The Three Oaths - Sources
‫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
The three verses are:
I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the
gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, that ye
awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please (Song
of Songs 2:7).
I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the
gazelles, and by the hinds of the field, that ye
awaken not, nor stir up love, until it please (Song
of Songs 3:5).
I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem: Why
should ye awaken, or stir up love, until it please?
(Song of Songs 8:4).
There are several other Midrashim that pertain to
the Three Oaths and they are primarily recorded
in Shir HaShirim Rabbah which is also known as
Midrash Hazita:
R. Yossi bar Chanina said, “There are two oaths
here, one for Israel and one for the nations. Israel
swore not to rebel against the nations [R. Yossi
bar Chanina views Israel’s two oaths in Ketuvot
as just one], and the nations swore that they
would not overly burden Israel, for by doing so
they cause the end of days to come prematurely.
Rabbi Chelbo says...And do not ascend like a
wall from the Exile. If so, why is the King Messiah
coming? To gather the exiles of Israel.
When Reish Lakish would see Jews from the
Exile gathering in the marketplace in the Land of
Israel he would say to them, 'Scatter yourselves.'
He said to them: 'When you ascended you did
not do so as a wall, and here you have come to
make a wall.'
Rambam cited the Three Oaths in his famous
Iggeres Teiman:
1
‫ולפי שידע שלמה ע"ה ברוח הקדש שהאומה הזו כאשר‬
‫תלכד בגלות תיזום להתעורר שלא בזמן הראוי ויאבדו בכך‬
‫וישיגום הצרות הזהיר מכך והשביע עליו על דרך המשל‬
‫ואמר השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלים וכו‬
The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews
not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there
that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting
government that commits atrocities and wars
against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should
watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling
against them. It's clear that even though the
Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.
Shlomo Hamelech, of blessed memory, foresaw
with Divine inspiration, that the prolonged
duration of the exile would incite some of our
people to seek to terminate it before the
appointed time, and as a consequence they
would perish or meet with disaster. Therefore he
admonished and adjured them in metaphorical
language to desist, as we read, "I adjure you, O
daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by
the hinds of the field, that ye awaken not, nor stir
up love, until it please." (Song of Songs 2:7, 8:4).
Now, brethren and friends, abide by the oath,
and stir not up love until it please (Kesubos
111a).
Ramban did not explicitly discuss the Three
Oaths. Rashbash who was himself a descendant
of Ramban, understood this particular biblical
obligation to be binding on the individual level but
not on the collective:
"In truth, this commandment is not a
commandment which includes the entirety of
Israel in the Exile which now exists, but it is a
general principle as our Sages stated in the
Talmud in Ketubos, that it stems from the Oaths
which The Holy One, Blessed be He, made Israel
swear not to rush the End, and not to ascend like
a wall." (Responsa Rashbash, 2.)
Rabbeinu Bachya, formulated a comprehensive
Torah commentary based on the four principles
 The Three Oaths - Sources
denoted by the word "PaRDeS." In his
commentary he wrote on Bereishis 32:7:
…and it is written “And Hezekiah prayed before
God” (2 Kings 19:15). So too we are required to
follow in the way of the Patriarchs and to restore
ourselves so that we may be graciously accepted
and with our fine language and prayer before
God, may He be exalted. However, to wage war
is not possible (Song of Songs 2), “you have
been adjured daughters of Jerusalem, etc.” You
have been adjured not to engage in war with the
nations.”
Maharal discussed the Three Oaths in Netzach
Yisrael, Ch. 24. He writes that even if the Goyim
try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves
during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be
killed rather than take violate the Oaths. The
Maharal says that these oaths represent absolute
prohibitions that one must sacrifice one's life
before violating. In technical terms, these oaths
are yehareg ve'al ya'avor. It is better to be
martyred than to violate these oaths.:
‫כי פירוש 'בדורו של שמד' היינו במדה שהיה לדורו של‬
‫ ובאותה מדה‬,‫ שהיו דביקים בה דורו של שמד‬,‫שמד‬
‫ אף‬,‫ כי דורו של שמד‬.‫השביע אותם שלא ישנו בענין הגלות‬
‫ ועוד‬.‫ לא היו משנים‬,‫על גב שהגיע להם המיתה בגלות‬
‫ רוצה לומר אף אם יהיו רוצים‬,'‫פירוש 'בדורו של שמד‬
‫ לא יהיו יוצאים ולא יהיו משנים‬,‫להמית אותם בעינוי קשה‬
‫ ויש להבין זה‬,‫ וכן הפירוש אצל כל אחד ואחד‬.‫בזה‬
Another explanation of the Midrash’s statement
(he is speaking of Shir HaShirim Rabba 2:20 that
begins “‫ )”ורבנן אמרי השביען בדורו של שמד‬that G-d
adjured the Jewish people in a generation of
Shmad (religious persecution Jews, or decrees
against Jews): that even if they will threaten to kill
them with difficult torture, they will not leave [the
Exile] nor will they change their behavior in this
manner.
