Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I keep on reading about a lot of Orthodox Jewish Rabbis opposed to the building of the nation of Israel as they deem it to be blasphemous and heresy in violation of God's commandment to the Jews.

I found some quotes from them:

Prague (Czechoslovakian Rabbi and pivotal medieval Jewish leader, 1525-1609) writes that a Jew should rather give up his life than attempt to end exile by conquering the Holy Land. (Netzach Yisroel, 24)

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (German Jewish leader 1808 - 1888), "During the reign of Hadrian 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 essential fact, namely that [the people of] Israel must never again attempt to restore its national independence by its own power; it was to entrust its future as a nation solely to Divine Providence:" (Hirsch Siddur, 1965: p.703)

Again Rabbi Hirsch writes, "We mourn over that which brought about that destruction [of the Temple] we take to heart the harshness we have encountered in our years of wandering as the chastisement of a father, imposed on us for our improvement, and we mourn the lack of observance of Torah which that ruin has brought about. . . This destruction obliges us to allow our longing for the far away land to express itself only in mourning, in wishing and hoping; and only through the honest fulfillment of all Jewish duties to await the realization of this hope. But it forbids us to strive for the reunion or possession of the land by any but spiritual means." (Horeb, 1981: p.461)

Our Sages say G-d imposed three vows when he sent Israel into the wilderness:

(1) that the children of Israel shall never seek to reestablish their nation by themselves;

(2) that they never be disloyal to the nations which have given them shelter;

(3) that these nations shall not oppress them excessively

(Kesubos 111a)

Are there any biblical evidences from Tanach or those who believe in Oral Torah for such views?

share|improve this question
    
No.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ –  Double AA Feb 16 '13 at 23:47
1  
This question would be more valuable if you'd cite the sources for these quotations. –  Isaac Moses Feb 17 '13 at 3:08
3  
... In fact, presenting such strongly-worded quotations without referring to the contexts from which they came so that they can be evaluated in-context is not fair to either their subjects or their objects. Accordingly, I'm going to delete them and leave it to you to replace them along with references to where they came from. –  Isaac Moses Feb 17 '13 at 4:33
4  
(For any later readers, Hod's above comment was written just before the current set of quotations were added. He may (or may not) have changed his opinion since then.) –  Double AA Feb 17 '13 at 6:26
3  
Since you aren't asking about the evidence that both sides use for their positions, I'm concerned about the motivation behind your question. I'm also concerned that you may be trying to use the J.SE community as a workhorse to provide Biblical support for an unstated political agenda. || Further, you are conflating "the building of the nation of Israel" with unilaterally establishing a state via force without the approval of the international community, and the views that you cite were referring to the latter, not the former. –  Fred Feb 17 '13 at 19:31

2 Answers 2

BS"D

I have remark.....

suppose that the points mentioned by the Maharal and Rabbi Hirsh are right that we, because of the 3 oaths were not allowed to Establish a Jewish state. ג' שבועות הללו למה אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את אומות העולם שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי.

But the same oath included that the Goyim would -not deal with us harshly -would give us at a certain point permission to return to our homeland. And what happened in the last 150 years is very important to start understanding.

Firstly a, unfortunately non-orthodox, stream of Jews longing for the return to Zion started due to the harsh prosecutions of Jews in France and eastern Europe. This is actually a transgression by the Goyim to their promise not to deal with us Harshly.

Secondly, Herzl wrote is "alt-neu-land" based on these events in France and eastern Europe and it was this what aroused a general feeling. But it was in no way an uprising against the non-Jews.

Thirdly: The Balfour declaration that was written in 1917 spoke about the legal return of the Jews to Israel and restoring the Jewish home-land.

Fourthly: The "League of Nations" (the UN of those days) decided in 1920 in San Remo (Italy) to grant the Jews the right to return and establish a state, decided upon its borders, etc. And this San Remo Conference treaty is still valid and was ratified by the UN when the UN was erected !!!

Fifthly: 13 years after the San Remo conference (the Bar Mitsva) in 1933 the Nazi-party in Italy rose to power; The first warning. During these 7 years G'd warned the Jews to leave by ll kinds of anti-Jewish laws, discrimination, etc..|

Sixth: 20 years after the San Remo Conference (when the treaty was legally 20 years old and according to Halacha Liable for punishment), the Shoa started. The Jews that had listened survived and the others largely perished.

And if there was not enough previous evidence that the Goyim dealt harshly with us Jews, the Shoa was the final sign that the famous Midrash, and the treaty we had with the Goyim, was invalidated by the Goyim themselves.

Therefore the right of us Jews to return to the land of Israel and establish a government was legal from a Thora and Midrash perspective.

Unfortunately a large part of the first Zionist were not religious, but that should not matter as G'd decides Himself who he will use for certain tasks.

And my opinion is that the Chareidi group of Neturei Karta that follows the opinion of Joel Teitelbaum, was too secluded in their own world that they missed the important events like Balfour and the international legally binding laws of the San Remo conference. IF they had known about this legislation they wouldn't have joined the enemies of our people and causing many Jews to be killed due to their support of these enemies.

Shir HaShirim mentions in chapter 5 that the "Shomrim haSovvemim ba-Yr" and how they hurt her. מצאוני השומרים הסובבים בעיר, הכוני פצעוני

And the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Shomrei haYir is "Nuturei Karta". And the girl is the allegorical description of the Jewish people longing and searching for G'd.

Hopefully someone will start teaching these Nuturei Karta people what damage they are doing and that they are hurting the girl instead of helping her find her husband.

share|improve this answer
    
Who says that the two oaths are mutually dependent? –  Shmuel Brin Dec 14 at 2:32

There are no explicit biblical proofs for this. However, there is a fairly famous statement in the גמרא in .כתובות קיא:

רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר ג' שבועות הללו למה אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את העובדי כוכבים שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי

This דרשא from a פסוק in שיר השירים says that Jews cannot "raise in a wall", i.e. in military strength, was taken by many including Rav S.R. Hirsch to mean that it is אסור for Jews to re-establish a Jewish government.

Another thing to realize is that these above mentioned Rabbonim were mainly protesting non-religious Zionism, because it basically did away with Torah. It is true that they protested religious zionism, but mainly because they associated themselves with the non-religious zionists.

share|improve this answer
4  
They also almost all lived before the establishment of the current state. Supporting the establishment of a state is different than supporting an existing state. –  Double AA Feb 17 '13 at 1:38
1  
i fail to see the relevance of the fact that they were only protesting it's establishment and not it's continuance. –  moses Feb 17 '13 at 1:40
5  
for example the Steipler: 'עיקר טענת הרב הקדוש מסטמר שליט"א מחמת שלשת השבועות אינו מובן לענ"ד. בוודאי בתחילה היה שלא כדין, אבל עכשיו שאין שלטון אחר לכאורה ליכא איסור מצד הג' שבועות' (קריינא דאיגרתא, בני ברק תשמ"ו, סימן ר"ה, עמ' רכ"ג) –  josh waxman Feb 17 '13 at 3:10
2  
@Ali I'm not sure what you mean by desires, but your question only asked for sources in Tanach not in other traditions. This narrow focus of yours has been seen in other questions and seems to belie a misunderstanding or non-understanding of the way Jews view the Oral Torah. –  Double AA Feb 17 '13 at 8:08
3  
I don't think "many Jewish denominations" reject oral torah. Karaites are not "many". –  Monica Cellio Feb 18 '13 at 4:47

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.