמָּה יִהְיוּ עַד ...Missing: shelo yaalu
  20. [20]
    https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/yoreh-deah/eretz-yisrael/there-mitzva-settle-land-israel
  21. [21]
    Partzuf: The Mitzvah to Settle the Land of Israel in Our Time - GalEinai
    Nov 6, 2024 · Ramban holds that dwelling in the Land of Israel is a mitzvah from the Torah even in our time. Of course, this mitzvah applies to the individual ...
  22. [22]
    [PDF] Divrei Navon - The Three Oaths of Jewish History
    These oaths are derived from the three-fold repetition of the verse, “I made you swear, daughters of Jerusalem, do nor stir nor awake the love until it pleases” ...
  23. [23]
    The Religious Zionism Debate IV - Torah Musings
    While the Maharal is quite explicit in his commentary to Kesuvos, he also has a long discussion of the Three Oaths in his book Netzah Yisrael, ch. 24. The ...
  24. [24]
    The Three Oaths - שלושת השבועת & Ketubot 111a:4 - Sefaria
    אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן קְבוּרָה. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: With regard to the worthy of Babylonia, Eretz Yisrael absorbs them; with regard to the worthy of other lands, ...
  25. [25]
    Parashat Behar Sinay: The Most Misunderstood Oaths - The Blogs
    May 11, 2022 · Second, the Three Oaths were never binding on the Jewish people because the Midrash which discusses them is Aggadic in nature (commentary on ...
  26. [26]
    Religious Zionism Debate X - Torah Musings
    Jul 15, 2005 · Similarly, the Maharal of Prague in his Commentary on ... three oaths, taken together, form the equivalent of a contractual relationship.
  27. [27]
    Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol I, Part I, CHAPTER I Israel
    Such oaths, he argues, have no binding force in Halakhah. Similarly, the Maharal of Prague in his Commentary on the Aggada, Ketubot 111a, and in chapter 25 ...
  28. [28]
    Refuting the Three Oaths [Gimel Shevuot] - The Yeshiva World
    NOT Halachically obligatory [they are not legally binding]. If the Three Oaths are Halachically obligatory, then why are they NEVER MENTIONED in Rambam orMissing: halakhic | Show results with:halakhic
  29. [29]
    A Controversial Halakhic Case Against the State of Israel
    Jan 3, 2019 · Cohen shows how an array of poskim, before and after 1948, viewed the Three Oaths as forbidding Zionism. He uncovers a surprising statement of ...
  30. [30]
    Zionist Argument: The Three Oaths are Only Aggadah
    Apr 30, 2025 · Claim: The Three Oaths are aggadah, not halacha. The poskim don't bring them down as halacha. Facts: The Gemara begins with the story of ...
  31. [31]
    4. The Three Oaths | Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | Beit Midrash
    The Sages explain that God administered three oaths: two to Israel – not to ascend to their land forcefully all together and not to rebel against the nations.
  32. [32]
    The Three Oaths - Din - Ask the Rabbi - Dinonline
    May 27, 2010 · The first two Oaths convey similar messages: Israel is forbidden to throw off the yoke of the nations, and is likewise forbidden to use force to make an ascent ...
  33. [33]
    The Three Oaths are Agadah and therefore not binding. - Torah Jews
    Feb 12, 2009 · The Three Oaths is an Agadah sugya. since when is halacha paskined through an Agadah? The question about learning halacha from aggadah is not ...
  34. [34]
    The Satmar Are Anti-Zionist. Should We Care? - Tablet Magazine
    May 20, 2020 · Few Jews today agree with the late Satmar rebbe's attacks on Zionism. All the more reason to read them.
  35. [35]
    Neturei Karta - CDAMM
    Jan 15, 2021 · Amid these developments, the Neturei Karta splintered from the Agudat Israel in 1938 to preserve its more radical opposition to Zionism ( ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum of Satmar
    May 2, 2025 · 'Hakadosh Baruch Hu made the Jewish people swear three oaths...' (Kesubos 111a). One of the three oaths is: Jews must not be revolutionaries...
  37. [37]
    Debunking the “Three Oaths” Argument Against Israel - Reddit
    Oct 18, 2024 · They argue that Jews are betraying these oaths and that Israel shouldn't exist because of them. But this argument is misleading and ignores the ...What are the three oaths exactly? : r/Judaism - Reddit"Zionsim is aginst judaism" DEBUNK! (the three oaths) - RedditMore results from www.reddit.comMissing: rebuttals | Show results with:rebuttals
  38. [38]
    Was there a disagreement around the three oaths before modern ...
    Jun 11, 2023 · The author provides a source (Olat Reiyah page 377) where Rav Kook not only attests to the Oaths being binding but cautions Zionists of the time ...
  39. [39]
    Kuntres She-Lo Ya'alu Ke-Homah - Torah Musings
    Sep 12, 2005 · In the Talmud in Ketubot (111a), according to Rabbi Zeira there are Three Oaths[1] [or Six Oaths(2)] and among them is “Do not ascend in a wall” ...<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    The Neturei Karta: Haredi Jews who reject the State of Israel
    Sep 3, 2025 · Oath #1: The Jews must not return to Israel en masse. Oath #2: The Jews must not rise up and rebel against the nations of the world. Oath #3: ...Missing: contemporary | Show results with:contemporary