Anti-Reconquest and Anti-Mass-Resettlement Statements before the Messianic Age in Rabbinic and post-Rabbinic Traditions
By David Ramirez
Introduction
For the one-year mournful anniversary of the October 7 (2023) massacres, I gathered the following sources with the intent to open a conversation. This is part of a larger project, where I will attempt to give a Sephardic opinion – mine – of the current situation in historic and legal terms, profiling via the traditional and historically dominant Prophetic, Rabbinic and pan-Sephardic stance regarding the re-conquest and mass re-settlement of the Holy Land (Éress Israel) before the messianic age for nearly 2,250 years, reaching all the way into the first half of the 20th c. CE. I feel we need to begin having this conversation in this what has become a very critical and dangerous juncture of our history, in order to start finding solutions to the present quagmire – awkward, complex, and hazardous situation.
To better understand these sources, what Sepharadím and academia generally mean as “Rabbinic” or “the Rabbis” are all those legal decisions and ethical statements made by the Rabbi-Judges of both Talmuds (Bablí and Yerushalmi) up to the 5th c. CE, invested with the official semikhá (judicial ordination from the Jewish Supreme Court, otherwise known as Beth Din haGadol), who according to Jewish tradition dates back uninterrupted to Moses himself (circa 14th c. BCE, see M”T Introduction 23-42), and form the core of all official national halakháh (normative Jewish legal decisions) all the Jewish people are obligated to follow. By pan-Sephardic, I mean those hakhamím (sages) who followed in the footsteps of the Geʿoním and classic Sephardic hakhamím up to the 12th c. and beyond. These comprise the general views of Sephardic (Western and Oriental) and Mustʿarabi traditions, who made legal decisions for their local communities. These not only include major hakhamím, but also community leaders and activists.
Furthermore, while Rabbinic Tradition determines what ought to be the binding normative legal and ethical practice for all Jewish people, post-Rabbinic tradition among pan-Sepharadím determines those practices for their local communities, which are in no way binding if either the community decides not to follow them or contradict Rabbinic decisions. In this respect, most of Ashkenazic tradition diverges from pan-Sepharadím, where for them their rabbis are considered authorized to make changes to normative Talmudic halakháh, and some pretend to make their decisions universal for the Jewish people. These post-Rabbinic poseqím (legal decisors) from Ashkenazic tradition are followed according to their fame or perceived scholarship. Their tradition is not considered for this presentation, because ultimately, they don’t recognize the authority of the last Supreme Court, even though some of their opinions may harmonize with what it is presented here.
For full disclosure, even though through my adult life I had seen some of these sources, I must confess I had neglected to study this particular subject, either because of personal political reasons, fear of what I might find, and generally to keep the peace within my community that has some members who are Germanic-styled territorial racists. My own original stance regarding the subject comes from my maternal grandfather, from whom I learned my first words of Toráh. His personal stance was that the obligation to move to Terra Santa depended on the mashiaḥ, the Jewish Messiah.
The following statements are centered around what is generally known as the Three Oaths, a set of cautioning Rabbinic declarations against the reconquest and mass-resettlement of the Holy Land before the messianic age, which were recorded in the Talmud and adjacent Rabbinic literature during the Amoraic age (200-500 CE). These Rabbinic declarations are considered by some as midrashím, that is non-legally-binding homiletical material. However, there is a specific type of midrash called midrash halakháh whose function is to elucidate Biblical sources for halakhic (legalistic) purposes, which I am not yet prepared to discuss. The following material is presented in chronological order, so the reader can appreciate the evolution of this Rabbinic stance across the centuries in post-Rabbinic pan-Sephardic tradition, which should help you note slight changes but also their consistency.
Some of my premature findings indicate that (1) Rabbinic Tradition does not have and never developed a “Zionist” doctrine. Quite the contrary, (2) Rabbinic Tradition, and thereby the majority of post-Rabbinic Traditions, appear to be quite “anti-Zionist”. Furthermore, and more importantly, (3) this anti-reconquest/anti-mass-resettlement position seems to date back to the Prophets themselves. I would advise to take particular and careful attention to RaMbáM’s statements. Although (4) the Three Oaths were never formulated by him as halakháh (normative legal decision) in his Mishnéh Toráh, in his Letter to the Jews of Yemen (al-Risalat al-Yamania) he uses them for halakháh leMaʿaséh (legal decision to be implemented), as well future hakhamím would do after him. In the Talmud, “some rules were put into practice as halakha le-ma‘ase although not formally halakhot; see Ketubot 56a. This is why, the sages distinguished between halakha and halakha le-ma‘ase; see Baba Batra 130b; Yerushalmi Gittin V, 47a; cf. Horayot 2a.” (José Faur, Horizontal Society vol. II, Apendix. 32 “Qabbala and Halakha,” pp. 64-67). Additionally, with the understanding that Maimonides was presenting the summary of decisions by Ḥazal (Talmudic Rabbis members of the Supreme Court) – not his own expert opinion (see Hakhám Yosef Qafiḥ’s commentary of M”T Introduction), it should be of further interest that although not formulating the Three Oaths as halakháh, he does formulate as halakháh the prohibition to not speculate on how the messianic age will come to be, and to not calculate the mashiaḥ’s coming (Hilekhót Melakhím wuMilḥamót 12:2), underlining that these things “are not explicitly indicated by the Prophets. Nor do the Rabbis have any tradition concerning these things.”
