Settlers are RODFIM

@Hakatan,
He was not a Gadol. As the post title states, he is a Rodef.

@Hakatan,

A) Not ONE gadol holds that the 3 oaths are in effect. NOT one!!! Anyone with Daas understands this.

1) the 3 oaths is a nice Medrish. It is not mentioned anywhere in Navi.
2) it was ONLY during the first churban. There were NO Oaths at the second.

Just use your Daas. Name ANYONE that disagrees and then refer back to my first point.

AAQ:
“ideally recognizing what HKB”H has given us (by saying the prayers for the State and IDF per halacha…”
LOL. As per halacha? G-d “gave us” the Holocaust, too. Jews fooled by the Zionist idol prayed for that “State” thinking it would be a good thing, so Hashem answered their prayers and gave it to them instead of bringing Mashiach. But, no, obviously it would be insane to pray for a “State” that is a total and massive rebellion against G-d and that has been hurting His children even more than in the past.

We pray for all Jews to be safe, however G-d chooses to do that, not for that shmad “State”.

@DaMoshe:
Yes, zero Torah authority.
These Zionist lies have been debunked before.
Go ahead and quote your alleged sources.

For example, by Rav Meir Simcha, you’re obviously referring to the letter allegedly from him published only in a “Religious Zionist” periodical, where he actually affirmed the oaths being in force. He simply stated that since the British issued their Balfour Declaration at that time – which they later rescinded, as it happens – and Jews were now permitted by the ruling gentile authorities to move to E”Y – entire non-politically, of course – that it would not be a violation of the oaths (i.e., rebelling against the nations) for Jews to move there. He said nothing about any of the oaths no longer being in force (which would make no sense for numerous reasons, as the Satmar Rav explains and on which there is no dispute).

@qwerty613
i missed that question of yours. But, it’s easy to find in Mein Kamph where he calls out the zionist movement as the source of his disgust of jews. In the english translation by Ralph Manheim that is available freely online, it starts on page 56. I would quote it, but like I don’t quote Kook yimach shemo I don’t want to quote his partner Hitler yimach shemo – as Rav Elchonon Vasserman said in the name of the Chofetz Chaim: the zionists are amulek.

Katan> LOL. As per halacha?

I have siddurim that have prayers for Emperor Franz Josef and for Czar Niklai Alexandrovich (different siddurim, not at the same time :). Ponevezh rav used kal vahomer for having Israeli flag from having Lithuanian Republic flag. So, my kal vahomer is much stronger. So, you should also have prayers asking Hashem to have President and Prime Minister favor the Jewish people.

Authentic rabbis always opposed wicked Jews who joined with non-Jews to persecute Torah observant Jews.

When Jews pray three times a day “And for the informers let there be no hope…”, that blessing refers to groups like the Neturei Kapos.

Neturei Kapo/Satmar RODFIM Y”S join with Hamas terror/genocide supporters to threaten Orthodox Jews in Queens.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/09/us-news/anti-israel-protesters-descend-on-nyc-synagogue-jewish-school-while-shouting-we-support-hamas/

Micro P:

Still trying to have the last word, are we? Just stop now.

To suggest that the State of Israel and its defense are a “rebellion against G-d” is to ignore a massive body of Halachic literature and the rulings of some of the greatest Torah scholars of the modern era. It’s far from being an “idol” but you’re too blind to get that. Everyone here other than you, ujm and SJ knows it.

The prayer for the State, the prayer for the IDF, and the recitation of Hallel are grounded in firm Halachic principles. Your ignorance or your hilariously pathetic attempts to argue otherwise based on appeals to authority do not matter in this case.

The Prayer for the State: The concept of praying for the welfare of the government is a time-honored Jewish tradition, rooted in the Mishnah: “Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear of it, men would swallow each other alive” (Pirkei Avos 3:2). In addition, there is the concern of the safety of millions: and the issue of “Lo ta’amod al dam re’acha”. Even if one were to view the state secularly, Halacha mandates praying for the safety of any entity that protects millions of Jewish lives. To refuse to pray for the safety of the State is to stand idly by the blood of your neighbor. As for the phrase “First Flowering of Redemption” that you and your ilk loathe – Chief Rabbis Herzog and Uziel who composed the prayer described the State as Reishit Tzmichat Geulatenu, that the recent and current kibbutz galuyos is a clear biblical promise being fulfilled, and to ignore it is to deny HKB”H’s hand in history. But it is also not an absolute declaration that the State is in fact the beginning of the Geula, and anyone who has read the prayer can figure that out.