The oaths are between the Jewish people and
God, and the gentiles and God respectively.
Theoretically, if the gentiles would violate their
2
oath does not tacitly mean that the Jewish people
are free to do so as well. Historically, atrocities
prior to the Holocaust have not prompted claims
of violating the oaths by the gentiles. The
Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans
violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar
Kochba was punished Chazal say because they
violated the Oaths. The Maharal writes that even
if the Goyim force us with torturous death to
violate the Oath, we should rather submit to
torturous death than violate them. The Oath that
G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was
NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN
sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in
every single interpretation in the commentaries
about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the
Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim
violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we
can violate another one and hurt ourselves more!
Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths.
Egypt surely violated their Oath when they
tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Ephrain, Chazal
say, were all hunted donw and killed in the deset
for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.
The Oaths are brought down l'halachah in
Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real.
This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been
violating their Oath for thousands of years. And
besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu
b'chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and
woud not be dependent on the Goyim's Oath.
Not only are the Oaths binding according to the
consensus of authorities, including the Ramban,
even if the nations give permission, but Israel
was created against the will of the Arabs, who
were the residents of the land at the time - the
UN is not a Sanhedrin HaGadol that speaks for
everyone. The fact is, Hanagnahs, Irguns, Stern
Gangs and a War of Independence was waged in
order to create Israel - which hardly constitutes a
"peaceful ascent into the land", which is what
would be needed to mitigate the Oaths even if we
accept the premise; even if we accept the the
Balfour declaration as "permission" to create a
 The Three Oaths - Sources
Medinah, what the Balfour declaration intended is
not in fact what happened - instead of a peaceful
coexistence with the Arabs, violence and
bloodshed took place to create the Medinah. The
Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that
even if the Goyim give us permission to take
Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better
we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the
Maharal says. And the Gemora itself disproves
the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason
Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to
Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though
Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the
atrocities they committed during the Churban
(The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of
Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for
destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel). The
Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the
Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel
forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the
nations is not included. The Gemora could easily
have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and
therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is
null. But the Gemora says no such thing. R.
Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of
the people of Portugal who wanted to defend
themselves against the government by making a
rebellion. The government then was making
forced SHmad and all sorts of persecutions. They
asked the "shem hameforash" and were told not
to do it because it would violate the Oaths. And
besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu
b'chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and
woud not be dependent on the Goyim's Oath
anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason
Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us
permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not
allowed to do it. Better we should die than take
Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says. Anyone who
learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted
with the reality that they Goyim violated theirs but
we still cannot violate ours.
The Oaths are not Agada. By definition,
Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is
3
forbidden to do something, which this does. In
fact, it says You may not do this, and if you do,
you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the
definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of
Naaseh V'Nishmah is also used by Chazal as
Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)
The poskim cite the oaths as halacha, as I cited
above. The Oaths are brought down l'halachah in
Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real.
And secondly, there is no such thing as "just" an
aggadic passage. Aggadah informs our religious
outlook and cannot be ignored. Rabbeinu Tam
writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it
is against Halachah. Third, even if it is not
Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem,
meaning, negation of Halachah would merely
relinquish us of any obligations in regard to
making a State. But the Gemora clearly says that
doing so will cause the deaths of Jews, like
animals in the field. Even if that does not create
any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the
State is against the will of Hashem and that its
existence causes deaths of Jews.
Kuntres Shavuos: "Agadita is also considered
Halchah, as is proven from the Gemora in Eruvin
(13b), that the disagreement between Bais
Shammai and Bais Hillel was decided by way of
vote, that noach lo shelo nivra. Thus, psak
halachah is also applicable to Deos, and that is
what is referred to as ‘Hilchos Deos and Chovos
Halevovos’, for the difference [between Halachah
and Agada] is only in respect to how and with
what they are fulfilled: The Chovos HaEvarim are
fulfilled with the limbs, and the Hilchos Deos are
fulfilled with the understanding of the mind of
those who accept the Torah … this idea the Rosh
Yeshiva ZTL planted within us very much,
pertinent to the fundamentals of Hichos Deos
and Chovos Halevovos."
