Volume 40 Number 26
Produced: Tue Jul 29 5:02:09 US/Eastern 2003
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
3 shavuot
[Isaac A Zlochower]
Mar Zutra's Rebellion (3)
[<Moesch2@...>, Binyomin Segal, Aryeh Levine]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:53:13 -0400
Subject: 3 shavuot
The Gemara near the end of T.B. Ketubot (111a) cites a statement by the
early Amora, Rabbi Yosi b' Chanina, that the 3 times shavua is mentioned
in Shir Hashirim alludes to 3 shavuot. The first is that Jews shall not
go up (into Israel) "on the wall" (by conquest) [R' Ya'akov Emden
transforms the bet in ba'choma into a kaf (ka'choma), meaning mass
immigration]. The second is that the Jews shall not rebel against the
nations. The third is that the nations shall not oppress or enslave the
Jews overly. This citation has been used in the past to discourage mass
Jewish immigration to the Holy Land, and to fulminate against the
establishment of an independent Jewish state. The 3 shavuot argument is
still the ostensible basis for those who consider the Jewish state to be
illegitimate. Clearly, these circles treat the 3 shavuot very
seriously.
R' Aryeh Levine in 40:20 asks, how do such types deal with the
unsuccessful rebellion of the Rosh Galuta (exilarch), Mar Zutra, against
the Persian rule in Bavel. He clarifies his choice of this historical
incident by stating that earlier instances of rebellion such as the Bar
Kochba rebellion that was promoted by Rabbe Akiva came before the 3
shavuot was established as halacha. R' Aryeh would be on more solid
ground if he could establish that the Mar Zutra rebellion was supported
by the sages of that time. Even assuming such support, one could answer
that the 3 shavuot are mutually dependent, that is, if the nations
violate their oath then the Jews are no longer bound by the others. He
mentions that the regime was particularly oppressive to Jewish life and
worship. Thus the Persians violated the third oath, and the oppressed
Jews were now free to ameliorate their desperate situation by rebellion.
The same reasoning would apply to the Jews in Palestine after the
Holocaust. Here the nations violated their oath in a particularly
serious way by endeavoring to annihilate European Jewry - or at least
allowing it to happen. Britain, it should be recalled, ruled Palestine
and forbade immigration of the desperate Jews trying to escape death.
Then the Jews there should no longer be bound by their oath, either. Of
course, the anti-Zionist circles, do not see it that way. They would
seem to hold that our oath is unconditional. Then R' Aryeh's question
would still remain, assuming that the Rabbinic leaders of the time
supported the Mar Zutra rebellion.
One could raise a more serious objection to the attempted
delegitimization of Israel via the 3 shavuot argument. The Jewish
state, it must be recalled, was authorized by majority vote of the
nations in the U.N. Pronouncing an independent state was therefore not
an act of rebellion against the nations - even if it was strongly
opposed by the neighboring states. Nor did the Jewish state embark on a
war of conquest in possible violation of the first oath. Rather, it was
attacked by both internal and external Arab forces, and was surely
entitled to defend itself. If it gained territory by the end of the
conflict, such gains were merely the spoils of a just war of defence.
The same could be said for the territorial gains in the '67 war.
Yitzchok Zlochower
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Moesch2@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 00:47:45 EDT
Subject: Re: Mar Zutra's Rebellion
Aryeh Levine wrote:
>The reason Mar Zutra's rebellion in particular is challenging to the 3
>shvu'ot is because it happened after the discussion recorded in the
>gemara. The shvu'ot are said in the name of Rabbi Yosi Bar Chanina, an
>Amora who was born about a century before Mar Zutra. Presumably, those
>who hold that the shvu'ot are halachikly binding must make exceptions
>for all of the rebellions and independence and aliyah that took place in
>the Second Commonwealth, since otherwise it would not make sense why
>Rabbi Akiva supported Bar Kokhba's rebellion, or why Reish Lakish
>criticizes the bavlim for not making aliyah en masse in the time of Ezra
>(Yoma 9b). There are plenty other examples where the second shivat
>tzion is looked upon favorably, and there were many other small
>rebellions besides the Great Rebellion and Bar Kokhba's, such as the
>Diaspora Rebellion around 115 C.E.
