The Three Oaths
Question
Concerning the debate between a violation of ‘The Three Oaths’ and Ramban's & Zionist thought of repossessing the land as a mitzvah, (even involving military or political force) being justified as a fulfillment of divine commandment (Numbers 33:50-56). The divine commandment of Numbers 33:50-56 has to do with the Israelites taking the land the first time. After the Diaspora, reestablishment of a Jewish state before the coming of the Messiah violates 'The Three Oaths, as it constitutes rebellion against divine will. The above appears clear to understand. Is the debate more of a complex Halachic or theological issue? Thank You!
Answer
Shalom!
Thank you for your question.
You are referring to a Talmudic passage in Ketubot 110 known as “The Three Oaths.”
Based on several verses from the book of “Song of Songs” it is taught that G-d imposed three oaths upon the world. Two of these oaths were relevant to Jews and one of them was relevant to the non-Jews of the world. The Jewish side of the oaths was that the Jewish people would not "ascend as a wall" to the reinhabit the Land of Israel nor would the Jewish people "rebel against the nations of the world." The non-Jews of the world were sworn not to "subjugate the Jews excessively."
Most orthodox Jews rule that the passage is not legally binding nowadays for a variety of reasons, and permit (or at least tolerate) a Jewish state in the Land of Israel along with mass immigration to it.