Religious Israelis: Why aren't you following the three oaths?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 мар 2024
- HOW TO HELP
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
The Ask Project is made possible by donations from viewers like you.
To donate to the project:
* www.paypal.me/coreygilshuster
* / askproject
WHAT IS THE ASK PROJECT?
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Do you want to know what Israelis and Palestinians really think about the conflict? Ask a question and I will get answers. All answers are from random people and all answers are included and unedited. The questions come from you, the viewers.
WHY DO I DO THIS?
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
See the following videos where I explain the background and goal of the project • The Ask Project interv...
Answer:
1. The vast majority of the early Zionists were not relgious and didn't follow the Talmud
2. The three oaths is a an opinion in an Aggadic midrash in the Talmud. It is not a halachic statement and is not brought down as binding law by any of the major early halachic commentators (the Rishonim). There are hundreds of aggadic statements like this that are not Jewish law. They are opinions that are recorded and we should try to understand them but we aren't oblgiated to follow them.
3. All of the answers people give in this video.
just say the truth . cause who established fake israel are the messianic christian
Almost no one gave good answers, so here are the answers: 1. The source is in the Talmud, where there is a dispute among the rabbis as to whether the oath should be kept or not. 2. According to Judaism, an oath exists only for a thousand years. 4. The oath not to immigrate in groups does not exist when there is danger to the lives of Jews in the Diaspora. 5. Before they established the state, all the greatest rabbis of Israel sat down and had very deep discussions, and the majority of the rabbis decided that there was no problem with the oath. And according to Judaism, the majority decides. Only the rabbi of Satmar objected in front of hundreds of rabbis. So he does not decide, but the majority decides. You need to study the subject well before Jews ask such questions. D7%91%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA
If all your Rabbis agreed to break the oaths, that would not make it right! However, God's punishment is waiting for your deeds which you will be an eye witness for that. Your Rabbis are the best enemies of God and the mankind.
@@H.G689acharei Rabim lehatot
@@H.G689as if you would know the Almighty's mind. How arrogant you must be.
I think you did not read what was written, equally, if God promised the land to the Jewish people and that is in your Quran, that promise must not be broken either and therefore...
@@H.G689
As a non-Jew American, thank you for explaining.
Permitted or not, I came to the comment section as a wall.
lol
do not rebel against me
4:43 ashkenazi jew: "we dont recognize the country" 3:30 mizrahi jew who is considered more closer to judaism: "we MUST make aliyah" this is the who you side with hahaha
@@GGreenix mizrahi are not considered “closer to judaism”
Aside from the fact that the 3 oaths are non-binding and irrelevant. They refer to the Babylonian exile, not the exile brought on by Roman Imperialism. The Halachic explanation is as follows:
The three oaths are (put simply):
1.) You may not settle en masse in the land of Israel
2.) You must dwell nicely in the exile. Don't cause trouble and follow the laws.
3.) The THIRD oath is a promise between G-d and non-Jews. And states that the Gentiles must not persecute, kill, or oppress Jews. They follow the 3rd oath, and we Jews follow 1 and 2.
After the Holocaust but also WAY before that, 99.9% of Orthodox Rabbis considered the 3 Oaths void because the Gentiles have violated the 3rd oath. But in actuality, it's always been void.
I 100% guarantee most of the people commenting wouldn't know what the 3 oaths actually say without googling it. Usually, they hear it offhand from Al Jazeera or some other propaganda outlet and think they know more about our own religion than we do. When you've sat down and studied Torah for months or years, then you can talk, until then stfu.
These whyt ppl on the video are whyt gentiles 😂😂
Gentiles . Goyem are more Civil and human than your Nazi Zionist people.. imagine how bad you guys fucked your own religion.
how are they non-binding and irrelevant? i don't understand. is the talmud the word of god? and does it there say, not to return in groups and not to subjugate the indigenous? i don't understand..
@julyendamico8612 Because it doesn't apply now a days, just like many other Mitzvot (laws), such as sacrifices at the temple.
The Talmud is a commentary on the written Torah and contains the oral traditions of the High Priests, which we believe ultimately derives from Moses and his son Aaron. It helps make Jewish law applicable. For example, the written law says Jewish men must dawn Tefillin. The Talmud describes how to make and apply Tefillin. That sort of thing. A Muslim equivalent would be the Hadith and Sunnah.
The Rabbi in the beginning gave a good explanation on why the 3 oaths are not relevant today. It stems from conversation, which is all the Talmud really is: a long series of debates on Jewish law and customs.
okay, well then, i guess it's all okay.@@EzraB123
Why they should follow this? Talmud isn’t a “god word”. It is a book of personal peoples opinions.
Generally, if there is no debate in the Gemara about LAW it becomes LAW
this is a midrash, not the same thing
Most people, especially Muslims, have no idea what is the Talmud and what is Judaism in general. Muslims in their arrogance and ignorance never read the Torah but they to use it against jews.
Yes it's not the direct word of g-d. But the Talmud is given with the "guidance" of God in there souls
From the beginning, the Jewish high priests distorted religion so much that today there is no true "God Word"! Jewish history keeps repeating itself. The coming of Jesus was in their prophecies, but when they saw him, they slandered him and Mary! Also, they waited for Muhammad in Medina for hundreds of years, but when he entered the city on a camel, they said he was a liar! Now they are waiting for the last savior, and I am sure they will deny him and fight with him!
From the beginning, the Jewish high priests distorted religion so much that today there is no true "God Word"! Jewish history keeps repeating itself. The coming of Jesus was in their prophecies, but when they saw him, they slandered him and Mary! Also, they waited for Muhammad in Medina for hundreds of years, but when he entered the city on a camel, they said he was a liar! Now they are waiting for the last savior, and I am sure they will deny him and fight with him!
Not all what's written in the Talmud is Halacha meaning Law. In fact a lot of it are discussions with different opinions and point of views to better understand the texts. Many people don't understand this
Halacha is also not the law in Israel to make things clear
@@shyguymizyes he means a law of the religon
Plus he is saying Shavuot (weeks) instead of Shvuot (oaths) and half the people don't understand what is he talking about 😂
Yes i dont think i would understand what he's talking about too if he asked me, altough i know the reason and the conflict behind it. The hebrew isnt hebrewing
He funniest part is that "3 weeks" is a thing in Judaism and pronounced exactly as he is saying here. Not only is his pronunciation difficult to understand but people think he is talking about something else entirely. 🤣
"The 3 Oaths" Learn Something New Everyday.
2 Jews - 3 opinions... (And that's the beauty in it..)
Beauty is only skin deep, so in other words, Jews are following their subjective opinion which can never be claimed to be the objective and true teachings of God.
Because we don't come as a wall, what's the problem? Alya is going on more than a century. It's "tipin-tipin", not '"as a wall".
Not as a wall, it says in a wall. And it doesn't mean in mass, it means as conquers. Proof is how did people make war before guns? Well they would line up with there shields out and and touching one another in what's called a shield wall. You see why it says don't come in a wall, see how much since that makes compared to what other people say it means? Plus think about it, what would people 1000 years ago think of the words " to come in a wall" ? If you want to use the words to mean a large number of people go ahead, but I think there are better metaphors, besides Rashi said it means as conquers.
@@yossibendovid7607 my point is that there are many understandings, not just one. Satmar may believe whatever they want, they are not the ultimate source :) Judaism is most democratic religion :)
The question is moot. The talmud is not abook of Jewish law.
Are you Jewish?
1. The Talmud is a discussion between rabbis, not Jewish law.
2. We didn't come "as a wall" all at once. More like brick by brick, if you will.
3. We didn't go against the (few) residents of the land until they went against us. We're not the perpetrators of the violence.
4. It doesn't matter at this point because we're already here and don't intend to leave, so... Deal with it?
Lol speaking like a true zionist lie
❤
Sounding like true turd of humanity@@wecx2375
Word
Exactly. It is just like hadith for muslims just statements by scholars of Islam
I really appreciate your attempts to pronounce the words.