>Therefore, those who hold of the 3 Shvuot must say that they did not
>apply until the galut, the most likely cutoff period being the time when
>they were said by Rabbi Yosi Bar Chanina. That is why the rebellion of
>Mar Zutra, and no other event (to my knowledge) might be a challenge to
>those opinions. I look forward to hearing possible answers.
The oaths are based on the verses in Shir Hashirim. They would therefore
apply even before the time of Rabbi Yosi Bar Chanina. However, they only
apply during the exile. The reason Rabbi Akiva supported Bar Kokhba's
rebellion is because he thought that he was Moshiach as is stated in the
Midrash on Aicho second Chapter and in Rambam chapter 11 of Laws of
kings. Rambam writes that one of the requirements of Moshiach is to
fight the "Wars of Hashem," so if he was in fact Moshiach there would
obviously be no prohibition. In actuality, the Midrash on Shir Hashirim
Chapter 2 states that there were four generations that transgressed the
oath(s) and one of them is the generation of Bar Kokhba. The Satmar
Rebbe explains that since in fact he was not intended to be the
Moshiach, it was therefore a transgression of the oaths.
Regarding the Aliya in the time of Koresh and Ezra, this was in
accordance with the prophecy of Yirmiyahu Chapter 29 and Daniel Chapter
9 which say that the Babylonian exile will last for Seventy years. It
was also the fulfillment of a prophecy regarding Koresh in Yeshayohu
Chapter 44. All this is mentioned by Rashi in the beginning of the Book
of Ezra. It is interesting that the Ramban in his Sefer on Giulah
writes that the Ten Tribes did not make Aliyah either because they did
not receive permission from Koresh or if they did, they knew that the
prophecy of the 70 years only applied to the Babylonian exiles, not to
them. Consequently, they did not want to violate the (oath of) "Pushing
of the End of Days."
Regarding the rebellion of Mar Zutra is it found in any of the Rabbinic
literature so I can research it further? Perhaps one can justify if we
say that during a time of Shmad(religious persecution) it is justified
to rebel against the wicked government in order to keep the Mitzvos. It
is well known that the "Chofetz Chaim" regretted that he did not urge
the Jews to rebel against the Communist Government in Russia, comparing
it to the rebellion of the Maccabees. However, I don't know if the
Satmar Rebbe agreed with that view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Binyomin Segal <bsegal@...>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:20:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Mar Zutra's Rebellion
Aryeh Levine asks about Mar Zutra's rebellion and how it is perceived by
those who take the shalosh shvuos in a halachik context. It has been
many years since I carefully studied the Satmar Rav z'l's maamer on the
shalosh shvuos, but perhaps I can shed some light on the question.
My recollection - which is just that, my recollection - is mostly about
the shvuos "shelo yaalu b'choma" (that we not go up to Israel like a
wall) and "shelo yirchku es haketz" (lit that we not push off the
redemption). The shvua that Aryeh mentions does not get as much "play"
in the seforim (at least as far as I recall). My overall impression is
that they were seen as naturally related in ways I will explain. I do
seem to recall that the Satmar Rav dealt specifically with this shvua,
but I don't recall the details.
First off, Aryeh makes an assumption in his question that is simply not
correct:
> The reason Mar Zutra's rebellion in particular is challenging to the 3
> shvu'ot is because it happened after the discussion recorded in the
> gemara. The shvu'ot are said in the name of Rabbi Yosi Bar Chanina, an
> Amora who was born about a century before Mar Zutra. Presumably, those
> who hold that the shvu'ot are halachikly binding must make exceptions
> for all of the rebellions and independence and aliyah that took place in
> the Second Commonwealth, since otherwise it would not make sense why
> Rabbi Akiva supported Bar Kokhba's rebellion, or why Reish Lakish
> critisizes the bavlim for not making aliyah en masse in the time of Ezra
> (Yoma 9b). There are plenty other examples where the second shivat
> tzion is looked upon favorably, and there were many other small
> rebellions besides the Great Rebellion and Bar Kokhba's, such as the
> Diaspora Rebellion around 115 C.E.
