The Land I Will Show You, sec. 2, chapter 3 (pt. 1)
The Oaths as Warning against Danger
3: The Oaths as Warning against Danger
(For the previous chapter of “The Land I Will Show You, click here. For the ToC, click here.)
The Rambam treats of these oaths in the Letter to Yemen; from his words we can understand the true meaning of the oaths. This is what he says:
When Solomon, of blessed memory, knew through the holy spirit that the prolonged duration of the exile would incite this nation to attempt to bestir before the appointed time, and as a consequence they would perish and meet with great disaster, he admonished to be careful and adjured them in metaphorical language to desist, as we read, "I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem" etc. Now, brethren and friends, abide by the oath, and stir not up love until it please.[1]
Since the nation will attempt bestir before the proper time, and since they will perish due to this attempt – therefore, Solomon warned the nation against these actions, and adjured them, in metaphorical language. The issue is not a sin against Heaven and a punishment for that sin, but rather an absolutely natural cause and effect. Reality decreed that people would die through making attempts at an inappropriate time, and that is what gave rise to Solomon’s warning; not the reverse. The words of Solomon and his oath serve as a severe expression of warning not from sin, but from endangering life.
The source of Rambam’s words is clear. The oaths were said, according to one opinion, “corresponding to the four generations that sought to accelerate the end of days and failed.” There is no basis to warn against transgressing a prohibition in the same number of times that they will transgress it in the future. It is therefore clear that the oaths are, fundamentally, a prediction and prophecy that Solomon foresaw through his holy spirit, not a warning against transgressing a prohibition. The wisest of all men knew in advance that the nation would attempt to bestir before the right time, and, corresponding to these four events foreseen in the history of the nation, he warned in advance and admonished them to be careful.
At the root of the severity of the oaths is a simple reality: The position of the unique nation among the other nations is not stable. When the Kingdom of Priests bestirs to retrieve its select status, if it doesn’t succeed – absolute disaster will follow, since the other nations will not take its actions kindly. All messianic activism is very dangerous, as it provokes hatred from the nations.
This is Rambam’s understanding of this subject, and there can be found no disputer against him among all of the Rishonim.[2] This understanding explains the great severity well – as there is nothing more severe than endangering life, and this understanding solves all difficulties in the Talmudic discussion of this subject, and many proofs corroborate it.
First to the Talmudic discussion. The main difficulty with the discussion – besides for the very idea of oaths prohibiting doing important mitzvahs – is understanding the connection between the oaths and the opinion of Rav Yehuda who forbade ascent from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. Firstly, why were the oaths brought as a support for the opinion of Rav Yehuda that forbids ascent from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael and not as the actual source of the prohibition? The discussion opens with a prohibition that Rav Yehuda forbade to ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, a prohibition of a positive commandment from the words of the prophets; this prohibition Rav Yehuda derived from what it says “They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that I recall them”; only after the rebuttal (“That verse is written about the Temple service vessels”) was the subject of the oaths raised in order to buttress Rav Yehuda’s opinion. This implies that the very prohibition was derived by Rav Yehuda from “They shall be taken to Babylonia,” as a positive commandment from the words of the prophets, and not as an oath; and in this way the statement was brought in two other places in the Talmud: “Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive mitzvah, as it is stated: ‘They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain,’”[3] with no mention of the oaths. This implies that the oaths support his opinion but are not the source of his opinion. However, this understanding raises a difficulty, as the main source – “They shall be taken to Babylonia” – was rejected, and seemingly only the oaths alone remain. Furthermore, if the oaths are the source for Rav Yehuda’s opinion, why did he forbid ascent to Eretz Yisrael only from Babylonia? What is the unique connection between the oaths and Babylonia?[4]
These problems are solved in a simple way according to the opinion of Rambam in the Letter to Yemen, which also emerges from his words in Mishneh Torah. The first point is that in truth – as is in fact implied in the Talmudic discussion – “They shall be taken to Babylonia” does in fact serve as a source not to leave the land of Babylonia. Rambam wrote so explicitly: “Just as it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael to outside of it, so is it forbidden to leave Babylonia to other lands, as is written ‘They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain.’”[5] This law is based on what is brought in the Gemara: “Said Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: ‘Just as it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael to outside of it, so is it forbidden to leave Babylonia to other lands.’”