Love you corey
The League of Nations and the United Nations voted for a jewish country in Judea, so the question is moot.
Now the UN's vote matters huh? But all the resolutions that were since passed against Israeli occupation and settlements are irrelevant? Well done cherry-picking what suits your agenda.
@@JC-or5ntthe UN represents the nations of the world. The oaths talk about the nations of the world. There’s nothing political about it
The war of independence/Nakba was started by the zionists. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians started in 1947 before the British left (May 1948) and the Arab armies came to rescue the Palestinians/attack the Israelis. For eg the ethnic cleansing/massacre of deir yassin village took place well before the British left or arabs arrived, the same goes for hundreds of villages and towns that became Israel.
The question is; If Israel was established by force in 1947/48 and 1967 how do jewish Israelis reconcile this with their faith which forbids them from conquering the land?
@@eyallevin6302 No, the UN represents the UN... It does not have altruistic and universal interests...
The conflict did not begin in 1948, much less did Israel begin it. At that time, the Arab League declared war - in reality it did not do so, it attacked treacherously. But as I said, the conflict did not start there, nor did it start with the "Arab revolt" between 1936 and 1939 which, again, was started by the Arab side. Nor did it begin with the "Buraq Uprising" in 1929, when Muslims decided that "the wailing wall" belonged to them, because there Muhammad had bound his centaur on his "mystical journey" to Jerusalem. But it did not start there, nor in 1921 with the Jaffa riots, nor in 1906, when the Arabs became very angry because the Jews did not keep their Purim celebrations a secret, nor in 1886 with the attack on Petah. Tikva, because I could also go back to 1834 with the looting of Safed and thus continue in time, reaching Saladin, the Pact of Umar and the expulsion from the Arabian Peninsula. But, although that is still true, the current conflict began at the beginning of 1920, it is the same one that continues to this day and and all the episodes of this just like October 7, it was started by the same people. If they wanted to end the problems, all they would have to do was stop attacking. And what you call dehumanizing, I call it rather that they can no longer do what they want and get away with it, the Umar pact no longer applies. When they understand it, there will be peace, meanwhile, if they do it, they pay for it...@@levelheaded2804
Thanks!
Some things need clarification:
1. Israel was created with UN agreement. Is that enough, or does the agreement have to be universal, in which case the Arab objections matter?
2. Assuming the three oaths means Jews shouldn't try and establish a state, do they mean Torah-observant Jews have to try to dismantle the state post-facto?
2a. Particularly considering any such dismantling would involve loss of property if not life for many Jews.
3. The state in its current form does not prevent its citizens from behaving as they please; it doesn't force them to accept any Jewish culture or practice. Such a state may not violate the oaths.
1 no it doesn't.
2 not just no but H*** No are you crazy?!
3. 7 oaths applying to a state..... As far as what? Conquering more of the land of historic Israel? That I don't know. But as far as not rebelling against the nations, well if they ask you to kill yourself would you do it? If they ask us to put ourselves in danger should we do it? If they ask us to do immortal things should we do it? Are they really fair in dealing with us, Or anyone else for that matter?
no the acceptance doesn't have to be universal.
This is why you were kicked out of 109 countries. You guys are gross
The first rabbi who answered is completely wrong. All major rabbis and Talmudic scholars concurred with the Satmar rebbe before WWII. However, after the war there are three major opinions of why mainstream Orthodox Judaism doesn't cite the 3 Oaths as a prohibition to Live in in E"Y as they once did. 1. The third of the 3 Oaths was binding upon the nations of the world not to overly persecute the Jews living in the Diaspora. The Nazi persecution and the world's complicity were a violation of this oath and therefore the first two were no longer binding on the Jewish People. 2. After the war there was hardly any place on earth that would take in so many displaced Jews. 3. In 1947 the UN voted to create a Jewish state, and therefore it is not rebellion against the nations of the world since they sanctioned the creation of a Jewish state.
Rabbi Zeira changes his mind
The author of the Three Oaths himself actually recanted. The author of the Three Oaths was Rabbi Zeira. But elsewhere, Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 8:11 says that when Rabbi Zeira moved from Babylonia to Israel, he changed his opinion and said that Jews should have risen “like a wall” (i.e. en masse) from Babylonia to Israel. To quote Rabbi Aviner:
Thus it is related in the Midrash: ‘If it is a wall,’ if Israel would have ascended like a wall from Babylonia, the Temple would not have been destroyed during that period for a second time. Rabbi Zeira went to the marketplace to buy something. He said to the one who was weighing: That was weighed very fairly. He responded: Do not depart from here Babylonian because your ancestors destroyed the Temple. At that moment Rabbi Zeira said, are not my ancestors the same as the ancestors of this one?! Rabbi Zeira entered the house of study and heard the voice of Rabbi Sheila who was sitting and teaching: ‘If it is a wall,’ if Israel would have ascended like a wall from the Exile, the Temple would not have been destroyed a second time. He said: The unlearned person taught me well.
Thank you. I'm not particularly religious, so while knowing of the 3 oaths (and the arguments around it), I have never heard of this part.
I was expecting these answers. I also have never heard of the three oaths, somebody is building a mountain out of an ant hill. It's a mitzvah in the Torah for a Jew to live in the land of Israel, irregardless if there is a country or not.
Perhaps you should read the BIBLE where it teaches that the people broke the covenant with YAHWEH. They no longer have any claim to the land and must wait for the Moshiach and the New COVENANT!!!
@@endofdaysprophet too late for that. There was a claim more than a century ago, then there was a jewish state established, it resisted many atempts of destruction, got recognition of the world and became a unique country with a unique culture. You should take your time machine and travel to 100 years ago to discuss that.
@@endofdaysprophet Where is that written?
@@noamto the BIBLE!!!
@@noamto the BIBLE!!!
Only 2 of the oaths were imposed on Jews. The 3rd was imposed on the Gentiles not to abuse the Jews in Exile. The Gentiles breached their oath, hence the Jews were relieved of theirs'.
Exactly! Just read this Gemara daf for the first time and that's exactly what I got out of it.
ruclips.net/video/8NLuRe1qFvE/видео.htmlsi=l5ILGjN3DBmyE00l
@@raversmashדחיקת הקץ has nothing with the gentiles
@@shhiknopfler3912idk where you got דחיקת הקץ from, the original text for 'the three oaths' is:
שלש שבועות הללו למה? אחת שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה, ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את ישראל שלא ימרדו באומות העולם, ואחת שהשביע הקדוש ברוך הוא את אומות העולם שלא ישתעבדו בהן בישראל יותר מדאי.
-Babylonian Talmud, Ktuvot, 111a
Rabbi Levi adds more, for 6 oaths: "שלא יגלו את הקץ, ושלא ירחקו את הקץ, ושלא יגלו הסוד לאומות העולם. ", so please don't tell them the secret.
@@shhiknopfler3912 Thanks to Corey we can read in Koren's translation: "And the last one is that the Holy One, Blessed is He, adjured the nations of the world that they should not subjugate the Jews excessively."
The Talmud is read rather for respect for the elders who were living in years of miracles , but even the elders of Talmud had different opinions on many subjects and it is not like Talmud has to be applied to every aspect of life . Although many Christians believe that for Jews Talmud is more important than the Bible - it is definitely opposite .
We derive Jewish law from the Talmud. If the Talmud makes a ruling conclusively we follow that ruling, and if it isn’t clear then it is up to the Poskim to decide.
Nowhere do the Poskim rule against what was 100% agreed upon in the Talmud, including the three oaths
I'm a secular Jew who was born and raised in Israel and this is the first time I hear about it. It is very esoteric.
