What's your point about the 3 oaths?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who Is an Israelite?
- Thread starter thomas t
- Start date
rosends
Well-Known Member
You are referencing an idea you don't understand. If you would like to discuss current understandings of the three oaths, we can do that, but how good is your Aramaic and Hebrew?
I suggest you go and read again as to who/whom I showed you (as per evidence) I am part of....Here>> Who Is an Israelite?
I would like to suggest you read my profile WITH OPEN EYES(if that were possible).>>I'm not a Christian nor am I Jewish
I state once again that you and the "real jews" you refer to, have NO UNDERSTANDING of who THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL is in the BIBLICAL PROOF , I have given you.
I can understand that them "real jews" have an excuse as they believe their "Bible" is the Talmud, but you should have no excuse as you believe in the "same" Bible I believe in.
Goodness me !
Last edited:
As good as your Afrikaans
rosends
Well-Known Member
Well, the three oaths weren't written in Afrikaans, so that's a relief.As good as your Afrikaans
Agree. So lets show it in English..>
"...The Rambam makes it clear in his Letter to Yemen that he did in fact view the oaths as binding law. The Megillas Esther in Sefer Hamitzvos also makes clear that the Rambam viewed the oaths as binding law.
As to why he did not include them in his Mishneh Torah, one simple explanation is that the Rambam did not need to do so, because he describes the process of the coming of moshiach (Hilchos Melachim 11:1), and the oaths are implicit in that process. He writes: “The king moshiach will arise and restore the dynasty of David to its original power. He will build the Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel.” If moshiach will be the one who gathers in the Jewish people, then it is clear that we are not allowed to gather ourselves in before the coming of moshiach.
This idea is really explicit in the Midrash (Shir Hashirim Rabbah 2:20), which tells us the reason for the oath against going up as a wall: “If so, why does the king moshiach have to come to gather the exiles of Israel?” The Maharzu explains that it is moshiach’s job to bring all of Israel up together from the exile, and if, G-d forbid, they do this on their own, they will lose the redemption of the moshiach. The Yefei Kol understands it the same way: “If we come up as a wall from exile, why will the king moshiach have to come to gather the exiles of Israel? And since we know from many verses in Tanach that moshiach will gather our exiles, we cannot gather ourselves together.”
The Three Oaths are more than halacha - they define our belief in Hashem as the only one who can end the exile, who watches over us and protects us in exile, and puts us in the place that is best for us.
The following is a brief list of some of the poskim who do discuss the Three Oaths as binding: Rashbash 2, Rivash 101, Piskei Riaz Kesubos 111, Kaftor Vaferach chapter 10, p. 197, Maharashdam Choshen Mishpat 364, Pe’as Hashulchan Laws of Eretz Yisroel, Chapter 1, Section 3, Aruch Hashulchan Choshen Mishpat 2:1, the Gadol of Minsk in Sinai v. 6, p. 213.
And here are some well-known commentators who discuss the oaths as binding: Rabbeinu Bachya on Vayishlach, Abarbanel Bereishis 15:11, Maharal in Netzach Yisroel 24, Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh Vayikra 26:33, Rabbi Yaakov Emden in Sefer Hashimush 66b, Yismach Moshe Tehillim 127:2, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Siddur p. 703.
The oath prohibiting rebellion against the nations refers to revolution by military force… I do not believe that under the current circumstances it is possible to have a state according to Torah law... I would consider the founding of a state to be a disaster and a misfortune." (Mikatowitz Ad Hei B'Iyar, p. 340)
The Ramban has always been understood this way – in fact, one of the Ramban’s sixth-generation descendents, the Rashbash (Rabbi Shlomo ben Shimon Duran, 1400-1467) wrote: "There is no doubt that living in Eretz Yisroel is a great mitzvah at all times, both during and after the time of the Temple, and my ancestor the Ramban counted it as one of the mitzvos… However, during exile this is not a general mitzvah for all Jews, but on the contrary it is forbidden, as the Gemara says in the last chapter of Kesubos, that this is one of the oaths that the Holy One, blessed is He, made the Jews swear: that they not hurry the end and not go up as a wall. Go and see what happened to the children of Ephraim when they hurried the end!
Furthermore, one cannot learn that the Ramban in Sefer Hamitzvos didn't treat the oaths as a real halachic prohibition, because then one would be faced with a contradiction in the Ramban's own writings. In Sefer Hageulah, end of Shaar 1 (p. 274 in the Chavel edition), he writes that the reason most Jews did not go up at the beginning of the Second Beis Hamikdash is that Jews were uncertain whether King Cyrus had meant to give permission for all the tribes of Israel to return, or only for Yehuda. And even if he had meant to give permission to all of Israel, they did not wish to force the end, for they knew that Yirmiyahu’s prophecy of a 70-year-long exile had only referred to those Jews living in Babylonia proper, not in all the 127 Persian states. So we see clearly that the Ramban does cite the oaths as binding.