>
> Therefore, those who hold of the 3 Shvuot must say that they did not
> apply until the galut, the most likely cutoff period being the time when
> they were said by Rabbi Yosi Bar Chanina. That is why the rebellion of
> Mar Zutra, and no other event (to my knowledge) might be a challenge to
> those opinions. I look forward to hearing possible answers,
In fact, the Satmar Rav demonstrates that the shvuos go as far back as
the Egyptian exile! The medrash (rabbah on shir hashirim 2:7) mentions
that Bnei Ephraim tried to leave Egypt early. The Satmar Rav (actually
the medrash itself) blames their failure and death on the fact that they
violated the shvuos.
The return after galus bavel is permitted (as I recall) essentially
because it was not "bchoma" (literally like a wall, with force) in that
they returned with the permission of the secular government. This is
addressed (again, as I vaguely recall) by the Ramban in his Sefer
HaGeulah. (Having looked it up again in the Satmar Rav's sefer, I find I
misrepresented him. In fact, the reason it was permitted according to
the Satmar Rav was that it was "al pi navi". That is that it was the
time of redemption. In fact, he explains that many did not return to
Israel because the nevuah did not apply to all the Jewish people.)
To understand the issues of Rebbe Akiva and Mar Zutra, it is important
to understand the halachik parameters of the shvuos, at least in a
general sense. Without going into great detail, essentially the Satmar
Rav saw the shvuos as part of the belief in the coming of the Messiah.
That is, we are not allowed to take the redemption into our own hands,
but rather we are required to wait for the Messiah. This explains a
number of details in his understainding. First off, it explains why the
shvuos are not mentioned explicitly in the halachik codes (especially
the Rambam). Further, it explains why he saw the shvuos as yaharog v'al
yaavor (allow yourself to be killed rather than violate).
I don't recall that the Satmar Rav explicitly addresses either Rebe
Akiva or Mar Zutra, but I believe that with this understanding, the
actions of both are clear. Rebbe Akiva believed that Bar Kochba was the
Messiah, as such, it was the time of redemption, and he believed he was
authorized to act as he did. (Ok, I just opened up my copy of Maamar
Shalosh Shvuos, and the Satmar Rav does indeed explicitly address Rebbe
Akiva's actions in siman 52.)
Mar Zutra's rebellion on the other hand, was not an act of redemption at
all in the Jewish sense. There was (as far as I know) no attempt to
return to the land of Israel. Simply setting up a government of Jews is
not prohibited. Protecting oneself from attack is not prohibited. It is
only when those motives take on a messianic flavor (ie they are directed
toward establishing a state in the land of Israel) that these things are
prohibited.
I recognize that the shvua Aryeh refers to "shelo yimridu" (not to
rebel) seems to explicitly prohibit Mar Zutra's actions. And as I said,
it has been a long time since I carefully learned through the maamar. I
seem to recall that the Satmar Rav explicitly explains this shvuah, but
I can not seem to find it now. (It might be in one of his other
seforim.)
We are left with two points. One, the Satmar Rav did explicitly deal
with many of the Jewish rebellions in history. In fact, he often used
them as proof of his contentions in one way or another. Two, the Satmar
Rav (as far as I recall, and can find now) does not explicitly address
the shvua of "shelo yimridu" and the rebellion of Mar Zutra. His failure
to address the shvua is, I think, motivated by his focus. He was talking
about entering the land of Israel and creating a State. His failure to
address the Mar Zutra rebellion MAY have been one of approach. What
non-secular sources mention this revolt? Without a traditional Jewish
source, the Satmar Rav was unlikely to deal with the event.
Hope this sheds some light on the question,
binyomin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <aryehdl@...> (Aryeh Levine)
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 16:26:06 -0400
Subject: Mar Zutra's Rebellion
It has come to my attention that the Mar Zutra in question, at least
according to Rabbi Berel Wein, was _not_ the amora Mar Zutra, but rather
a different Mar Zutra who was the Reish Galuta. If this is indeed the
case, there is much less of a question from his rebellion, since the not
every Reish Galuta necassarily acted k'halacha in all aspects of their
reign. I should have researched it more before posing the question.
Kol Tuv,
Aryeh Levine
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 40 Issue 26