I went to religious school in Israel for 12 years and never heard of it. We always learned that living in Israel is the biggest mitzvah more than all the others combined.
you need to read what God say about israel in the Quran. God promised to give israel wealth, numbers and strength.. then... omg you guys really need to get out of that country before its too late
Maybe it's time for you to read the vyoel Moshe or דת הציונות יואל אלחנן
@@shhiknopfler3912 not now, thanks
Uneducated Nazis u r
This is a subject not many are familiar with these days, so i will do my best to answer as clearly as possible:
The short answer is the three oath are irelevant today because they only talk about the time while the jewish people are in exile.
The oaths are not oaths in a literal sense, obviously. No one gathered the whole nation of israel and made them take these oaths. Rather they are an instruction by the sages how the nation should conduct itself while in exile. The verse the oaths are based on is from the song of songs:
Daughters of Jerusalem, I charge you: Do not arouse or awaken love until it so desires.
This verse is read as a call to not attempt to return from exile before the right time (awaken love until it so desires), and to be loyal subjects to our host nations until that time. But the sages also learn from that same verse that when it is the right time, when love does desire in the words of the bible, you must rebuild jerusalem and leave the exile, and there is a midrash that says exactly that. How do we know its the right time? By the third and second oaths. The second oath says not to rebel against the nations in exile. Indeed, Israel was not founded in rebellion of the nations but with their agreement. In fact, i doubt there are many other nations who were founded as legitimately as israel with a vote and official decleratoion in the UN. So when the nations are interested in our return to israel and allowing us to do so it a sign the exile is over.
The third oath, is an oath to the nations not to opress the nation of israel too much in exile. So when the nations stop tolerating us and start persecuting us it means it is time for us leave. Sadly in this regard, not only we didnt break the oath, many of us were too late to read the signs the time of the oaths is over and perished in exile. If the jews would have returned earlier when it was still possible, and israel were founded even a decade earlier, all those who died in the holocaust could have been saved. Also, as mentioned in other comments, if the nations break their side of the oath so can we.
The bottom line is the oaths are now moot, because we already left the exile and returned to our land, and rebuilt it, so the exile is effectively over, so they are not relevant anymore. And we also didn't break them while returning but actually did the opposite sin, returning too late to israel when the time was right.
Zionists love to pick and choose what idolatry they believe in
Bullshit excuses given only in order to invade and conquer by FORCE someone's else land‼️
😡
Vocês não prestam, Escumalha 💩 🤢 🤮
@@mikidias
genius-Not, whose land?
▪︎The former Ottoman lands?
▪︎The expired British Mandate lands?
▪︎The illegally annexed Jordanian land?
▪︎The colonized Egyptian land of Gaza?
▪︎ The land won back by Israel from Egypt and Jordan in a defensive war?
Whose Land was taken?
@@shainazion4073
Middle - Eastern Arab land!!!
It's not Eastern European land, even if you want it really bad, but it's not for sure!!! 😒
Your bad, "darling"! 🤷🏼♀️
אין ישראל נגאלים אלא בתשובה ומעשים טובים
Your answers doesn't work
7:23 man I laughed, you spoke well corey, and knew what to say.
Formidable! Je ne connaissais rien à ça!
this is very interesting, and show both like to cherry picks, in the same midrash it was indeed said that non jew nation should not act against jews, and at the same time we should not rebels against nation.
we got abused by foreign nations and we did rebel against non jewish nation (especially the british which they omit to say, there was a rebelions and attacks from jewish groups against the british)
but coming as a wall that not really what was done indeed, the meaning of coming as a wall is conquering that literally the meaning of it, it is not immigration, or migrating in big group, it is conquering with force with an army.
this midrash was only to dissuade jews to take control outside of israel, and having national aspiration outside the sacred land.
but when it came to the sacred land(israel) this is another story completely.
(for example mohammad fought jewish tribes in saudi arabia, because of power game, and jewish who would control and not accept foreign(muhammad) ruling. this very midrash was to prevent those kind of situation.)
(lets remind that this midrash was written around 500 CE, and came in answer to what jewish should do under exile, NOT in the promised land.)
because you had a lot of power games also out of saudia, and it became an issue thus why they needed a clear answer from religious authority.
anyway there is so much interpretation, it's like everything in religion, some would argue west bank is after conquering the land (and because of the preemptive strike it was not in defense) but at the same time it is the promised land, so one could argue the 3 oath are not to be taken into account.
and we could compare to the conquest of the hasmonean which are in line with the bible.
in the very end most jews (religious) agree that a jew can't fight against or talk against the return of jewish on the promised land, but at the same time some simply live like if they were still in exile, and thus don't join the army, and don't defend the state.
but important to point out that the religious jews that are against the state, viewing it as a breach of god commands/wills don't believe in the national aspiration of the palestinian, in the very end they do want to do worse, if a third temple would fall from the sky they would be doing a lot worse to the palestinian... so their "support for palestine" are not honest, I'm not sure what worse really.
Amazing comment thank you for sharing
The war of independence/Nakba was started by the zionists. The ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians started in 1947 before the British left (May 1948) and the Arab armies came to rescue the Palestinians/attack the Israelis. For eg the ethnic cleansing/massacre of deir yassin village took place well before the British left or arabs arrived, the same goes for hundreds of villages and towns that became Israel.
The question is; If Israel was established by force in 1947/48 and 1967 how do jewish Israelis reconcile this with their faith which forbids them from conquering the land?
well, irgun bombed king david hotel and hagana is basically the idf today and deir yassin and and and and gaza :(
@@levelheaded2804
1. The local Arabs + the Arab Countries started it actually
2. No ethnic cleansing
3. Oaths 1 and 2 apply only it oath 3 is met. Also it’s Midrash
@@levelheaded2804 The conflict did not begin in 1948, much less did Israel begin it. At that time, the Arab League declared war - in reality it did not do so, it attacked treacherously. But as I said, the conflict did not start there, nor did it start with the "Arab revolt" between 1936 and 1939 which, again, was started by the Arab side. Nor did it begin with the "Buraq Uprising" in 1929, when Muslims decided that "the wailing wall" belonged to them, because there Muhammad had bound his centaur on his "mystical journey" to Jerusalem. But it did not start there, nor in 1921 with the Jaffa riots, nor in 1906, when the Arabs became very angry because the Jews did not keep their Purim celebrations a secret, nor in 1886 with the attack on Petah. Tikva, because I could also go back to 1834 with the looting of Safed and thus continue in time, reaching Saladin, the Pact of Umar and the expulsion from the Arabian Peninsula. But, although that is still true, the current conflict began at the beginning of 1920, it is the same one that continues to this day and and all the episodes of this just like October 7, it was started by the same people. If they wanted to end the problems, all they would have to do was stop attacking. And what you call dehumanizing, I call it rather that they can no longer do what they want and get away with it, the Umar pact no longer applies. When they understand it, there will be peace, meanwhile, if they do it, they pay for it...
As Secular person prospective who know a little bit of the context of Jewish history,this talks about the Mishna and Gmarot we talk from ~200Ad to ~500Ad(Mishna in Roman Israel and Talmud/Gmarot in Persian Iraq)in the times after failed Revolts(especially Bar Kokhva)and Rabbi Yehuda(who was Roman lover,he was very close with many Roman Emperors in his time),made pack of Jews not coming as group to Israel,not rebeling against the world(very common issue lol)and in turn the world nations(here is Rome and Persia)would not persecute Jews too much. I think think there two ways to justify Zionism in this view,one the Nations didn't adhere to their "job" and thefore Israel can return and second that we didn't rebel we just lived and because we accepted what we were offered and got worldwide support we didn't rebel.My opinion on the subject is that this is local treaty that Jews did with Romans to keep the peace that because of obsessive nature of Jews to keep tradtions and everything as it is stayed with us thousands of year after,peace...
irgun bombed king david hotel 90 deads also children, and then deir yassin and the nakba all in the 40s, that is not only called rebellion, but could and has been called terrorism... i'm sry. but please stop the supremacy and apartheid and let the palestinian people live with dignity there and yourselves too...