[6] According to Rambam, the prohibition is derived from the verse “They shall be taken to Babylonia.” Although it is clear that the verse is discussing the service vessels, as is written explicitly: “For thus said Hashem Tzevaos concerning the columns… and the rest of the vessels remaining in this city, which King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia did not take when he exiled Yechoniah son of Yehoiakim, king of Judah, from Jerusalem to Babylonia… so said Hashem… concerning the vessels remaining… They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until I take note of them, declares Hashem, and I will bring them up and restore them to this place” (Jeremiah 27:19-22), nonetheless, from the very fact that Babylonia was destined by the prophet’s mouth to serve as the place for the utensils of Hashem’s house forever, until they are redeemed from there – from this itself it emerges that Babylonia is the appropriate place for the nation of Hashem to live in, so as not to abandon the utensils of Hashem’s house deposited there until the time of the end. Just as it is forbidden to leave Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia – since Eretz Yisrael is special and sanctified for the Children of Israel, so is it forbidden to leave Babylonia to other lands – since Babylonia is special and sanctified for the Children of Israel, being the place where Hashem deposited His utensils.[7]
The idea that the land of Babylonia is a special place for the nation of Israel to reside in its exile is often repeated in the words of Chazal, and we will treat of it again.[8] As we shall see, actually the nation of Israel was supposed to remain there, safe and sound, until the coming of the Messiah. Their residence in their exile in Babylonia, in a state of longing for the redemption, was considered equivalent to residence in Eretz Yisrael to which they were longing to return. This is the intention in what they said: “Whoever resides in Babylonia is as if he resides in Eretz Yisrael, as it says: ‘To Zion escape, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylonia’ (Zechariah 2:11). Said Abaye: ‘We have a tradition that Babylonia won’t see the birth pangs of the Messiah.’”[9] How did they derive from the verse “To Zion escape, you who dwell with the daughter of Babylonia” that one who resides in Babylonia is as if he resides in Eretz Yisrael? It is because the nation of Israel in Babylonia is secure from decrees and annihilation, protected until the time of the redemption when it will escape to Zion without experiencing the birth pangs of the Messiah. And since the nation is in a special place, in which it is protected until its return to Zion, it is as if it resides in Zion. This is what emerges from the words of the midrash on the virtues of Babylonia and its yeshivas: “Those two yeshivas didn’t experience captivity nor annihilation nor plunder, neither Rome nor Greece ruled over them, and they didn’t decree annihilation against them, and in the days of Messiah they won’t experience the birth pangs of the Messiah, as it says ‘To Zion escape’ – from Rome and Greece and their decrees… my Shechinah hasn’t budged from you, ‘You will come to Babylonia; there you shall be saved, there shall Hashem redeem you from the clutch of your enemies’ (Micah 4:10), to teach you that the redemption will begin from there, from there they will ascend to Jerusalem.”[10] Babylonia is the place that is secure from the decrees of the nations until the time of the redemption, from it they are guaranteed to escape to Zion and be saved from the birth pangs of the Messiah, and therefore, one who resides in it is as if he resides in Eretz Yisrael.[11]
This is all based on the prophet’s prediction about the vessels of Hashem’s house. The Holy One, blessed be He, deposited the vessels of His house in Babylonia until the day that He will take note of them, and along with this longed-for remembrance will also be remembered the faithful among Israel who remained in this special land together with the Shechinah and the temple vessels, awaiting to return to Zion with the return of the Shechinah.
Thus, we have learned that Babylonia is a special land that it is forbidden to leave, since it is the dedicated place for the vessels of Hashem and His Shechinah. Is it forbidden, due to this, to ascend from it to Eretz Yisrael? That is Rav Yehuda’s opinion, but only in combination with the oaths. The reason is that leaving Babylonia and the vessels of Hashem’s temple that are deposited there is appropriate only in the event that residing in Babylonia is being replaced with a better residence, with a closeness to the Shechinah that cannot be achieved in Babylonia. There are two possibilities when a person ascends to Eretz Yisrael: Either the person is ascending because he is seeking the special closeness to God that can be achieved in Eretz Yisrael – as Rabbi Yosi said: “To see the face of the Shechinah in this world”[12] – or he is ascending for other reasons. To this said Rav Yehuda: Either way! One who does not intend to achieve the special closeness to God that can be achieved in Eretz Yisrael, must remain in Babylonia, with the proper relationship to God that is appropriate in exile: to reside in the same place as His vessels, longing for redemption. This ruling he derived from “They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain.” And if the person does indeed desire to ascend in order to achieve a high level of closeness to God – that is already bordering on the danger of the oaths. For such a person is awakening, through his actions, the uniqueness of Eretz Yisrael and the uniqueness of the Children of Israel, and that is considered provoking the nations and threatens lives.