The Rambam paskens in several places
regarding hashkafa as well as action-Halchah,
and the fact that he codifies 13 Ikarim in Mishna
Torah is the simplest example of that.
 The Three Oaths - Sources
The Chasam Sofer, in his last Teshuva on
Yoreh Deah, points out that there is an opinion in
the Gemora – that of R. Hillel - that there will be
no Moshiach (rather, Hashem Himself will
redeem Klall Yisroel). Of course, one of the
Rambam’s 13 Ikarim is belief in Moshiach. If so,
he asks, why would R. Hillel not qualify as a
heretic?
The Chasam Sofer answers that if anybody
nowadays would hold like R. Hillel he would
indeed be considered an apikores, but when R.
Hillel said this, the Halachah that Bias
HaMashiach is a required belief had not yet been
paskened and therefore it was, at that point in
time, permitted to hold such an opinion. Today,
however, after the dispute between R. Hillel and
his peers has been paskened, anybody who
holds like R. Hillel’s opinion is a heretic and has
no share in Olam Habah.
But besides the Ikarim there are many non-
halachic disputes the Rambam paskens. As but
one example of many, the Gemora in Brachos
(34b) brings a dispute between R. Yochanan and
R. Avohu whether a Baal Teshuva is on a higher
level than someone who never needs Teshuva in
the first place, or someone who never sinned is
higher than the Baal Teshuva. The Rambam
(Hilchos Teshuva 7:4) rules that a Baal Teshuva
is on a higher level than someone who never
sinned. There is no practical instruction here; just
a Hashkafa.
Another example is the Gemora in Sanhedrin
(91a) regarding what will be when Moshiach
comes.
‫רבי חסדא רמי כתיב וחפרה הלבנה ובושה החמה כי מלך‬
‫ה' צבאות וכתיב והיה אור הלבנה כאור החמה ואור החמה‬
‫יהיה שבעתים כאור שבעת הימים לא קשיא כאן לימות‬
‫המשיח כאן לעולם הבא ולשמואל דאמר אין בין העולם‬
‫הזה לימות המשיח אלא שיעבוד גליות בלבד לא קשיא כאן‬
‫במחנה צדיקים כאן במחנה שכינה‬
The Rambam in Hilchos Melachem only cites
4
the opinion of Shmuel, not R. Yochanan. The
Abarbanel (Yeshuos Meshicho end of ch. 7) asks
on the Rambam that the Halachah is like R.
Yochanan when disagreeing with Shmuel.
Clearly, the Abarbanel understood the Rambam
to be paskening this Agada like one side, and he
voices his disapproval, as based on the
principles of Halachah he should have rules like
the other side.
The Abarbanel does not think to explain that
because this is Agada, with not practical Halachic
difference, the Rambam is entitled to follow
whichever opinion he chooses.
There is a Halachah that says you must have
the right Hashkofos. “Lo sosuru acharei
levavchem”, You may not follow your heart,
meaning, you may not believe “meenus”
(apikursos). The Mishna Brura rules (his source
is Sefer Hachinuch almost word for word, but
without attribution) that apikursos includes any
opinion that is contrary to Daas Torah. Meaning,
even if you follow all Halachos, if you have an
opinion that conflicts with that of the Torah, you
violate this laav. Hashkafa can often be
Halachicly binding. Sometimes a Hashkafic
violation can be worse than a Halachic one -
such as in the case of an Apikores vs. a Mechalel
Shabbos.
There is a simple proof from the Gemora, which
is said over in the name of both Rav Hutner and
Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, that we pasken
hashkafa: "nimnu vegamru - noach lo shelo
nivrah". "They counted and ruled" according to
the majority - noach lo shelo nivrah, a purely
hashkafic, non-halachic issue, ruled due to the
majority count.
Someone who tries to live Halachicly without
proper Hashkofos will not succeed. At best, he
will be living a schizophrenic, self-contradictory
Jewish life, and he will be in a constant state of
spiritual disarray trying to reconcile his Halachic
lifestyle with his Hashkafic deficiencies. Jewish
 The Three Oaths - Sources
Halachah and Secular Hashkofos are
contradictory.