@@wowozerevery example you listed needs the full context. Full history gives reasons as how these events were retaliation to terrorism.
It's sad to think of how many people are going to learn about "the Gaza invasion of 2023" without learning about the context, thanks to you revisionists
@@wowozerthe Palestinians had 7 opportunities to claim statehood and they always refuse! Why? Because once they do billions in UN refugee funds would no longer be given (can't say you are stateless once you become a state) and because it would mean acknowledging that your claim to the land has been resolved.
1. The concept of Shevua, oath, in relation to G-d is equivalent to the modern scientific concept of "a law." Hence, the notion of transgressing a Shevua is a contradiction, as the laws of existence are, by definition, immutable.
2. The word "yaalu," they will ascend, a variation of the word "aliya," ascent, is a technical halachic term defined as going from outside the Land of Yisrael to inside the Land of Yisrael. The reverse direction is defined by the term "yerida," decent.
Hence, the Shevua has no relation to those located inside the Land of Yisrael, but only to an invading force located outside the Land of Yisrael, which, by definition, would fail to conquer the Land of Yisrael.
Thus, the history and establishment of the State of Israel is perfectly consistent with the Shevua.
9:34 what's the name of the song playing in the background?
Third guy (Binyamin) struck me as much smarter than he appeared at first. Good on him. I like Eliyahu's oratorship more than his answer, he basically just appealed to authority.
THANK YOU for this. I recently covered Satmar in a video on my channel and it was super helpful to hear how Jews in Israel think of this question (and that, unsurprisingly, many don't put much weight on the question as it's just a Talmudic discussion and not in the Shulchan Aruch). It's sad and unsurprising that there's only one woman in this video.
-Your video was terrible, please stop interviewing “insiders” who actually know absolutely nothing about Satmar and just share info they’ve heard elsewhere. No one wants to listen to an apikores relate fake stories for hours on end.
-Is Hinduism discussed in the Shulchan Aruch? No, because no one disagrees that it’s a”z and that all of the laws of Avodas Kochavim etc. apply to Hindus. We find multiple instances of Rishonim interpreting the oaths literally, but there was no need to codify them. Rambam says anyone who denies that the geulah can only come through Teshuvah is an apikores.
-Why does it matter that there were hardly any women in this video? Don’t they have better things to be doing?
@@Beised "No one wants to listen..."
It has 39,000 views and people have been stopping me on the street to tell me how much they enjoyed it. No one wants to listen... You don't want to, and it's clear why.
@@FriedaVizelBrooklyn Who is even your target audience
The nations violated their oath already in 1492
And long before also, the second Caliph expelled them from Arabia...
@@esplin1That’s not true. There were plenty of Jews in Yemen
The thing is, of the Three Oaths, one applies to the Gentile nations among whom the exiled Jews would live. And it is generally agreed that the Gentile nations (via atrocities like the Holocaust, Spanish Inquisition, and Black Death Massacres) broke their part of the oaths. Thus, the Three Oaths has been invalid since that.
Your all knowing God had not anticipated the gentiles would break their part of the "deal" which is why his holy shekhinah (spirit) inspired the Talmudists to instruct the Jews to follow the three oaths.
That's pretty $crewed up.
@@taboulefattouch4744 Historically, Jews gave little attention for the Three Oaths. Many Jews didn't even consider them binding in the first place. But if they were, they no longer are. End of story.
@@negationf6973Kedushas Levi said the entire point of the oaths had nothing to do with the nations “oppressing us too much” since that was a prophecy from the very beginning of the exile. In fact many Gedolei Yisroel predicted that Jews would violate their oath as well.
Either way, the simple refutation of this argument is that the oath of the nations was between them and us while our oath was between us and Hashem; meaning there’s no correlation between the two.
I’d like you to name me one Rishon who said the oaths no longer apply
@@Beised I can name you an asshole of a leader who first prevented his followers from escaping Nazis and then escaped the murderous Nazis while leaving his followers to be murdered by them.
Great video. Corey if it's ever possible for you to travel and ask people in the west what they think of Israel or Jews I think it would be very interesting. Safety and the money come first though, if we all donated!
How do I ask a question for the video?
Go ahead and ask.
the guy on 4:00 nailed it ... keyword expelled ...
Chabad was originally opposed to the founding of the state of Israel (primarily due to the Zionist effort to replace Jewish-Religious identity with a Jewish-Non-Religious identity) but after the founding became a fait-accompli Chabad holds that there is an religious obligation to defend the state of Israel, citing Shulchan Aruch 329.6
What you need to understand is that we follow the Rebbe B"H. If the Rebbe said it is permitted to live or return then based on his authority we accept it.
Neturei Karta have their own Rebbes B"H who disagreed but in the minority. It doesn't mean we need to support the state of Israel. But when it comes to the community we are obligated to comply with the government for our own protection.
9:50 Translation error, he says "new term" not new concept
לא עלינו בחומה ולא מרדנו באומות העולם אלא בראשות המעצמה החזקה ולבטח בעידודה הסכמתה ותמיכתה של בריטניה ששלטה ברבע מהעולם נבנתה המדינה היהודית על סמך ההיסטוריה היהודית שידועה לכולם שזו ארץ מולדתנו
Your opinion doesn’t matter as much as Gods.
טומטום מי אתה בכלל ואיזה קשר יש לך לאלוהים בכלל אפילו לכתוב בשפת הקודש אינך יודע @@Pearlsrat
There were always jews in israel especially in the 4 holy cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Tiberias and Safed
yeah there were a lot of jews in hebron also when they tried to massacre them
I never took any oath so I can do whatever the hell I want.
Cory how long are you in israel? You still don't speak Hebrew properly, you confuse oaths and weeks
Canadians are bad at other languages ,I swear English speaking people suck at learning any other language
He speaks hebrew to all the Israelis
@@George-jz9fk
He clearly mixes multiple times oath that is voiced shvoa and week that is voiced shavoa
Isnt means 3 weeks not 3 oaths?
All very sharp answering straight to the point
straight to the point? it sounds more like they made a big U turn, avoided the point, and went in the opposite direction😂
@@imanabuiqran9246 Elaborate on your point then. Lets see how they weren't precise. You won't.
@@SuperEliasc I told myself I would stop arguing with people online but so much for that😂 alright, I'll give it a shot.
I don't know how you define 'answering straight to the point.' I don't know how I define it either. but I know what doesn't count. firstly, there's the vast majority of the people who straight up never heard of the oaths. there are the ones who just conceded "I don't know". they're immediately ruled out, because they did not answer. the ones who did answer, were anything BUT concise. granted, I don't think they could have answered straight to the point, because it is a complicated question.
regardless, I still don't find their answers to be satisfactory. it seems like there's generally 2 kinds of answers here. the ones who claim they aren't technically breaking the oaths, and the ones who claim that they don't follow the three oaths (because the Rishonim didn't rule on it? that confuses me. I thought Jews followed the Talibut. how can they just cherry pick what they do or do not follow, regardless of their position as rabbis or Rishonim? very strange).
of the ones who claim they aren't technically breaking the oaths, their general reasoning is that they took the land given by the nation, then defended it, so it was not by force, and they didn't act as a wall. alright...what about West Bank and Gaza? everyone who was posed that question in the video said "I don't know." neither do I.
there was also that one guy who explained that because when the Jews were sent out of Israel in exile, the nations of the world 'transgressed this' and mistreated them during the exile, so they were forced to return. which pardons their return. and...really? who are you, as a Jewish believer, to impose your opinion over the one sent to you by the Creator you claim to believe in? to claim that the exile was tougher than God intended is to imply that God made a mistake. in my religion, we call that blasphemy.
the answer I liked the most was this guy at 3:23 .
so. tell me what you think. maybe you will, but I think you won't.
of course the answer you liked the most was the anti-zionist one lol.. the reason you don`t get it is because you don`t know how jews think and operate... you try to uphold your world views and religious understanding on different people, not all jews follow the same laws, and what is written in the Talmud definitely doesn`t count as "jewish law" anyway, by any "stream" of judaism. the thing about judaism is that there is always discussion, more over most jews simply aren`t religious and judaism for them is simply people, we see each other as family more than followers of the same religion@@imanabuiqran9246
@@imanabuiqran9246 I will only answer this as you answered politely and without insults although it requires a lengthy answer.
