What Is the Torah’s Interpretation of the Three Oaths in Kesubos 111a?

Last updated on 11 Aug 2025

If there’s one sugya that stands at the heart of the Torah perspective on Zionism and the Jewish return to Eretz Yisrael, it’s the passage in Kesubos 111a known as the Three Oaths. In just a few poetic and powerful lines, Chazal offer a deep glimpse into how the exile—and the eventual redemption—are meant to unfold.

Charedim see this Gemara not just as an aggadic teaching, but as a profound warning: that the process of Geulah is not something we initiate ourselves. It must come only from Hashem.

Let’s look closely at what the Gemara says, how the Rishonim understood it, and how the Gedolim of the past century applied it to our generation.

The Gemara: Kesubos 111a

Based on Shir HaShirim (2:7), the Gemara tells us that Hashem made three oaths—two to Bnei Yisrael and one to the nations of the world:

שלא יעלו ישראל בחומה – That the Jewish people should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael “b’chomah”—as a unified force, by strength or coercion.
שלא ימרדו באומות – That they should not rebel against the nations during exile.
שהשביע הקב״ה את האומות שלא ישעבדו את ישראל יותר מדי – That the nations should not persecute the Jewish people excessively.

The context is aggadic, yet the message is striking: exile is not a mere punishment; it’s a condition with spiritual boundaries. The redemption must come from above—not through nationalistic self-assertion, and not before its time.

How the Rishonim Interpreted the Oaths

Among the Rishonim, the general consensus was that the oaths are not halachic prohibitions, but part of the aggadic and hashkafic corpus of Chazal. Yet, they still treated them with reverence.

Rashi (Kesubos 111a) explains “Ya’alu b’chomah” to mean ascending forcefully, en masse, without waiting for Hashem.
Tosafos (Kesubos 110b, s.v. “hacha nami”) hold that the oath is only violated if the Jews return “b’zroa”—by force. If they are permitted by the nations, it may not apply.
The Ramban (Shir HaShirim 2:7; Sefer HaGeulah) accepts the idea of the oaths but writes that they are conditional—and if the nations violate their own oath by excessively oppressing us, the others may no longer be binding.
The Ritva and Ran reference the oaths in a more homiletical fashion, not as sources of codified halachah.

In short, the Rishonim saw the oaths as serious spiritual teachings, but not as legal halachos. Yet they shaped how Klal Yisrael understood its relationship with exile and redemption.

The Modern Gedolim: The Satmar Rebbe and Beyond

In modern times, especially with the rise of political Zionism, the Three Oaths became a central part of the Charedi response. The most famous and forceful position is that of the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Yoel Teitelbaum zt”l.

Satmar: A Halachic Prohibition

In his sefer Vayoel Moshe, Rav Yoel argued that the oaths are not just aggadic—they are halachic issurim. He held that:

Creating a Jewish state before Moshiach is a violation of the first two oaths.
Zionism is a rebellion against the nations, and worse, a rebellion against Hashem’s plan for Geulah.
Even if there is suffering in exile, the solution is to turn to Hashem, not to human solutions.

He wrote:

“אין לך חילול השם גדול מזה, שנראה כאילו ישראל בכוחם לקום ולעשות גאולה בלי משיח.” “There is no greater Chilul Hashem than to appear as if the Jewish people can redeem themselves without Moshiach.” (Vayoel Moshe, Maamar Shalosh Shevuos, simanim 2–3)

Other Gedolim Who Took the Oaths Seriously

Many other Gedolim accepted the concern of the Satmar Rebbe, even if they did not treat the oaths as legally binding:

Rav Elchonon Wasserman zt”l, in Ikvasa D’Meshicha, quoted the oaths and warned that attempting to force redemption through secular means leads to tragedy. He viewed Zionism as a spiritual rebellion.
Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l referred to the oaths in his writings and speeches, emphasizing that only Hashem brings the redemption—not political movements. Though he did not declare the oaths binding halachah, he treated them as hashkafic principles.
Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld zt”l opposed secular Zionism and emphasized the importance of Torah leadership. He accepted the oaths as a spiritual framework, but supported religious aliyah for the sake of building Torah, not for statehood.

Some quote the Chazon Ish zt”l in this context, but it is important to clarify: he did not base his opposition to Zionism on the oaths. Rather, he focused on spiritual dangers, like chilul Shabbos and secular education. He dealt with reality: since the state exists, Torah must be protected within it.

Rav Shach zt”l, too, did not focus on the oaths directly, but opposed the ideology of Zionism. He strongly rejected calling the State “Reishit Tzmichat Geulateinu” and believed the redemptive process can only be through Torah and Moshiach.

Different Views Within the Charedi World

While the oaths are accepted as Torah teachings, not all Charedim treat them the same way:

Some see them as fully binding halacha (as Satmar does).
Others, like Brisk and Litvish yeshiva gedolim, treat them as hashkafic warnings, not halachic rulings.
Some argue the oaths were voided by the nations’ own betrayal—especially during the Holocaust.
Still others believe the oaths applied only until the nations gave permission (e.g., the Balfour Declaration or UN vote).

In all camps, however, there is strong agreement that:

Geulah cannot be forced. We do not redeem ourselves. The process must be led by Hashem, through Moshiach, in His time.

Conclusion: Waiting for Redemption, Not Building It Ourselves

The Charedi view of the Shalosh Shevuos reflects a deeper emunah: that Hashem runs the world, not man. We do not fight exile with flags or politics. We fight it with Torah, tefillah, and bitachon.

As the Gemara (Sanhedrin 97b) says: “Three things come when we are not paying attention: Moshiach, a lost article, and a scorpion.”

We wait. We prepare. But we do not take the Geulah into our own hands.

Sources & Footnotes

Gemara Kesubos 111a – The Three Oaths based on Shir HaShirim 2:7
Rashi, ad loc. – Interprets “b’chomah” as ascending forcefully
Tosafos, Kesubos 110b s.v. "hacha nami" – Suggests permission from the nations may remove the prohibition
Ramban, Sefer HaGeulah and Shir HaShirim 2:7 – Interprets the oaths as conditional and hashkafic
Vayoel Moshe, Maamar Shalosh Shevuos, Rav Yoel Teitelbaum – Foundational halachic exposition of the Three Oaths
Ikvasa D’Meshicha, Rav Elchonon Wasserman – Uses the oaths as a spiritual warning
Letters and speeches of Rav Aharon Kotler, cited in Mishnas R’ Aharon – Warns against Zionism and forced redemption
Toldos R’ Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld, Vol. 2 – His nuanced opposition to Zionism and support for Torah-based aliyah
Emunah u’Bitachon, Chazon Ish – Focuses on protecting Torah amidst secular governance, without invoking oaths
Michtavim and speeches of Rav Shach, e.g., Michtavim u’Maamarim – Strongly opposes Zionist ideology, with emphasis on Torah-based redemption