Rav Yitzchok Hutner ZTL once described the
incongruous “Halachic Judaism” syndrome as
comparable to someone who puts on his shirt in
the morning and accidentally buttons the lowest
button in the wrong hole. Instead of undoing it, he
decides to solve the problem by putting the next
button in the wrong hole as well, and he keeps
buttoning up his shirt like that, always one hole
off, thinking everything is OK. Until he gets to the
top of the shirt. Now he has to either undo the
entire shirt, or wear it lopsided. So, too, Rav
Hutner said, are those who want to “reconcile”
Halachah with the values and way of life of
society. It is lopsided. You can maneuver around
the Halachic pitfalls again and again, but
eventually you will see that it doesn’t work, you
paint yourself into a corner, and there will be no
choice except to either undo your entire
philosophy or live with a self-contradictory
Judaism.
Not only are the Oaths binding according to
the consensus of authorities, including the
Ramban, even if the nations give permission,
but Israel was created against the will of the
Arabs, who were the residents of the land at the
time - the UN is not a Sanhedrin HaGadol that
speaks for everyone. The fact is, Hanagnahs,
Irguns, Stern Gangs and a War of Independence
was waged in order to create Israel - which
hardly constitutes a "peaceful ascent into the
land", which is what would be needed to mitigate
the Oaths even if we accept the premise; even if
we accept the the Balfour declaration as
"permission" to create a Medinah, what the
Balfour declaration intended is not in fact what
happened - instead of a peaceful coexistence
with the Arabs, violence and bloodshed took
place to create the Medinah.
Here is the list of many of the authorities that
bring down the 3 oaths or part of them
holding we must abide by them and after this
5
list there is another list of all those that hold even
with reshut its still prohibited to violate the Oaths.
I merely listed the more famous ones but the
ones that are not so common to people I wrote
the main points of what the say so people know
it.
1) The Piskei Riaz on Kesuvos 111a, the
Maharsha in “chiddushei halachot” Kesuvos 111a
Responsa Rivash in Siman 110, Responsa
Rashbash in Siman 2, Hagahos Vchidushei
haRashash on Kesuvos 111a, Hagahos Yaavetz
on kesuvos 111a, the Hagahos Vchidushim of R’
Aryeh Leib Yalin in the Yafe Einayim on Kesuvos
111a, the Megillas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of
Rambam mitzvah 4, the Ramban in Sefer
HaGeulah at end of chapter 1 in the Chavel
edition on pg. 274, the Rambam in Igeres
Taimon, the Maharal in Netzach Yisroel siman 24
, The Kaftor ViPherach (Perek 10 daf 197), the
Responsa Maharshdam Chelek Choshen
Mishpat Siman 364 daf 60b, Peat Hashulchan
Hilchos Eretz Yisroel Siman 1 seif 3,Otzar
Hachaim Kitzur taryag Mitzvot 59,Reponsa
Chatam Sofer Yoreh Deah Siman 220, Harav
Yakov Emden in the Sefer Migdal Oz at the end
of “Aliyat ahava” ot 7, also brings the prohibitions
of the oaths and states “praiseworthy are the
believers and sons of believers.. that do not go
up aliya bchoma” and R’Yakov Emden in Sefer
hashimush daf 66b where he states “we can not
ask even for our land not with cheil or koach
since we already have sworn not to make aliya
bchoma and not to rebel against the malchut..”