As is clear in the Talmudic discussion, Amoraim disagree about the point that an individual shouldn’t ascend to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia by virtue of the oaths. According to Rav Yehudah, even an individual – who is ascending for the sake of the holiness of Eretz Yisrael, which exceeds that of Babylonia – is forbidden to do so by virtue of the oath. Any activity associated with a hint of the idea of redemption and seeing the face of the Shechinah, is forbidden due to danger. Reb Zeira, on the other hand, forbade only ascending en masse, the return of the nation to its land, something which involves a high likelihood of danger.[13]
With this, all is clear. Rav Yehuda forbade ascent only from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, based on the positive commandment derived from a verse. However, “That verse is written about the Temple service vessels.” Meaning, since the verse doesn’t command explicitly that the Children of Israel should remain in Babylonia, and only predicts that the vessels will remain there, therefore the mitzvah on a person is not absolute. It is indeed appropriate for the Children of Israel to remain in Babylonia along with the vessels, but there is no prohibition to ascend to the holy Eretz Yisrael to see the face of the Shechinah. “And how does Rav Yehuda respond? Another verse is written: ‘I adjure you.’” An aliyah with this spiritual objective is considered dangerous, whether from Babylonia or from other lands, and this kind of aliyah is not under discussion at all, but rather a usual kind of aliyah – and that is prohibited due to the prophet’s prediction that the vessels will remain.
The whole Talmudic discussion is clear in light of the understanding of the oaths as expression of danger.
Against this background, another detail about the story of Reb Zeira’s ascent to Eretz Yisrael becomes understandable. Reb Zeira didn’t ascend to Eretz Yisrael until he received a sign from heaven that he is pure from sin. So they said: “If a person sees barley in a dream, his sins have left him, as it says ‘And your sin shall leave and your offense shall be atoned’ (Isaiah 6:7). Said Reb Zeira: ‘I didn’t ascend from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael until I saw barley in a dream.’”[14] Why did Reb Zeira wait to ascend to Eretz Yisrael until it became clear to him that he was pure from sin? In light of the above, it is simple: Reb Zeira wouldn’t dare to ascend, in opposition to the position of his rebbe that forbids leaving Babylonia, until it would become clear to him that he would achieve the goal of his ascent: a closeness to God superior to his situation in Babylonia, and for that, absolute purity from sin is necessary. Otherwise, he should remain in the Babylonian exile together with the vessels of Hashem’s house. For the land of exile is appropriate for someone who has sins, as the exile itself is the result of the sins due to which we were exiled from our land, as opposed to residence in Eretz Yisrael about which it is said: “Whoever resides in Eretz Yisrael remains free from sin.”[15]
This is the correct understanding of the subject of the three oaths: They express great danger, due to which complete residence in Eretz Yisrael and the rebuilding of the temple are forbidden. In this subject, too, Rabbi Yerucham Yehudah Leib Perlman defined the matter clearly, in the continuation of his statement quoted earlier (at the end of sec. 1) regarding the mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael:
However, this mitzvah is different than all other mitzvahs; the obligation of all the mitzvahs is personal and absolute, meaning that every single individual Jew is obligated to fulfill and do it, without conditions or limitations, while this mitzvah of residing in Eretz Yisrael – its obligation is general and limited, meaning that the obligation is only on the nation as a whole, and is has limits: Chazal foresaw, through their holy spirit, that if this mitzvah is given over to everyone and instituted as an obligation on every individual, then the nation will breach the bounds and push to ascend without timing and consideration, and from the corners of the earth thousands of people would stream to it, and with this they would be doing two evils, firstly that by ascending in disarray, without order, without a reliable source for their livelihood and sustenance, each man will make pressure on the other, and there will be much chaos and suffering, and the pressures of poverty will make them lose their minds and transgress the mind of their Creator, and they will defile the holiness of the place, and destroy the civilization, and they will strip the honor of the land from it, and they will lose their gain and it would be much disgrace and anger. Secondly, since movements and awakenings such as these could bring a spirit of crime and rebellion among the people against the kings and ministers of the lands, who control them, as their inclination and haste will incite them to arise and throw off the yoke, to loosen the rule of law and justice and the law of the land and leave with free spirit and might, and then, besides for the fact that with this they will forget to be thankful and appreciative toward their masters and good ministers… furthermore, the hearts of the kings and ministers will turn against them due to their angering them and they will remove their protection from them, and then Jacob will be trampled, Israel plundered… and they will bring about – Heaven forbid! – destruction to the remnant… that is why Chazal notified us that the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel not to ascend as a wall (Rashi explains: together) and that they shouldn’t rebel against the nations of the world, which, as above, go together, and with this they weakened the force of the mitzvah and detracted from its quantity due to the needs of the time, in the method of “they annulled your Torah because it was a time to act” (Berachos 54a). However, correspondingly, they aggrandized it and broadened its quality with all the praises and superlatives that they recounted about it, and thus they rejected it with the left hand and brought it closer with the right hand.