The Prayer for the IDF: The prayer for soldiers is based on the biblical and Halachic obligation of Milchemet Mitzvah. Defending the Jewish people from those who seek to destroy them is the highest form of Pikuach Nefesh. The prayer asks G-d to “strengthen the hands of those who defend our holy land”. It draws on the precedent of Moshe and Yehoshua, recognizing that while soldiers fight the physical battle, it is Hashem who “walks with you to fight for you against your enemies” (Devarim 20:4).

Hallel on Yom HaAtzmaut: The recitation of Hallel is the Halachic response to a miracle. Gemara Pesachim 117a states that the prophets instituted Hallel for “every trouble that befalls the community; when they are redeemed from it, they recite it over their redemption”. That Gemar also states that it is recited when a new period of Jewish history begins. 1948 was certainly that – the Jewish people moved from the ashes of the Holocaust to sovereign self-defense against five invading armies. Aside that clearly marking a new period of Jewish history – one where we were given the chance to govern ourselves, leading poskim like Rabbi Meshulam Rath ruled that this was a miracle of biblical proportions mandating Hallel. In addition, there are precedents of Chanukah and Purim: Just as we say Hallel on Chanukah for a military victory and the restoration of Jewish sovereignty – even under a Hasmonean dynasty that was later criticized by the Sages – we say Hallel for the sovereignty restored in 1948. In addition, Megillah 14a uses a Kal VaChomer to explain why we celebrate holidays like Purim: If we sing Hallel for being delivered from slavery to freedom, we must certainly sing Hallel for being delivered from death to life.

In addition, Magen Avraham (686:5) and Chayei Adam (155:41) rule based on the Gemara that any community that experiences a miracle is authorized – maybe even obligated – to establish a “Purim” for all future generations on the anniversary of that miracle, which is something that has occurred on many occasions.

You cannot argue against this other than on rhetorical grounds or sticking to very specific opinions.

And I will point out that my argument is for everyone in Israel. I never extended that opinion to the rest of the world, which is that it’s nice to do as solidarity but not Halachically mandated. However, Charedim should be saying the prayer for the government of whatever country they are in. They don’t and that is a violation of Halacha.

As for the “shmad” nonsense:
First of all, you clearly don’t know what Shmad means. That refers to an era where Jews are forced to violate their religion and there is real persecution. The Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions were that. The forced conversions in the 1300s by the Almoravids were that. The Holocaust was obviously that. In the “State” you disparage, there are more Batei Midrash and Mikvaos than at any point in the last two millennia and no one is actively forcing Charedim and the RZ to violate Halacha or persecuting them, unless you consider being punished for not doing your civic duty to be persecution. Not even by serving in the IDF. If this is “destruction”, words have lost all meaning. You’re comparing a Jewish home where the Hebrew language is resurrected and Shabbos is the national day of rest the above. That’s a spit in the face of our ancestors who actually endured shmad.

anon1m0us:
The oaths are based on kesuvim – Shir HaShirim, specifically -, of course, not navi, and are brought down liHalacha throughout the ages as has been mentioned numerous times before – as the Satmar Rav enumerates in his sefer on the topic which Zionists refuse to acknowledge. This includes the Ben Koziva revolt which was, of course, following the second – not first – Bais HaMikdash. Of course the oaths are in effect, as per every gadol. You cannot quote even one which states otherwise, though Zionists do try to twist the alleged Rav Meir Simcha and all the rest.

The Real RODFIM

Authentic rabbis always opposed wicked Jews who joined with non-Jews to persecute Torah observant Jews.

When Jews pray three times a day “And for the informers let there be no hope…”, that blessing refers to groups like the Neturei Kapos.

Neturei Kapos: Their god is “allah” and their prophet is Mohamed.