Those who didn't know answered straight to the point as not knowing is the answer you should give when you don't know instead talking nonsense.
In general the answers were straight to the point as they recognize the apparent contradiction and then mentioned a reason for why that contradiction no longer stands after taking a new fact into consideration.
You mentioned that it is a complicated matter thus you can't answer straight to the point. When matters are complicated the more direct route is still a straight to the point route in contrast to an answers which include unnecessary deviations typical from the uneducated.
The two answers, in my opinion go straight to the point although the Rishonim answer is certainly obscure to those who are not aware of the hierarchies in Jewish Law. The Talmud is the text in which this statement appears, the talmud is vague and many times it doesn't state what the law is. Medieval scholars, Rishonim, about a thousand years afterwards legislate the law according to their interpretation of those vague statements of the Talmud, they explain their reasoning for why they legislated in whatever matter they legislate. When people quote different Rishonim in their answers they are basically saying there are different legislators who don't take that particular understanding of that text to be binding. In other words there are authorities who don't think that statement to be authoritative thus I am not going against the Halacha, the Jewish law. The reasons for why that law is not binding were not explicitly stated but except for the first person, who was a Rabbi. He said that those statements were mentioned in Hagadah, in a story, and stories are not legally binding. This is a principle in the legislation of Jewish law, stories may provide interesting information, opinions, but they are not laws and shouldn't be taken as such. A lot of the content of the Talmud are opinions which are dismissed, it is not the Torah which is believed to be entirely divine.
Those who didn't know what to answer about the West Bank were still being straight to the point as when you don't know the best and most direct answer you can give is "I don't know".
I can tell you that the West Bank and Gaza is the same story, the three oaths are not legally binding according to some opinions, moreover, the government is not religious and it doesn't take the Talmud as an authority on anything.
If you want my opinion, Palestinians are explicit enemies of Israel as they still think the entirety of the land 'from the river to the sea' is theirs. They state this openly you can see it on polls, or even on this same channel, Palestinians were asked, and if I remember well all of them thought the entire land was theirs. This ideaology is dangerous for Israel as these people may easily be led to war to conquer their land as it has happened like 4 times in the past. Palestinians should be treated for what they are, enemies, just as you should put a wolf in the cage, or you would keep the wolf inside you house free for it to eat your children when hungry. It is the same. As sad as it is but life is sad sometimes and politics require pragmatism.
In regards to what you mention at last, about the nations transgressing this, I understood it as referring to the fact that a the nations agreed for the land to be Jewish in the partition of the UN,, Jews didn't conquer the land, but I may be wrong as I didn't watch the video again and I don't remember clearly
please translate under all the words,
because I don't understand English by ear.
So strange when people tell those who part of a religion they're totally unaffiliated with that they're doing something wrong in their religion. It's such a pathetic thing honestly.
That's what the Zionists do when they ask Muslims why "Israel" is mentioned in the Quran
I think it comes from Jews themselves, there are Jews who hold the belief that only the Messiah can establish the state of Israel and free the jews
Once someone is already there, it's a different question, from a halachic standpoint.
It is a mitzvah for a jew to settle in israel. Gemara is not a law but a discussion and debate between the sages. That's why most of the people dont even know what the issue is
The amount of entitlement that these people have is unbelievable 😂
Taqqiya
Do you even understand the discussion?
Who are you to judge.
Guy at 20:00 looks like RUclipsr pointe Crowe
To label a Gemara, which cites the three oaths in a halachic discussion, as a "midrashic discussion" is simply dishonest. But even so, what does he think midrash is? Fairy tales with no relevance to Jewish life? Were the three oaths not real? What a silly excuse.
Furthermore, describing a halachic implication derived from that discussion as a "political discussion" borders on heresy.
As for the general question, the three oaths don't prohibit Jews from living in Israel, just the establishment of the State of Israel.
Exactly right
Shavuot means weeks, Corey. Shevuot means oaths and nedarim means vows. It is mention in Ein Yaakov that there was a disagreement whether the Jews should remain in Babylon or could return to Israel. The dispute was between a student and his teacher. In the end the halakah ruled the student was right. Until the last hundred years. It was impossible for Jews to live, rule or even conquere the land. But today God is allowing majority of Jews to return. Many miracles have been wrought for them. It is accepted that we are in the end days and that God will not exile the majority of Jews living in the land every again.
Majority of Jewishs Rebbe's also ruled it is permitted to live in the land. So the 3 oaths are no longer effective today. Finally, the nations of the world have shed enough Jewish blood. Almost every corner of the earth. So the nations have no right to tell the Jews they can't go back since they were not welcome in their lands and were vicious wolves.
I don't accept the UN as an Orthodox Jew. While the nations voted for they have also voted against. If you believe they have authority. We don't.
12:33 cuuuuute
Satmar are interesting people. I wound up in Kiryas Joel once, it's like this little quasi-theocracy nestled away just one hour out from NYC.
Still he is the only Rabbi with guts to write up whole books and discuss it from all sides
The three oaths have elapsed by now: “Rabbi Yitsḥaq opened, ‘Before the day breathes and the shadows flee (Song of Songs 4:6). Before the day breathes-the exile of Israel; that they would be subjugated in exile until the day when rule of the peoples is ended.’ For we have learned that Rabbi Yitsḥaq said, ‘The dominion of all peoples together over Israel would last one thousand years. There is no people that would not subjugate them. ‘One day’ corresponds to: But it shall be one day which shall be known to YHWH, [not day, nor night: but it shall come to pass, that at evening time it shall be light] (Zechariah 14:7).
Another explanation: Before the day שֶׁיָּפוּחַ (sheyafuaḥ), breathes-before that day the peoples יָפוּחַ (yafuaḥ), expire. And the shadows flee-princes ruling over them. I will hurry to the mountain of myrrh, and to the hill of frankincense (Song of Songs 4:6). Said the blessed Holy One ‘I will betake Myself to shake the peoples from Jerusalem, the הַר הַמּוֹר (har ha-mor), the mountain of myrrh,’ as is written, Jerusalem on הַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה (har ha-moriyah), mount Moriah (2 Chronicles 3:1). And to the hill of frankincense-the Temple that is in Zion, as it is written, Lovely in heights, all the earth’s joy, Mount Zion (Psalms 48:3). And it is written, To seize the earth’s corners, that the wicked be shaken from it (Job 38:13)-as one holds a garment to shake all the filth from it.’
Rabbi Yose said, ‘The blessed Holy One will eventually be revealed in earthly Jerusalem, and purify it from the filth of the peoples, before the day of the peoples is complete [cf. BT Ta’anit 5a].’ For Rabbi Ḥiyya said, ‘Dominion over Israel lasts only one day, and that is a day of the blessed Holy One which is one thousand years [cf. BT Sanhderin 97a; Bahir §5: ‘Each day of the blessed Holy One is a thousand years, as it is written, For a thousand years in Your eyes are like yesterday gone (Psalms 90:4)’]. This is what is written, He has made me desolate, faint all the day (Lamentations 1:13)-one day, and no more.’
Rabbi Yose said, ‘If they are subjugated more than one thousand years, it is not because of the King’s decree, but rather because they do not wish to return before Him [in repentance to the land of Israel]. And it is written, And it shall be, when all these things come upon you, [the blessing and the curse that I have set before you, that your heart shall turn back among all the nations to which YHWH your God will make you to stray] (Deuteronomy 30:1-2), and, Should your strayed one be at the edge of the heavens, from there shall YHWH your God gather you (ibid., 4)’” (Zohar 2:17a, Midrash ha-Ne’lam).