As great as the mitzvah is, so great are its ramifications, and therefore it is subject to very serious considerations. One should not fulfill this mitzvah by risking lives. Although this is completely clear, I will not refrain from presenting more clear proofs to this point, from which the idea of the oaths will become clearer.
The Hebrew book is available for purchase from me directly, in Judaica stores, and online, here:
[1] Letter to Yemen, New York 1952, pg. 104, ibn Hisdai translation. The original Judeo-Arabic reads:
ולמא עלם שלמה ע"ס ברוח הקדש אן הד'ה אלמלה ענד נשבתהא פי אלגלות סתרום אלחרכה פי גיר אלוקת אלד'י ינבני, ויהלכוא בד'לך ותלחקהם אלשדאיד – חד'ר מן ד'לך, וחלף עליה עלי ג'הה אלמת'ל, וקאל 'השבעתי אתכם בנות ירושלם וגו'.' ואנתם יא אכ'ותנא ואחבאבנא, אלתזמוא ימינה, ולא תעירו את האהבה עד שתחפץ
[2] Note: The term “Rishonim” refers to the Torah scholars preceding the 16th century, whose authority is generally recognized as unchallengeable by later Torah scholars.
[3] Berachos 24b; Shabbos 41a.
[4] These problems have been treated of in many books; the solution that appears here seems to me to be more direct, simple and self-evident than all that has been said about this matter.
[5] Laws of Kings, 5:12.
[6] Kesubos 111a.
[7] With this is answered what the “Lechem Mishneh” asks on Rambam’s opinion that the prohibition on leaving Babylonia is derived from a verse, from the expression of the Gemara: “Just as it is forbidden to leave from Eretz Yisrael,” and from what they said in the Gemara: “Whoever lives in Babylonia is as if he lives in Eretz Yisrael” (Kesubos 111a) – for isn’t it, according to Rambam, only a prohibition derived from a verse? See what he says in Laws of Kings, 5:12. But in fact what is derived from the verse is this itself that there is an advantage to the land of Babylonia, and therefore it is similar to Eretz Yisrael and it is forbidden to leave it, and one who lives in it is as if he lives in Eretz Yisrael.
[8] See Pesachim 87b: “The Holy One, blessed be He, knew… therefore, He exiled them to Babylonia” etc.; Megillah 29a: “They exiled to Babylonia and the Shechinah was with them… The synagogues and study halls of Babylonia will eventually be established in Eretz Yisrael.” The matter will be treated of in section 4, chapter 6.
[9] Kesubos 111a.
[10] Midrash Tanchuma, Noah 3.
[11] In fact, this didn’t occur – the Children of Israel didn’t ascend from Babylonia to Jerusalem; this point is treated of in section 5, chapter 3.
[12] Midrash Tehillim 105, 1: Rabbi Yosi son of Chalafta said to his son, Rabbi Yishmael: “Do you want to see the face of the Shechinah in this world? Study Torah in Eretz Yisrael.”
[13] Based on what will be explained in section 3, chapter 7, that every communal aliyah is expected to bring about spiritual advance, it is obvious that a communal aliyah is automatically considered a dangerous action that can arouse the idea of redemption and therefore, along with it, also the resentment of the nations.
[14] Berachos 57a.
[15] Kesubos 111a.