and the oaths are brought in the Siddur Yaavetz
(Rav Yakov Emden) as brought by the Hirsch
siddur pg .703 quoted on pg.137, in a teshuva on
Mitzvat Yishuv Eretz Yisroel from the Gadol of
Minsk Hagaon R' Yerucham Y.L. Pearlmen ZTZL
Bsini Krach 6 page 213, the Aruch Hashulchan in
Choshen Mishpat Siman 2 seif 1, Roggachevor
Gaon in Tikun Olam,Munkatch in the beginning
of the sefer the oaths are also qouted lihalacha
,and in Responsa Tzofnas Paneach 143 ot 2,Rav
Shmuel Salant in (Gilyon Tzefunos, year 3
 The Three Oaths - Sources
koveitz 1,pg 46),the Mei Hashiloach on Masechet
Shabbos 47b Perek 4 bmah tomnin, Tosfos
Hashalem from the Baalei Tosfos on Yisro 19:12
which also brings down the oaths, (Rav Meir
Simcha of Dvinsk also the author of the Ohr
Sameach) in Meshech Chochma on parshas
Vayechi 50:24 brings down that which the oaths
prohibit not to go up to eretz yisroel bchoma and
says this is a “limud ldorot” that we should not go
up bchoma and not like the bnei Ephraim did
before the keitz and states only until a Navi from
Hashem comes and tells us can we go!,
Rabbeinu Bachya in Vayishlach 32:8 , The Melo
Ha’omer R’ Aryeh Leib Tzanz on Koheles 8: 2
[author of the Magen Alef, Chiddushei Teshuvos
HaMahara’al and of Teshuvos Meshivos Nefesh,
which has haskamas from the Ohr Chadash and
the Noda B'Yehuda (Tzlach)] who explains that
we must not rebel against the nations under the
oath in Kesubos 111a., The Even Ezra on Shir
Hashirim 3:9,the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh in
Rishon Litzion on Shir Hashirim 2:7, the Bear
Hagola perek 25 ot. 5, the Chida in Chomat Anch
on shir hashirim 3:14, the Chekel Yitzchak on
Parshas Vayara, the Drashot Chasam Sofer daf
152 lzayin adar sheini parshas Vayikra 586, the
Yafeh Kol on Shir Hashirim Rabba 2 :20 (dibur
hamskil shelo yaalu kchoma and im kein) who
explains Rashi byad chazaka as meaning even
with reshus its still assur to break the oaths but
only until moshiach actually comes. The Yismach
Moshe in Tehilim Tefilas Moshe Mizmor 127, the
Kli Yakar in Sefer Eir Giborim Parshas
Vayishlach who holds we can not have certain
wars because of the 3 oaths, the Ksav Sofer in
Drashot Ksav Sofer drush lishabat shuva 426
where he brings the 3 oaths that we must abide
by to prove that davening for the Geuala is not
going to remove the ol malchut. The Responsa
Levushei Mordechai Mahadura Tlitai on Yoreh
Deah Siman 49 brings the Oaths and the
Ahavoson Yonason that even with reshut it still
assur to violate the oaths, the Lechem Shlomo in
drasha 76 also brings it is assur today to be
koveish eretz yisroel as we see the Bnei Ephraim
6
were punished for transgressing the oaths as
they left mitzrayim early, the Maharitz Chiyus in
Kol sifrei Maharitz Chiyus (Sefer “Torat Neviyum
Hamechuna Ele Hamitzvot” in his teshuva to the
Maharam Sofer) also brings the 3 oaths as
binding, the Yalkut Meam Loez Parshas
Vieschanan page 296.
Rav Dov bir Trievish the head of the Beis Din
Raba during Yimei HaGRA and also the author of
the Revid Zahav in Shir Chadash on shir
Hashirim brings the 3 oaths and states their
source is really from har Sinai that we sweared to
keep them. The Markevet Hamishna on
bishalach 2:6 states on the Midrash Rabba
Bereishis 36,13 brings the Oaths from Kesuvos
111a as binding, the Maskil el Dal in Chelek 4
Klall 3 Prat 4 Shaila 5 holds the 3 oaths from
Kesuvos 111a as binding and explains how
yiraim and tzadikim did not transgress this
aveirah and states how he “has no ruling and it
did not come on his data at all to suspect after
them with these since its Mitzvat hashem and
Divrei Neviem which was precious in their eyes
since they are sworn not shelo yimridu vshelo
ya’alu bchoma-not to rebel against and not to go
up to Eretz Yisrael with force, (also brings it down
in klall 10 prat 5 sheala 1), the Noda B'Yehuda in
Koveitz Kerem Shlomo Year 16 Chodesh Iyyar
5753 page 7 see there for exact words) has a
response in regard to rebelling against ones
country and says he transgresses the oath of
shelo yimridu and quotes from “hilchos kesubos”
on daf 111a the Oaths that we can not go up
bchoma and conquer Eretz Yisroel and we can
not rebel against the nations of the world., The
Noam Elimelech on Vayikra at the end of d”h “O
nefesh”- also brings down the Oath we can not
be docheik the keitz as binding, The Sefer
Chareidim on the Torah in Parshas Vayishlach
brings the prohibiton of the Oaths down, the
Akeidat Yitzchak in shaar 26, the Paytanim
including Rebbi Shlomo brebi yehuda in Yotzer
lyom 1 of Pesach in the piyut that starts “Or
yesha” and Rebbi Meshulam brebbi Klonimos in
 The Three Oaths - Sources
Yotzer lyom 2 of Pesach are even Mazkir the
Oath down as the Maaseh Oreg explains the
piyut all as the commands on Klal Yisroel not to
violate the oaths in kesubos, and the Mateh Levi
explains the piyutim with the binding prohibitions
of the oaths in Kesubos 111a, the Sefer Zechus
Avos by R’ Avraham Galanti warns us not to
violate the 3 oaths in kesuvos 111a, The Shearit
Yisroel in Siman 44 daf 118 by R Yisroel Zeav
Mintzburg quotes the 3 oaths in kesuvos 111a
and states the violation of them causes all the
Tzarot that befall klall yisroel and now.