It's not halacha. The only broken oath was the one incumbent on the non-Jews to not oppress the Jews. The Jews didn't break either oath, even if they had been halacha.
Anything written in one of the Talmuds (the oaths for example) is just some rabbi’s opinion about Jewish law. And the Talmuds definitely don’t have the authority of the bible. They are opinion pieces not manuscripts.
Moreover Judaism has like 600+ laws (and many more than 600 if you take into account things that rabbis decided) and no single soul can keep all of them anyway. Essentially the more laws you keep the better but no one actually expects you to follow everything.
Where did you get it from? The Talmud is definitely an interpretation of the study of the Mishnah and the Halacha, and an interpretation of the Torah - that is, the Oral Torah that was given orally, to interpret and clarify the Torah mitzvots that were indeed written in the written Torah but in a way that lacks details - such as the mitzvot of meat and milk, and the mitzvot of sanctification and divorce, -
Without the interpretation of the Talmud, we would not have the Laws of the Law, - there are things that pertain to the Halacha and there are things of the study of legend, that is, things that received moral and priestly words from their rabbis.
And in the Torah there are 613 mitzvahs - these are the main included mitzvahs of which there are mitzvahs that are not practiced today because it depends only on the time when the temple is there, - like the laws of sacrifices, -
But today there are perhaps less than 200 do's and don'ts, which are appropriate after the destruction of the Temple, and how many individual mitzvots from the Sages that were amended for the purpose of fences or renewed events, such as Hanukkah and Purim mitzvos, which were born after the giving of the Torah.
Living in, loving the land of Israel is basic in Judaism. In Gemara Ketubot, for example: "one who lives outside of Israel is as if he has no G-d"... The references for this topic are many. The issues in Halakha are with having a non religious state - but living in Israel is considered a great mitzvah.
Finally got a translator.
Edit: nvm, he did not :|
Great video, never heard of the 3 oaths before so TIL!
Also small correction: in the 6 days war, Israel had a legitimate casus belli against Egypt because they had blocked the Straits of Tiran, which according to the agreed upon ceasefire at that time constituted a violation of said agreement- which gave Israel the mandate to enforce it. Israel was the first to attack, that much is true, but it was not the first to mobilize (Egypt amassed forces on land as well inside the Sinai peninsula, which was also forbidden according the the ceasefire agreement).
there was never a ceasefire agreement signed by Egypt with Israel that guaranteed navigation for Israel of the straits of Tiran. If your referring to the armistice agreements of 1948, nowhere in those agreements is shipping access mentioned. Egypt didn't until 1979 recognize Israel as a state so restricted it's access to the straits on that basis. Egypt did reopen the straits to the Israelis after it was invaded in 1956 by Israel and the imperial powers, but it never signed any agreement that guaranteed passage for Israeli shipping and, in the arab view, as the sovereign territory of Egypt it reserved the right to do what it wanted with the waterway(such as close it for political reasons).Israel and Egypt did not sign a ceasefire agreement in 1956 as Israel forces simply withdrew from the Sinai after the British signed a ceasefire with Egypt, wrecking the coalition between the imperial powers and Israel. The idea that Egypt violated an agreement it signed is untrue. They also had the right to ask the UN peacekeepers to withdraw, as the UN requires the consent of a member state to have a presence in the country. I would also add that Egyptian forces did not mobilize, there was no calling up of reservists, they simply redeployed two divisions (7,000 men) to the Israeli border. The best argument you could make would be that Egypt was in violation of international law regarding the right of the sea, but Egypt never actually was a signatory to the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone so you can't argue that Egypt violated an agreement it signed, but simply that it acted in violation of a UN convention which it never was actually a party to. I think it would also be hard to make the argument that "Israel had the right to attack because Egypt was in violation of international law" considering how flagrantly Israel has violated, ignored and outright repudiated the very concept of international law since its founding.
The legitimacy of Israel’s preemptive attack on Egypt in 1967 did not require any signatures. The legitimacy was based on self defense, just the same as you have your own right to self defense. It was reasonable to assume that Nasser was not kicking peacekeepers out or announcing the closure of the Strait of Tiran for purposes of conducting a bake sale. Even without the obviously impending Egyptian attack, the closure of the Strait of Tiran would have been an existential issue. Just another macho Arab leader getting a bunch of young Arab men killed for nothing; it was sad then and it’s sad now.
@@arielbenjamin3253 How would the closure of the strait of tiran have been an existential issue? The Strait had been closed to Israel for years on and before and Israel has survived. Second off the theory that Egypt was going to attack Israel has been widely debunked. In LBJ's memoirs he recorded how the CIA sent three seperate reports to Israel about how the Egyptians were unprepared for war and had no intention of invading Israel. Abba Eban in his memoirs himself admitted as much. "Nasser didn't want war. He wanted victory without war."
Frankly,, even Israel doesn't claim the territories conquered in 1967 are occupied territory for the defense of Israel until a peace agreement is reached. It's not conquered land to be annexed, so even if 1967 was an aggressive war this does not weaken the argument that Israel only expanded during wars of defense.
@@ACogloc the problem is Israel has turned over administration of the West Bank to civilian authorities, de facto annexing it
How can the 3rd oath make any sense?
They have the right to live in their own homeland, and the Messiah Yeshua has already come.
Wrong
A Blessed Shabbat Shalom To All Am Yisroel And Friends Of Zion From Judea And Samaria: The Biblical Heartland of The Nation State of The Jewish People, Israel 🇮🇱
All My Good Thoughts And Prayers For Our Brave Soldiers And Hostages 💙
May Allah guide u to the right path 🕋🤲
@@MohammedHassan-ym8qf
HaShem is always before me
@@Linda43 Allah is him
@@MohammedHassan-ym8qf
No...
@@MohammedHassan-ym8qfmay you find Christ for he is the only light and the way.
11:01 balfour declaration is a promissory letter, but Ok.
You're missing the point, it's a letter affirming the intention of making a Jewish state by the owner of the land at the time.
@@ACogloc owner of the land ? they occupied it and make a promise which wasn't agreed with the population actually living in this land ..
@@KLEIDMANNSemantics, sure we can call it occupier. And I didn't imply consent or the people living there was given, or needed, for the condition to hold, the ruler is enough to transfer power.
@@KLEIDMANN In the era when the Talmud was written governments weren't running focus groups or asking for a population-wide votes.
@@KLEIDMANN
99 % pour cent of countries came to being by ''occupying'' a land.
Do you think the arabs came to possess it by giving couscous to the jews ?
more important would be to ask religious jews why they are not treating the 'strangers within the gates' (nonjews in israel) as the bible requires?
It is and remains essentially a territorial fight such as should only be found among animals; and the children on both sides are abused as soldiers for the purposes of revenge and are thus unfree human beings from birth. Good luck Mankind 🍀☀️🌍🎼❤️👽(I love your Music)
Becuase we want to have self determination, not be at the mercy of others.
Your opinion is like a person claims himself as a Muslim and then he say YES WE DRINK ALCOHOL BECAUSE ITS MY FREEDOM. 😂😂😂😂😂. Even it's clearly forbidden in the glorious quran.
@@nisarullah2969 Well, it really depends on the moment, because in 16:69, it seems that Allah is quite permissive on the subject, in 2:219 and 4:43 he accepts it, but with the warning that it is harmful to health, and putting the label "if you drink, do not pray", it is only from 5:90, 91 that he realizes that the drinking was the work of Shaitan. Despite which, as a reward for believers it is said that in paradise there will be rivers of wine 47:15. You should worry about better knowing the contradictions of your own religion, before giving your opinion on topics that, believe me, you don't have the slightest idea...
@esplin1 there is no contradiction. It's haram.
@@TheCastedone Just because you don't want to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist... Before 5:90 and 91 it was expressly allowed, and in paradise it seems it still is...