Neturei Kapos are the real RODFIM as they join with Hamas terror/genocide supporters to threaten Orthodox Jews in Queens.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/09/us-news/anti-israel-protesters-descend-on-nyc-synagogue-jewish-school-while-shouting-we-support-hamas/

Some (As A) Jew:
So the Jew who Hitler believed took his place in art school was a Zionist? How do you know? Was Zionism popular among the fine-arts assimilated crowd in Vienna at that time?
Spare me your bupkis.

some> as Rav Elchonon Vasserman said in the name of the Chofetz Chaim: the zionists are amulek.

this seems to a new claim to me. Does REW indeed say “in the name of Chofetz Chaim”? Before I saw only references to REW himself.

And given how much Chofetz Chaim published, it would be good to confirm this in his own writings. I did not see such so far.

The discussion of 3 oaths was relevant 100 years ago. It is not now – when we have a state. See what Hashem says to Yonah regarding the kikayon.
It may be of historical interest to see who was right or wrong, but this is also limited – there were much bigger mistakes made 100 years ago, underestimating danger from Commies and Nazis to Yidden in Europe comparing with relative safety of EY and goldene medinah.

@yankel – Thanks for the compliment. We will have to agree to disagree. I try to remain fact-based although the anti-Zionist triumverate here makes it exceedingly difficult.

Micro P:

You’ve strung together a series of Satmar polemics together with what may be at best considered a chiddush and presented them as an airtight theological fortress. While your devotion to a single 20th-century text is charming in its simplicity, your grasp of Halachic methodology and historical record is, to put it delicately, rather malnourished.

You are remarkably confident that the Midrash found in Maseches Kesubos 111a is binding Halacha. If the oaths were indeed “brought down Li-Halacha throughout the ages”, one would expect to find them in the actual codes of law. Can you point me to the chapter in Mishneh Torah where he codifies these oaths? Perhaps Rif? Or Shulchan Aruch? How about Ramban? Nothing? That’s because they’re absent. Totally, completely and utterly absent. The primary arbiters of Jewish law – Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Tur and Shulchan Aruch as well as Levush omitted them because they understood a fundamental rule you seem to be unable to grasp: we do not derive binding Halacha from Aggadic passages.

In addition, none of the following major Halachik authorities and Rabbinic leaders from the Geonim to the Acharonim mention it as a binding obligation of any kind: Rav Saadia Gaon, Behag, Rabbeinu Tam, Raavad, Or Zarua, Meiri (he explains the Gemara in Ketubos but frames the Oaths as a metaphorical warning about the difficulty of the journey, not a legal ban); Ritva explicitly notes that these are Aggadic in nature, which explains why they aren’t in the codes; Magen Avraham never mentions the Oaths as a factor in daily law; Chayei Adam does not mention of a prohibition against organized Aliyah; Aruch HaShulchan records no such prohibition; and finally, the Mishnah Berurah – who would be expected to write them as biding law because he lived during the rise of polticial Zionism – did not. To goto the modern era, Rav Shlomo Kluger, Rav Chaim Vital, Rav Meshulam Rath, Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Shlomo Goren disagree with you.

Thus your claim that “every Gadol” supports your view is nonsense, and the bottom line is that The Halachik record shows that only Rav Yitzchak de Leon, Maharal, Shelah HaKadosh, Maharsha, Rav Hirsch and the Satmarer take your position. But it is only the Satmarer who attempts your beloved chiddush that elevates these Oaths to the status of yehareg v’al ya’avor. No one else agrees.

You can kindly stop now.

But let’s play your game for a second. If the Oaths are a legally binding contract, let’s look at the fine print. The Oaths were a reciprocal agreement. One oath was that the Jews wouldn’t rebel; the other was that the nations of the world would not “oppress Israel too much”. Do you honestly intend to argue, with a straight face, that the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Pogroms, and the Holocaust do not constitute “oppressing too much”? If the nations broke their side of the bargain – and they did, in a spectacularly horrific fashion too – the Jewish people are legally and logically released from theirs. To suggest otherwise isn’t piety; it’s a theological suicide pact.

Bringing up the Ben Koziva (Bar Kochba) revolt as a proof for the Oaths is historically illiterate and a red herring. Bar Kochba’s failure is attributed by the Gemara and the Rambam to his arrogance or the fact that the generation was not yet worthy, not because he violated an “Oath” from Shir HaShirim. In fact, Rabbi Akiva, the greatest sage of his era, supported the revolt. Was Rabbi Akiva unaware of the “universally accepted” oaths, or did he simply possess a clearer understanding of the Torah than a 20th-century revisionist? And for the record, I also won’t point out what is probably the more obvious reason why Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students died – and it has nothing to do with a lack of respect and flies in the face of the oaths.