And a little later in Sefer Hageulah (p. 284), the Ramban writes, “Based on the teachings of our Sages, we consider ourselves today to be in the Exile of Edom, and that we will not arise from it until the coming of moshiach.” This statement would make no sense if the Ramban held that we are obligated to conquer Eretz Yisroel in every generation.
In his commentary on Bamidbar 24:17, the Ramban says, “Because moshiach will gather the dispersed of Israel from the ends of the earth, Scripture compares him to a star that rises from the edge of the sky.” Clearly, the Ramban holds that only moshiach will gather in the exiles.
In conclusion, we hope that the above discussion of claims and facts about the Shalosh Shevuos has been educational and informative to our readers. It is especially important to know the facts about this issue because many people today mistakenly believe that this was an evenly balanced debate about halacha. As we have seen, there were a range of opinions, but there was no one at all prior to 1948 who permitted founding a state through warfare. Keeping the Three Oaths was the unanimous position of every single gadol and posek. Furthermore, in light of statements like that of Reb Aharon and Reb Elchonon quoted above - that a state amounts to denial of the coming of moshiach - we see that the issue here is not only one of halacha. In all past generations, Jews believed that only Hashem sent them into exile, they waited only for Hashem to redeem them from exile, and in the meantime they trusted in Hashem to protect them as long as the exile lasted. The State and its army, explicitly or implicitly, deny all of that. The fundamentals of our emunah and the future of the Jewish people are truly at stake.
>>>> The Three Oaths: Claims and Facts | Torah Jews
Hmmmmnnn !
Last edited:
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
And so...?
My conversion is halakhic, and yes I can make aliyah to Israel.
[/QUOTE]I do not support the settlements, since I am for a two state solution. I am a very typical Jew in diaspora in this regard.
Last edited:
yes I know there were non-Jewish victims.
However, that wasn't my point.
I said (You can read again): when Hitler wanted to kill Jews, he chose the real ones.
Not the Wannabe-Jews.
I disagree.
--------
Yes I know you claim to be a companion of the children of Israel, see post #60.
However, a real companion of Israel never calls them "real" Jews, like you do (see quote above). I mean "real" as opposed to simply real or simply Jews.
This is at least how I see the situation here.
Ok. thanx.
No "Hmmmmmnnn !" about it, I'm afraid.Hmmmmnnn !
The book I'm about to base my answer to you from is called "Kim'ah Kim'ah" by Rabbi Chaim Druckman, one of the leading figures in the Religious Zionist movement, and also a former Member of Knesset and the 2012 winner of the Israel Prize. This book was recently translated into English, but I only have the Hebrew edition. As this is a concept in Jewish halacha, I'm sure you won't mind that I explain this in halachic terms.
Rashi on the oaths explains what the third one means. He says that it means that the Jews shouldn't come to Israel together by force (i.e. forcing/strong-arming the nations to let them into Israel). The Maharsha follows Rashi and clarifies that individual Jews may come to Israel, but not large groups by force - meaning, groups can come only if they have permission from the authorities currently in control of the land. It should be noted that during the Ottoman control of Israel, a great many Jews came to Israel with permission from the Ottomans. It should further be noted that according to the Maharsha, Jews may do whatever they wish in the land, as long as they receive permission from the government in control.
The Rebbe of Sochatchov added to the Maharsha and explained that not only would it be allowed to come to Israel in large groups if the controlling government would allow it, but it may even be seen as holy decree from up high to do so. And so writes Rabbi Kalischer.
Now, why are the 3 oaths not currently relevant?
Rabbi Meir Hakohen of Dvinsk, brought by Rabbi Kasher, said: "...now we see from the hand of God, that with the assembly of the enlightened kingdoms at San Remo the decree was given, that the Land of Israel will be given to the Nation of Israel. And since the fear of the Oaths has been removed, and with permission from the rulers, the commandment of settling the Land of Israel rises once more..."
Similarly, Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook also wrote that with the establishment of the British Mandate, whose original intent was to be a temporary government before giving the land to the Jews, the Three Oaths have passed from the world.
There is another view, that all three oaths are tied together - meaning if one isn't upheld, then they're all considered irrelevant. I'll remind you that two oaths are on Israel and one on the non-Jewish nations.
Following this view, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger wrote that since the non-Jewish nations did not uphold their oath, i.e., they brutally persecuted and murdered Jews for millennia, so too the Jews have no need to keep their oaths.
A third view is based on questioning the oaths: When exactly did the nations accept upon themselves not to persecute the Jews? Answer: Never. Therefore, the Maharal of Prague explains that the oaths aren't actual prohibitions, but decrees from God that explain the boundaries of the exile, so in other words, there was never a prohibition for Jews to come to Israel. It was simply a definition of the Diaspora, i.e. the in reality, until God decrees otherwise, large groups of Jews simply wouldn't consider coming to Israel. First sign of the decree changing is when large groups of Jews started coming to Israel (the first such group was in the mid 18th century, then more followed in the 19th, 20th and 21st).