Long before October 7, as I saw the political situation with religious extremists was heating up, just to make sure I was not too lost in my pre-liminary suppositions, I had asked a former student of Hakhám Faur, if there was a halakhic obligation anywhere in the Talmud to be a “Zionist”, meaning in our current context the support for the re-conquest and mass re-settlement of Terra Santa. To appreciate the weight of his answer – which he continuously avoided to give until I was able to corner him, I must mention he came highly recommended by Faur, describing him in an email to me – dated October 17 2017 – as “one of the best talmidim that have studied with me.” Faur’s former student’s answer was that – and I am paraphrasing here – No, there is no halakhic obligation to be a “Zionist.” When I saw this, an ordinance of Amsterdam’s Maʿamad (Sephardic lay governing body) in 1639 came immediately to mind: “[to do] this would be contrary [to our interest and] disturb the liberty which we enjoy and make us hated for something that is neither a law nor an obligation.”
Finally, as part of the larger project not included here, I will compare this Rabbinic anti-reconquest and anti-mass-resettlement precedent with pan-Sephardic post-Rabbinic legal decisions and literary works made during the 19th century that appear to adopt a “pro-Zionist” position, as presented in Faur’s articles “Religious Humanism and Zionism” [The Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage: Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982), 325-349], “Early Zionist Ideals Among Sephardim in the Nineteenth Century” [Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, vol. 25, no. 1 (Winter 1976): 54-64], and a specific section in his Horizontal Society titled “Jewish Dominion over the Land of Israel” (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2008, pp. 143-146); to thereafter contrast these sources with the way it has been handled primarily by the so-called “political Zionist” movement among non-religious and religious thinkers of Ashkenaz. Be as it may, whatever happened with the political “Zionist” movement and realization since the 19th c., we can rest assured, that neither Rabbinic or Sephardic tradition were considered at all in its planning and execution by its main architects, whom some may call them “heretics.” I personally disagree on this last description for reasons I will give in my larger work.
The following sources are presented showing Rabbinic and Rabbinic-adjacent sources first (including RaMbáM’s M”T, as these formulations are literally Ḥazal’s own decisions), post-Rabbinic sources after, and early 20th c. declarations from pan-Sephardic community leaders and activists then residing in Terra Santa and through the Levant. Thank you for your readership.
Rabbinic Sources
What are these three oaths? One, that Israel not ascend the wall; one, that the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world; and one, that the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured the idolaters not the oppress Israel over much. – TB Kettubót 111a (circa 3rd to 5th c.).
For God said, “The people may have a change of heart when they see war” [Exod. 13:17]. This is the war of the children of Ephraim… because they forced the End, and transgressed the oath. – Mekhiltá deRabbi Yishma‘el (circa 3rd or 8th c.), ed. Horovitz-Rabin (Frankfurt am Main, 1931), Masekhta de-Vayehi, Petihta.
Rabbi Helbo (3rd c.) said: There are four oaths here: that they not rebel against kingdoms; that they not force the End; that they not reveal their mystery to the nations of the world; and that they not ascend as a wall from the Exile. Rabbi Onya said: These four oaths correspond to the four generations which forced the End and failed… [The children of Ephraim] gathered together and went to war, and many of them died. Why? Because they did not believe in God and did not trust His salvation, because they transgressed the End and the oath, “lest you awaken or excite my love.” – Shir HaShirim Rabbah 2:7 (7th c.).
Some of our Sages say that the coming of Elijah will precede the advent of the Messiah. But no one is in a position to know the details of this and similar things until they have happened. They are not explicitly indicated by the Prophets. Nor do the Rabbis have any tradition concerning these things. They are guided only by what the biblical texts seem to imply. So there is a divergence of opinions on the subject. Be that as it may, neither the exact sequence of those events nor the details thereof constitute religious dogma. No one should concern himself with these legendary subjects or spend much time on midrashic statements (i.e. biblical homilies) concerning these and similar subjects. They should not be considered of primary importance, since they do not lead to the fear of God nor the love of Him. Nor should the End be calculated. The Rabbis (i.e. Judges of Israel) said: Cursed are those who calculate the end (TB San. 97b). One must wait (for his coming) and accept in principle this article of faith, as we have stated before. – Mishnéh Toráh, Hilekhót Melakhím wuMilhamót 12:2 (my emphasis in bold).