You are at the mercy of America and Europe. 😂😂😂😂
the UN resolution is two country plan, so these religious jews support two country plan?
The UN failed to understand our ambitions as a Jewish nation, the land of Israel includes the Judea and Samira ( the West Bank ), they belong to Israel
many of them do.. the ultra-orthodox jews are actually more than OK with a two state solution, it is actually the less orthodox ones who usually live in settlements and won`t to agree to any swap of land
The second state was rejected by the Palestinians 7 times
@@SnowsStorm1 wow!that's terrible!so they really want is"from the river to sea"?in other word they don't treat jew humanely first?
@@PaulWinder I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? What in suggesting to you is that Israel has tried.
Interesting good answers but we should try to be ok with the nation and we don’t now so this is a problem, and we have history of doing it against tome and Babylon
In the Gemara it is also written that if a prostitute is killed... so they said! Besides, the prophets and Moses prophesied our coming here after the exile, and this is many times stronger than the Gemara, hence the same midrash in the Gemara, not in the spirit of the Bible, Moses and the prophets, This statement does not fit with several prophecies I quoted, that the Niyam prophesied the establishment of the state
א וְהָיָה כִי-יָבֹאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל-הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה, הַבְּרָכָה וְהַקְּלָלָה, אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי, לְפָנֶיךָ; וַהֲשֵׁבֹתָ, אֶל-לְבָבֶךָ, בְּכָל-הַגּוֹיִם, אֲשֶׁר הִדִּיחֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ שָׁמָּה. 1 And
it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt bethink thyself among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
ב וְשַׁבְתָּ עַד-יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וְשָׁמַעְתָּ בְקֹלוֹ, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ, הַיּוֹם: אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ, בְּכָל-לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל-נַפְשֶׁךָ. 2 and shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and hearken to His voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul;
ג וְשָׁב יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת-שְׁבוּתְךָ, וְרִחֲמֶךָ; וְשָׁב, וְקִבֶּצְךָ מִכָּל-הָעַמִּים, אֲשֶׁר הֱפִיצְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, שָׁמָּה. 3 that then the LORD thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither the LORD thy God hath scattered thee.
ד אִם-יִהְיֶה נִדַּחֲךָ, בִּקְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם--מִשָּׁם, יְקַבֶּצְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, וּמִשָּׁם, יִקָּחֶךָ. 4 If any of thine that are dispersed be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will the LORD thy God gather thee, and from thence will He fetch thee.
ה וֶהֱבִיאֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֶל-הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר-יָרְשׁוּ אֲבֹתֶיךָ--וִירִשְׁתָּהּ; וְהֵיטִבְךָ וְהִרְבְּךָ, מֵאֲבֹתֶיךָ. 5 And the LORD thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.
then say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. 22 And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. 23 They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings[f] in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.
24 “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. 25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to m.
To them the Moshiach is something that only exists within books.
They wouldn't recognise that Hitler and Hertzel were both living instruments of it...
instruments of Moshiach's living function.
Should've gotten a translator, really 😓
12:29 I'm in love with her
The short answer is because it was never mutually agreed upon. The gentiles never treated the Jews as equals and there was always a Jewish presence in the land.
Mutually agreed upon by whom? One oath was between the gentiles and the Jews (not to oppress the Jews too much) and the other one was between the Jews and God (not to go up in a wall)
@@Beised the other one disregarded the constant presence of Jews in the land and they were never dispersed. The oaths were never put into practice to begin with.
@@TheCanaaniteUnionistof course it was.
Maimanides brings the oath in his letter to the yemenites
@@TheCanaaniteUnionist The three oaths were decreed when the exile began. The exile began with some Jewish presence in E”Y which has remained there for thousands of years. Regardless they are not fulfilling the mitzvoh of yishuv E”Y because the exile will end when Yisroel does Teshuvah. Please stop speaking a bunch of nonsense you are not well informed on Judaism or the three oaths.
Classic choice of questions. Truely and alt right/ ji hadist channel.
Not to mock people but I found it really difficult to understand anything the man from 9:54 was saying!
@Eretz_Nehederer :
The Hogwarts code of conduct :
-oh yes, CONTEXT is the j(n)ew spell that makes averything that wrong, right.
Teste of your own medicine #shabat shalom from ivy league
It's a simple question but no one can answer it. Bcs they know they're wrong. One of those guys said that the country is not ruled by religion which is weird. Bcs we surely heard them saying that they're God's chosen people. You got there bcs you claimed that you're Jewish which was chosen by God according to you. If it's not bcs of God / religion then why the hell you livin there making aliyah and prevented PaIestinians to go back to their land?
Because it's their indigenous lands not Palestinian lands. You were allowed half and used it to wage wars which you lost
@@SnowsStorm1 I'm pretty sure you're not indigenous to any land when you have to kill the people living inside that land. America massacred the natives in order to live in that land. So are Canada, France, England, etc
@@SnowsStorm1 I'm pretty sure it's not your land when you have to massacre the people living inside that land. Colombus did it with the natives too. So are Canada, Australia, France, England, etc. Or are you calling they are indigenous too?
@@greenforce68 it is their land. The Jews didn't massacre anyone as evidenced by the fact that 20% of their population is Muslim.
4:43 ashkenazi jew: "we dont recognize the country" 3:30 mizrahi jew who is considered more closer to judaism: "we MUST make aliyah" this is the who you side with hahaha
Does not compute. I do not understand. I do not like the question. "Answer the question!" So what is the question? I do not understand...
His Hebrew is really poor i wouldn't understand is question in Hebrew, he is saying a all lot of nothing
The Gemara is really complex and long, it makes sense that most religious Jews wouldn’t know the entire Gemara off the top of their heads
For reference: it takes 7.5 years to learn 30-60 minutes a day (one double sided page) at the SIMPLISTIC LEVEL (there are many levels)
@@user-dy6dm2yr2v A perfect example. "I can not understand the question."
@@eyallevin6302 It takes a genius to answer the question. At least 7 years... Love it.
No one knows the 3 oaths 😂
The first says that Jews should not return to Israel forcibly. The second, they should not rebel against other nations. The third that other nations should not oppress them. The first: Israel was established legally by the UN. It was not conquered militarily by the Jews. The second: Israel has not rebelled against other nations. Its problem is with nations that do not recognize its right to exist and do not want to live in peace with it. They attacked Israel in 1948. Egypt also started the war of 1967 (unlike what the presenter says at 11:16) by closing off the Gulf of Aqaba, massing its troops along the border with Israel, and removing the UN peace-keeping force separating its armed forces from Israel's. The 1973 war was started by Egypt and Syria. The 1982 conflict was started by the PLO. Others that followed were started by Hezbollah and Hamas. The third: Have other nations not oppressed the Jews? Need I answer?
Israel was NOT established by the UN, it was looked to be cut in half by suggestion of the UN. A Jewish homeland in Palestine was established in 1922 by unanimous vote of the Entire League of Nations, which signed into law the Mandate of Palestine Charter which stated,
*_"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"_*
@@shainazion4073 "in that country" does not mean taking the whole of it. Wake up.
@@samnous2002and they didn't because most of it was given to Jordan. The rest was slated for Israel until the Arabs complained and then the British tried to keep the peace through appeasement.
ancient china did't oppress jew😋jew and chinese can be friends
@@samnous2002 In that country, the Country was the Mandate of Palestine, the Mandate Charter stated the new government of the "country in training" was the Jewish agency, there was no Arab, or Muslim country or people spoken of, only the "non-Jewish communities in Palestine" meaning the Muslims, Christians, Samaritans, Druze, Lebanese, Egyptians, Mandeans, Orthodox, Kurds, Turks, Circassians, Chechins, Turkemans, Sudanese, Syrians, Lebanese, etc.
jesus also promised the jews would come back to the lands after the time of non believers is done
Satmer took themselves out of the Jewish nation. The jewish nation is not one opinion but it is one.
