ZIONISM / OATHS-----only decrees defense

-
Reason # 13 – The Oaths are decrees, not prohibitions

This is “based’ on a Maharal (Netzch Yisroel 24). After he quotes the Oaths as well as the consequences of the Jews violating them (“If you fulfill the Oaths, it is good; if nor, I will allow your flesh to be hunted down in the fields like game and cattle”) explains the reason for the Oaths. He says that since Golus is an unnatural state, and all unnatural states have natural resistance, therefore, in order to protect the integrity of the Golus, Hashem instituted the Oaths. The Maharal refers to the Oaths, besides as Oaths, as “gezeiros” too. Elsewhere, the Maharal mentions the Oaths and states “Oaths, that is, decrees.”

Now Rabbi Aviner claims that since the Maharal refers to the Oaths as decrees, that shows they are not binding on us. It’s just that Hashem decreed that things will be this way, but it doesn’t mean that we can’t ignore the decree and try to do differently. If we do ignore the decree and successfully violate the Oath, there would be nothing wrong with that.

His diyuk is not a diyuk – the language of the Maharal indicates no such thing – and his conclusions is absurd. The idea that the Maharal holds the Oaths are some kind of natural force or a curse or a gezeirah (I have seen various strains of this in various Zionist teachings) is disproved with no effort at all.

As far as his “diyuk”, the fact that the Maharal refers to the Oaths as “gezeiros” does not indicate at all that they are not Halachos. What the Maharal means when he refers to the Oaths as gezeiros is the same as what we mean when we say “chazal made a gezeira”. Gezeira is used to mean Halachic decree as well as natural law. There are other Maharals that mention Gezeiros where this is clear. The Maharal in Chidushei Agados in Erachin writes: “Know that Tzoraas is fitting for those who distance themselves from reality, and therefore the Torah was gozer on him that he should sit alone separated from his community”. Would Rabbi Aviner say that this, too, is not Halachic? He read this entire idea into a diyuk that says nothing of the kind. Nothing even close.

The Maharal’ intent by referring to the Oaths as Gezeiros besides as Oaths is because usually, Oaths are self-motivated. A person makes an Oath prohibiting or requiring something of himself. However, these Oaths were not our choice – they were determined and done by Hashem. In that sense, they are Gezeiros. It has nothing to do with laws of nature as opposed to Halachic obligations. Rather, it has to do with a something self-imposed versus decreed by Hashem.

And regarding his “conclusion”, that the Oaths a re merely natural laws, and there is therefore no problem violating them, obviously that is not so, because this “decree,” as opposed to “natural law” decrees, comes complete with a list of with problems that happen to you if you violate them: “If you fulfill the oaths, it is good; if not, I will allow you to be hunted down like game in the field.” Not only is this in the Gemora itself, but it is quoted in the very Mahral that Rabbi Aviner is discussing. And not only is it quoted in that Maharal, it is actually the very dibur hamaschil of the statement that Rabbi Aviner is dealing with. That’s right – the Maharal makes this comment not on the Oaths themselves, but on the consequences of the Oaths. “If you fulfill the Oaths, it is good; if not, I will allow you to be hunted etc. – The explanation of this idea is that the Golus is an unnatural state etc.”

But does not end there. That same Maharal, just a few lines later, in that very same paragraph after he refers to the Oaths as “gezeiros”, says, “Even if the nations want to kill the Jews with torture” they may not violate the Oaths.

Clearly, then, (a) it is possible to violate the Oaths, and (b) if we do, the consequences will be mass destruction, and (c) we are warned not to violate the Oaths even under threat of torturous death.

That wasn’t difficult at all. Pretty much a-b-c and in plain sight of anybody learning the sugya or reading the Maharal that he refers to.