There are several more sources, but I think that's enough for now.
As I showed, this is incorrect.
Luckily, even for the opinions that find the oaths binding, the state wasn't founded through warfare. It was founded based on a vote in the UN. Subsequent warfare followed, but that wasn't what made Israel a state. It just proved our mettle.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The quotation features of my post were not configured correctly. I have now fixed it. Two additional quotes are now present. You may want to follow the arrows back to my post and read it again now.
What is the difference?
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
That was not my only point though. The Old Testament claims that non-Israelites could become Israelites - I believe even the Law of Moses explains how those who sojourn in Israel's lands can be adopted.
And even though Abraham may not be Israel - Israel is Abraham - and my claim about the Law of Adoption as contained in the New Testament was about becoming an inheritor of the promises made to Abraham - not just to Israel.
The New Testament claims that anyone can inherit the same promises made to Abraham - and therefore the same promises made to Israel - through faith in Christ.
Adoption is a doctrine taught both in the Old and New Testaments and is dependent upon the actions of the individual - not lineage.
Your original claim was that Christians are Israel now.
Yet you couldn't deliver Bible proof here.
When I own something, a cousin cannot just claim it for themselves. This is obvious.
There are promises made specifically to Israel.
Just because Israel had cousins... the cousins cannot claim these promises for themselves.
Bible admits that you can qualify as Abraham's child. This does not mean that you can qualify as a child of Israel though.
When your grand father adopts a child (let's consider this scenario hypothetically), this does not mean that you have adopted the same child, too.
So when Abraham adopts one... this doesn't mean that Israel also adopted the same child, of course.
Yeah it does say that non-Israelites can become Israelites.That does not mean that just any claimant is an Israelite all of a sudden.
This is all very obvious though.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
No - it was not.
My original claim - in Post #93 - was that the Old Testament recorded non-Israelites becoming Israelites and that, "The New Testament also claims that there was a Law of Adoption - where Gentiles could become children of Abraham and inheritors of the covenant through their faithfulness." (Bold and italics added)
Look at where I did not claim that Christians were Israel now. I said, "children of Abraham" - and everyone knows that Abraham had many children who were not considered Israelites.
It would be pointless for me to try and provide proof of a claim I did not make.
If you share an inheritance with your siblings and your father legally adopts your cousin - you share that inheritance with your cousin because he/she has just become your sibling-in-law.
Correct. There were also promises made to Abraham - which anyone can inherit through their faithfulness.
A cousin can receive the same promises given to Abraham and his seed if they are adopted by Abraham.
You keep trying to disprove a claim that no one made.
Yes - it does - that child becomes your aunt or uncle-in-law.
And if your grandfather had promised all of his children an inheritance - then this aunt or uncle-in-law would receive a portion of that inheritance - before you.
Kind of like the whole "first shall be last and last shall be first" deals.
Israel would not need to adopt anyone in order for them to become children of Abraham.
Again - you are trying to disprove a claim that was not made.
True - there were Laws about this sort of thing - which I mentioned.
For me - but you're lost.
I'm glad to read this.
Here you wrote that it was (among) your point(s), though:
ok, now you claim that Christians are not Israel.
Everything is ok now.
(I wasn't lost).
This is a common false doctrine in the big Christian boards, though.
It is called replacement theology.
Fallen Prophet
Well-Known Member
Aw I see what happened.
I initially claimed that the faithful can become children of Abraham to which you erroneously interpreted as a claim that Christians are Israel.
Then in response to your comment I inadvertently made it seem like I was agreeing with your false interpretation.
I thought you were saying that Christians could not receive the same promises that Israel received through Abraham when the Old Testament clearly records non-Israelites receiving those same promises.
That is why I said my only point was not about Christians - but about non-Israelites in the Old Testament.
I was not saying that, "Christians becoming Israel was not my only point." but rather "The Law of Adoption is prevalent in the scriptures."
You only quoted the first line of that post (#115). The rest reads,
"And even though Abraham may not be Israel - Israel is Abraham - and my claim about the Law of Adoption as contained in the New Testament was about becoming an inheritor of the promises made to Abraham - not just to Israel.
The New Testament claims that anyone can inherit the same promises made to Abraham - and therefore the same promises made to Israel - through faith in Christ.
Adoption is a doctrine taught both in the Old and New Testaments and is dependent upon the actions of the individual - not lineage."
Notice how I (again) never made the claim that Christians are Israel.
And all of this is moot when you consider that you said that my "original claim" was that Christians are Israel now - when it clearly was not.
I never once claimed that Christians are now Israel. I don't believe it. It contradicts many prophecies in the scriptures.
Yeah and that was wrong. I mean I didn't say that.
You just thought I would.
So you could very well have left this thread in peace. I think.