R’ Tzadok HaKohen from Lublin in Pri Tzadik on
Parshat Vieschanan ot 1 brings the 3 oaths as
binding and asks why we even need the oaths of
shelo yaalu bchoma and shelo yimridu if we have
shelo yadchiku et hakeitz we should include them
and R’ Tzadok explains that we need those oaths
to teach us even if it would come to our heads
that we think we are ready for the Geuala we still
can go up bchoma to Eretz Yisroel becaue of the
oath of shelo yaalu bchoma and the oath of shelo
yimridu bumot haolam also teaches even if we
see the reshaat hagoyim that we would be fit to
be redeemed we still do not know if we are fit for
the Geuala. In the kuntres Shomer Emunim Rav
Shaul Barach Av Beis Din of Kassuei also
applies the oaths as it is prohibited to go to eretz
yisroel bchoma, Sefer Admorei Belz Chelek 3
page 245- the Sar Shalom Mibelz ZTZL quotes
his father that brings from the Maharal the
discussion of the Oaths that even if they want to
kill us binu kasha we still can not violate the
oaths-and he states “and from this it comes out
we must believe in hashem and trust in his
yeshua only.” And further on page 257 from Rav
Yissachor Dov miBelz that states “we must stay
in Galut under hanhagat hashem and the
Chasidim that were in the Dorot Rishonim
Viachronim never even thought to establish a
Melucha… since its against our Rabboteinu Zal.”
The Ramchal in Sefer Tefilot HaRamchal- tefilla
168 that speaks about his generation that
accepts the suffering of Galus since they keep
7
the Oaths as it says Hishbati etchem bnos
yerushalayim btzvaot. HaRav Shimshon Refael
Hirsch in Chorev page 435 also applies the 3
oaths, The Shirei Shlomo on Shir Hashirim 8:4
brings the oaths and says hashem made us
swear so that chas vishalom we should not think
to be oleh bchazaka Kichoma ..,the Shlah
Hakadesh in Torah Shebichtav Parshas
Mishpatim in drush lparshat shekalim says we
can not make a war because of the Oaths. Also
the Shlah on Maseches Taanis drush lparshat
matos also brings oath of dechikat hakeitz and
the Shlah in Torah shebchtav Parshas Shemos
Drush Viateh Titzaveh #1 brings the prohibition of
the Oaths, the Shem Mishmuel on Parshat
Vayigash also brings the prohibition of the Oaths.
The Shoel Umeishiv in Divrei Shaul parshat
shemos d”h habah quotes the prohibition of the 3
oaths in kesovos 111a and also quotes Harav
Hagaon Avraham and states he is maarich on
this issue in his sefer Tzror Hachaim in Cheleck
Keitz Hayamim, so that source is the Sefer Tzror
haChaim in Cheleck Keitz hayamim which was
nidpas in Amsterdam year 5580,the Mahari
Shportosh in Kitzur Tzizit Novel Tzvi daf 50b also
brinsg the prohibition of violating the 3 oaths, the
Radvaz in Migdal Dovid Shir hashirim #2 daf 22b
brings the prohibiton of the 3 oaths form hishbati
etchem and states the yisod that they are oaths
of the neshama, Rebbi Yehuda the son of the
Maharam Challavah in Imrei Shefer on Parshas
Vayishlach writes we have to make sure not to
be machzik in a milchama because that would
transgress the Oaths of hishbati etchem bnos
yerushalayim…, Harav Hagon Tzvi Hirsch
Laheron in Responsa Riva on Orach Chaim-
Yoreh Deah Siman 1 applies the 3 oaths
lihalacha stating we can not go up and conquer
eretz yisroel, The Arvei Nachal on Parshat bo
also brings the prohibition of the 3 oaths, the
Abarbenel in Yeshuos Meshicho Cheleck 1 daf
11b also brings down the prohibitions of the 3
oaths in Kesuvos 111a, the Rokeach on Shir
Hashirim 2:7 also warns not to violate these
oaths especially shelo yimridu, Reb Moshe
 The Three Oaths - Sources
miKassov in Leket Ani Moadim and in Leket Ani
Purim brings the oaths as binding in the Gemara
in Kesubos as binding lihalacha, the Kitzur
Alshich on Shir Hashirim 2:7 also brings all the
prohibitions of the oaths in the Gemara in
Kesubos 111a, Harav Yakov Emden in the Sefer
Migdal Oz at the end of “Aliyat ahava” ot 7, also
brings the prohibitions of the oaths and states
“praiseworthy are the believers and sons of
believers.. that do not go up aliya bchoma”.