What?
he means that the jewish nation is one, meaning all jews are one nation, but the jewish nation isn`t one opinion meaning not all jews hold the same opinion on everything@@Beised
One of the worst sins a Jew can do is insult Talmidei Chachamim
He says the Palestinians were given land and the Jews were given land, standing on the land designated to the Palestinians. Why did he talk at all?
Because the Palestinians said: "Wah! Wah! We will kill all Jews, but we'll never let them have a state!"
If the three oaths consisted CLEARLY not to come back, then WHY keeping lying to yourself and the Jews by coming back through twisting the interpretation! Rabbis are masters in distorting the scriptures.
Obviously you've never read the verses, and have no idea what they even say.
Are you Jewish? Are you frum? But out. You have no idea what your talking about
A rabbi wrote it so
You can’t use that argument
@@shainazion4073 They mentioned the verses in the video ten times! Unless you have different verses to quote from.
@@sethwolf1 But it's your religion that stated to consider the teachings of the Rabbis are the teachings of God, and that's why you wash your hands before eating, although God didn't order you to do so, but the Rabbis, isn't it? Why are you using a twisted logic to legalise breaking your religion?
suddenly things are difficult to put into words...no memory of it, had never head of the three oaths before. Very very telling.
Or maybe they’re just not familiar with it, so they have no opinion on the matter?
The Talmud is a massive collection of rabbinic texts. Most Jews are familiar with only certain parts of it, religious Jews are more often familiar with it to a large degree, but it’s not surprising that only the the most religious and scholarly (e.g., the Haredis - i.e. ultra-orthodox - and the rabbis) knew exactly what Corey referred to.
Do most Christians know about the council of Nicea or the diet of Worms? Do most Muslims know hadith by heart? I guess not, and it t wouldn’t mean anything if they don’t
Most religious people don't know very much about their religion. It's not that surprising.
This is a highly ignorant comment.
The Talmud consists of thousands upon thousands of folios of complex legal discussions. The vast majority of religious Jews will never finish even half of it in their lifetime.
A big thing that comment surfers need to understand, this is an "Aggadita" (stories that are rarely taken literally) at the END of 1out of 525 chapters. From the Babolyn Talmud (modern day Iraq, but before the jews were exiled from there)
Meanwhile there is a whole second set of Talmud written by the Rabbi's living in Jerusalem at that same time, around 400 C.E)
Most people who learned Talmud never even heard of these "oaths". For those that have, most argue it's not literal, and even those that DO hold it literal, nearly all agree the oaths have expired or are null in the modern era.
(1 small sect of Jews follow the concept, but it is the vast vast minority, and many concider them radical)
You try learn all 2,711 pages in the Talmud and then come back and tell me about every item discussed in it.
Many Jews do a thing called a page a day where they learn 1 page every day. Doing this doesn't go into much depth, but it allows people to get through the entire thing in just 7 years.
I.e. only people very dedicated to learning will ever get through the entire thing and we are all human beings not everyone can remember every single thing discussed
"it'd an illegitement question" oh guess what else is illegitimate
Corey, Israel didn't start the '67 war.
G-d gave a portion of the Holy Land to the children of Ishmael. Based on Zohar Shemot 32A
------
[R. Hiyya then says] Woe is to the time that Ishmael was born into the world and was circumcised. What did G‑d do [to appease Ishmael]? He distanced the children of Ishmael from supernal cleaving and gave them [only] a portion below in the Holy Land on account of their circumcision.
And in the future, the children of Ishmael are destined to rule over the Holy Land for a long time when it is empty from anything, like their circumcision which is empty and imperfect. And they will prevent the children of Israel from returning to their place until the reward for the merit of the children of Ishmael reaches completion.
The children of Ishmael [i.e. the Arab nations] will cause great wars in the world and the children of Edom will gather against them and wage war against them, one on the sea, one on the dry land, and one near Jerusalem. And they [the children of Edom] will rule over them [the children of Ishmael], but the Holy Land will not be given over to the children of Edom. [The children of Edom is the Christian West, for Edom is Rome (see Num. 24:19, Rashi) and Rome signifies Greece-Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, the foundations of Western Civilization]
-----------
If Moshiach comes tomorrow, the state of Israel will be dismantled and replaced with kingdom of Israel. Israel is the name given to Prophet Jacob and it is unholy to use Israel as name of a state that has no connection with Prophet Jacob. The state of Israel was founded by atheists. The kingdom of Israel will be a nation of priests replacing the nation of thieves. If Moshiach comes with a sword, non-believing Jews will be killed as G-d gave Torah to the Jews and there is no such thing as secular or atheist Jews.
Wow
The irony of the settler saying that Israel has never conquered any land is hilarious.
I don’t think anyone in this video is a West Bank settler
@@Beised did you watch the video? there are multiple interviews with people located in a west bank settlement.
@@kranzes0 I didn’t see any
@@Beised Usually at the start of an interview he puts a text at the bottom saying where it was recorded. There were multiple cases were the text said "(settlement in the west bank)".
@@kranzes0that land was won in a defense war. If you attack and I fight Back what happens next is on you
I don't believe in the Talmud, I believe only in the Tora so these disputed rules don't apply to me.
God gave the Torah to Moses at Sinai
oh I thought it had something to do with no eating shellfish. or pork. and not flushing on Sabbath. what a bunch of crock
Whoever told you that you don't flush on Shabbos was pulling a practical joke on you
@@FarekWad naw son thats one of the 613 commandments the haredi orthodox follow it
@@aaronmusa234 sorry, you've been played. What Malacha does it fall under?
@@FarekWad I understand your embarrassment. imagine the stench by sundown Saturday oy vey today 70 percent of jewish folks are secular atheists. they hold the largest gay pride parade in Jerusalem yearly spitting in face of yahweh/bible
How I understand why current Jews say the land belongs to Jews rather than Israelites…
Interesting how the second guy pretends to not understand the question (despite 8 years of studying) then directly answers the question in hebrew. So many lies.
Bro, the dude asking the question was mispronouncing the words. He was asking everyone "are you familiar with the 3 weeks?"
Only one point is proven.. none of these people are religious or understand their faith.
Oh but you do. I'm sure you've studied the text then? And learned all 2,711 pages. It's only about 7 years of study to go into minimal depth. Not that difficult.
Thanks for goysplaining it to us.
So if your eye doctor can't perform an open-heart surgery then he's piss-poor at medicine, right!?
Again no one follows gentiles
Because they disobey Gods command out of arrogance and contempt for him. The whole point of the Talmud is to find loopholes in Gods law. That’s why they claim it’s just a country led by Jews rather than their actual return to the land. Gods not stupid though. He knows what we all do, and the reasons for what we do.
😂😂😂😂
Wow, you obviously no nothing about Judaism. The amount of fences the Jews put around God's law is ridiculous
Gods? That wasn't very monotheistic of you... I hope you keep that in mind when paying zakat...
@@esplin1 who let this kid in here? Why are you in a discussion like this if you don’t understand the difference between God and god? Regardless if there’s an s at the end?
Why don’t you discuss the topic at hand instead of making an argument over nothing just because you’re upset over what I said?
@@Dulee47 Because there is nothing to discuss. I give you an example so that you understand: Suppose I told you that in reality, according to the Koran, alcohol should not be Haram, because although it totally condemns its consumption in 5:90 and 5:91, that law is abrogated in 16:69. In that case, could you explain to me that this is not the case, that it is the other way around, that the Koran is not compiled according to the order of the revelations, and that this is confirmed by the Hadiths... In short, we could have a dialogue. Now imagine if I told you: " Mohammed" in your "Bible", which he himself wrote, expressly orders you to drink alcohol in the morning, and you refuse to obey your god." Do you think you could answer anything other than making fun of me? well, your comment has that level...
And they wonder why Jews make good lawyers lol, listen to the first rabbi
$$$
Jealous much?
@@solvingpolitics3172 heh, yeah right.