In addition, what AAQ said is true: These debates and fights are from 100 years ago and irrelevant today despite your attempt to keep them alive and relevant. The only relevant questions are associated with how to deal with the State and that is a discussion I will only have with those living in EY.

@ZSK

goren is not accepted as a rabbinical authority and his mention undermeines your post
.

@ZSK

the pashtut in maharal is that the oaths are yehareig veal yaavor

how that fits with the klal that only the 3 hamurot are classified as such I do not know
.

ZSK> more expansive codes – Rambam, Rif, Rosh, etc. – address the subject of Moshiach

right. I am just saying that in your list, there is a need for careful analysis – to what degree such a topic should be expected in the source based on much related zman Moschiach/political material is there. You have to be very erudite to make an argument from absence to make sure what is not there 🙂

and you can still be wrong: an unrelated but cute story. A T’Ch asked R Salanter what is the source of his mussar teachings. RYS: Gemorah. T’CH – no it is not in the gemora! [that is how we know he was a T’CH!]. RYS: It is in MY Gemorah.

How did we end up going from a discussion about settlements to a discussion about Zionism good or evil? there are about 100 other threads on that subject

What DaMoshe said: Everything gets turned into Zionism these days. We’re a long way from the days when this website and forum were basically about New York-centric Yeshivish issues and arguments over Modern Orthodoxy.

@AAQ –

Obviously one needs to know what they are talking about and keep in mind practical Halacha.

However, that does not detract from my argument. If in fact the oaths are LiHalacha as argued by members of this forum, there should be a ruling somewhere not Vayoel Moshe that states as such. There isn’t one. It just doesn’t appear anywhere in the the major Halachic codes. Which begs the question why. The answer is fairly obvious: We don’t issue Halachik rulings sourced in Midrash Aggada, which is where the oaths come from. This is a clearly understood principle. So then the question is why Satmar, Brisk, etc. decided it is LiHalacha and why they push it so hard. The answer to that question is far less comfortable because it has nothing to do with Torah and more to do with the lived experience, politics and ideology of certain Rabbonim.

If I’m wrong, I’d love for someone to show me a clear statement in an authoritative Halachik work – meaning Rif, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, etc. – that the oaths are absolutely LiHalacha.

And I will point out that LiHalacha is not the same as taking something such as the oaths literally. Because even taking them literally does not mean it is LiHalacha, they could just really mean what Meiri says: It’s dangerous to attempt (ergo not a smart thing to do), so don’t do it.

Re Rav Goren: There is a similar story about Rav Soloveitchik.

SJ:

Speak for yourself. There’s a massive difference between “This is a bad idea, don’t do it” (in this case, Meiri was saying “This is super dangerous ergo don’t do it” as a non-binding common sense moral, philosophical, or socio-historical directive) and the Halachik ruling of “This is illegal under Torah Law per Mitzvah abc with xyz violation and ghi consequences”.

As for Satmar: The Satmar Rebbe’s argument is that the Oaths are as a matter of Hashkafa that carries the weight of binding Halacha. He argues they are binding precisely they are a Sui Generis Halacha that are the “Oaths of the Creator” defining Galus and whether or not they are counted in the Minyan HaMitzvos. To SR, saying they aren’t “LiHalacha” because they aren’t in the Shulchan Aruch is like saying “don’t jump off a cliff” isn’t a law because it isn’t in the building code. It’s a foundational reality that precedes codification. This argument is SR’s claim about Rambam (even though it 100% flies in the face of everything Rambam wrote, including the fact that the three oaths are used in Risaala Yemeniyya as a rhetorical flourish, not an actual Halachic argument), and he uses Maharal’s (literalist) position on the Oaths as laws of nature for the Jewish people: If you violate them, you aren’t just “breaking a rule”; you are dismantling the spiritual protection of the nation. Moreover, SR argues that such violation is heresy – an argument with real Halachic consequences.

Moreover, if the SR said what you’re now claiming – and I dispute that, then his entire sefer is not LiHalacha at all. It is rather a vitriolic polemic of epic proportions that is a fantastic Mussar sefer when directed against ideological secularism, but it is on the Halachically binding level of Mesillas Yesharim or sayings by the Kotzker.