The Responsa Avnei Nezer Siman 454 and 455
,the Responsa Minchat Elazor Chelek 5 siman 12
, the Responsa Yad Mordechai daf 120-121,The
Chazon Ish ZTZL also brings the 3 shvous
lihalacha which may be recorded in Mishkenos
Haroim p. 1195 and Uvdos Venhanhagos Lveis
Habrisk Chelek 4 pg. 309 and can be found
regarding the oath of dechat hakeitz in Zecher
Ldovid pg. 153.,Harav Elchonon Wassermen
holds the 3 shvuos lihalacha explicitly in Ikvesa
Dmeshicha at the end of seif 27 and also in
Yalkut Mamarim daf 54 applies the 3 oaths
lihalacha, The Responsa Minchat Yitzchak in
Chelek 10 Siman 10, the Kedushat Tzion on
Tanach pg 92, in Or liyesharim from the sefer
“Daas haRabbanim” there is a collection of
michtavim from the Gedolim of Poland and some
of these michtavim contain them holding of the 3
oaths as binding-HaRav Betzalel of Lubavitch in
(Michtav 10), the Av beis din of Krashov R’
Gavriel Zev Asaolaka in (Michtav 42) applies the
3 oaths lihalacha, Reb Shabtai Rappaport Av
Beis Din Pintshov in (Michtav applies oaths
lihalcha, Rav Simcha Bunim Av Beis Din in
Zachlin (who was a talmud chaviv of R’ Mendel
Kotzker) in (Michtav 12) also applies the Oaths
lihalacha.,Rav Yehuda Leib Rosh Av beis din of
Avisad in (Michtav 35) also applies oaths
lihalacha, Rav Yonasan Stief Ztzl in Limudei
hashem chelek 1 ot 310 daf 235 ,the Brisker Rav
ZTZL in Uvdos Vihanhagos lbeis habrisk chelek
4 pg. 187, Rav Moshe MiKassov ztzl in (leket Ani
Moadim), The Stiepler Rav ZTZL (Kehillos
Yaakov) in the sefer Karyana Deigarta # 205 in
8
chelek 4, Michtavim Umaamarim of Rav Elazar
Shach ZTZL Volume 1 letters I:12. Harav Yosef
Eliyahu Henkin ZTZL in Kisvei Rav Henkin vol 2
5719 #109, vol 2 in the haskomos, vol. 1 #206,
vol. 2 p. 103 also applies the 3 oaths lihalacha,
Vyoel Moshe (maamar shalosh shvuos), Igros
Divrei Emuna pg. 225 from Toldas Ahron Rebbe
who also brings the Oaths as binding.
2) Here is a list of all the authorities that hold
even with permission from the nations of the
world we still have to keep the oaths.- the
Ramban in Sefer HaGeulah at end of chapter 1
in the Chavel edition on pg. 274 and the Ramban
in his Sefer Haemunah Vihabitachon on pg. 369,
the Maharal in Netzach Yisroel siman 24 ,Rav
Yonason Eyebushitz (in Ahavas Yonason on
Parshas Vieschanan) and the Yefas Toar also
say clearly that even a peaceful, with-permission
ascent to EY=it is prohibited according to the
Oaths. The Yafeh Kol on Shir Hashirim raba 2:7,
the Bracha Meshuleshes in Chullin Perek 5
Mishna 3 (author of the Bnei Yissaschar), Rav
Bentzion Sternfeld the Rav of Bilsk (older
conetmporary of the Chofetz Chaim who's
haskama is printed in the Mishna Berura) in
Shaarei Tzion in Parshas Zachor siman 4, all
hold even with permission from the gentiles it is
still prohibited.
The Abarbanel writes in (Mashmia Yeshuah,
Mevaser 2, Nevuah that Hashem himself will
bring us back from galus to Eretz Yisroel which
will be permanent in contrast to the time of the
bayis sheini when the Jews returned to Eretz
Yisroel by the permission of the Persian emperor
Cyrus which was allowed b/c it was temporary.
The Akeidat Yitzchak in shaar 26, The Tzafnus
Paneach on daf 199 Mahadurat R' Avraham
Lieffer based on the Zeis Raanan on Yalkut
Remez 227, and furthermore the Magdanut
Avraham who is the Baal Kanfei Nisharim on shir
hashirim 8:4 all hold that even with permission it
is still prohibited to violate the oaths. the Av beis
din of Krashov R’ Gavriel Zev Asaolaka in Ohr
 The Three Oaths - Sources
leyisharim michtav 42 applies the Oaths and
holds even with permission it is still assur!, The
Responsa Levushei Mordechai Mahadura Tlitai
on Yoreh Deah Siman 49 brings the Oaths and
the Ahavoson Yonason that even with reshut it
still assur to violate the oaths thus subscribing to
his view. The Ksav Sofer in Chelek 1 daf 24 dibur
hamskil Viyafeh quotes from his father the
Chasam Sofer that by yitzias mitzraim they heard
them say “Tziu Maitanu”- Leave from us
(meaning they gave them permission) however
the am hashem strengthened their emuna and
they did not leave since they were commanded
on “al yeitza ish mipetach beito” and it was this
zechut that they were redeemed, so too in the
future during chevlei moshiach we will have this
nisayon and we must choose like they did.( ie.
we can not go even with permission from the
Goyim to bring the Geula.)” Rav Yerachmiel
Yishaya Mintzberg in Rishfei Aish page 23 says
even if all the nations of the world give us reshut
to go to eretz yisroel similar to the geula shniya
bimei ezra we still can not accept but the Geula
has to be from the hands of the redeemer himself
like it was in yeztias mitzrayim, The Responsa
Yad Mordechai daf 120-121 applies the oaths
lihalacha even with reshut from goyim, the
Responsa Minchat Elazor Chelek 5 siman 12,
Harav Yirmiyahu Cohen also implies from the
Rashbash in Siman 2 and the Peas Hashulchan
in Hilchos Eretz Yisroel Siman 1 seif 3 in the
book “In the footsteps of the flock” on page 216
that even with permission its still assur to violate
the oaths. He implies it since they hold that the
oaths are a reason to say that the mitzvah of
yishuv eretz yisroel must not be obligatory since
if it was then all Jews would go there and this
would be a violation of the oath. But why couldn’t
they have answered simply that the oath forbids
taking the land by force, but if the ruling power
gives permission for any or all Jews to immigrate,
they are obligated to come? Evidently it was
obvious to them that the oath forbids any mass
immigration even with permission from a ruling
power., (Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk also the
9
author of the Ohr Sameach) in Meshech
Chochma on parshas Vayechi 50:24 brings down
that which the oaths prohibit not to go up to eretz
yisroel bchoma and says this is a “limud ldorot”
that we should not go up bchoma and not like the
bnei Ephraim did before the keitz and states only
until a Navi from hashem comes and tells us we
can go! (This may imply that only if a Navi
Hashem tells us we can go, but not reshus from
the umos).
Also important to note is not only the fact that the
Shevuos are quoted l'maaseh in Chazal,
Rishonim and Achronim and have been used
throughout the ages, but also that there has been
nobody who disagreed with them or their binding
nature until the Zionists came around. Important
to note in this context is that even the rabbonim
who the religious zionists consider their
forerunners, recognized the binding nature of the
oaths. When R. Zvi Hersh Kalisher defended his
movement to make settlements in EY, he insisted
that he would never think of doing so if it means
antagonizing the ruling powers of the land, as
that would constitute a violation of the Shevuos.
He said that others who have tried an "aliyah"
idea earlier, who came illegally using force were
nichshal and bordered on violating the shevuos -
but he is not like them (writings, p.204). Also R.
Alexander Moshe Lapidos defends the colonist
movement by saying that they would never
violate the oaths by taking the land form the turks
by "sword and bow" nor do they have any plans
of creating a government there. (Shivas Tzion
1:p.35)