Post-Rabbinic Responsa and Piyyutím
From always and from antiquity You who examine innards With two oaths You adjured the lion cubs Saying: one, that they not force the future End and one, not to rebel against the four kingdoms – Simeon ben Megas haKohen (6th c.), Joseph Yahalom, Piyyutei Shimon ben Nagas (Jerusalem, 1984, p. 241.) I gave an oath to my multitudes not to rebel against the Wild One [Ishmael] and Edom Be silent, till the time that I make them as Sodom… I made you an oath, my careful ones, lest you rebel Await the End of Days and do not tremble. – Samuel ben Rabbi Hoshaya (10th c.), Ginzei Schechter (New York, 1928), pt. 2, pp. 65,70.
The prophets have predicted and instructed us, as I have told you, that pretenders and simulators will appear in great numbers at the time when the advent of the true Messiah will draw nigh, but they will not be able to make good of their claims. They will perish with many of their partisans. Solomon of blessed memory, inspired by the Holy Spirit, foresaw that the prolonged duration of the exile would incite some of our people to seek to terminate it before the appointed time, and as a consequence they would perish or meet with disaster. Therefore he admonished them and adjured them in metaphorical language to desist, as we read: I adjure you, O maidens of Jerusalem, by gazelles or by hinds of the field: do not wake or rouse love until it please [Song of Songs 2:7]. Now, brethren and friends, abide by the oath, and stir not up love until it pleases. – Moses Maimonides (1135 – 1204), “The Epistle to Yemen”, Crisis and Leadership: Epistles of Maimonides, Philadelphia 1993, p. 130.
[We read] in the Jerusalem Talmud, Shekalim (3:4): “It was taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: Whoever dwells permanently in the Land of Israel and speaks the Holy Tongue, etc. is assured his share in the World to Come.” However, they may not go up in order to conquer until the End comes, as is stated at the end of tractate Ketubbot: “Lest you arouse and awaken [the love]… they should not ascend the wall.” – Estori [Isaac ben Moses] ha-Parhi (1280–1355), Kaftor va-ferah (Jerusalem, 1897), p. 197.
The prophet said to the people – “Build houses…” [Jer. 29:5] – addressing himself to those living in the Exile decreed upon them… Now, too, one of the three oaths the Holy One, blessed be he, made Israel take is not to ascend the wall. – Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet (1326–1408), Teshubot haRibash (Constantinople, 1546) sec. 101
It is incumbent upon every individual to go up to live [in the Land of Israel]. However, this is not an all-inclusive commandment for all of Israel in their exile, but is withheld from the collectivity… For it is one of the oaths which the Holy One, blessed be He, has adjured Israel, that they not hasten the End, and not go up in the wall. Consider what happened to the children of Ephraim when they forced the End prematurely. – Solomon ben Simón Durán (c. 1400 – 1467), Teshubot Yakhin wuBoaz (Livorno, 1872), vol. 2, sec. 2.
People of small value and great number have set out for the Land of Israel… We do not know what gave rise to this great foolishness… And if one will say: it is not well known and renowned from the days of old that the people have always gone from every corner to the Land of Israel? [We answer:] This is true, but they have done it only in small numbers each time, and with adequate privilegia from the rulers of the lands; never has such a great crowd been reported to go there together… Therefore, our learned brothers and leaders, we beseech you: Let all those making this move turn back, let every person return home in peace, and not hasten the End as the children of Ephraim did, heaven forbid… [We pray that] our eyes shall see the Lord returning to Zion… and all of the people of Israel shall [follow] and ascend there to see the presence of the Lord our God in his chosen house. – The heads of the Jewish community in Castile mid-15th c., see B.Z. Dinur, “The Aliyah Movement from Spain to the Land of Israel following the Pogroms of 1391” (in Hebrew), Zion 32 (1967), pp. 161-74.
The commandment to inherit the Land and dwell therein is not observed save in the days of Moses, Joshua, David, and so long as the people of Israel have not been exiled from their land. After they were exiled, however, this commandment is not binding upon subsequent generations until the advent of the Messiah. On the contrary, we are commanded, according to the end of tractate Kettubot, not to rebel against the nations by conquering the land… not to ascend the wall. As for Nahamanides’ statement that the Sages conceived the conquest of the land to be an obligatory war, this statement refers to a future time, when we shall not be subjugated to the nations. But with regard to his [Nahmanides’] statement that the Sage engaged in hyperbole in praising the act of dwelling in the land, this refers specifically to the time when the Temple stands; now, however, there is no commandment to live there. – Isaac de Leon (circa 1540), Megillat Esther on Maimonides Sefer haMisswot, Mitzvat Aseh 4 (Jerusalem, 1959), pt. 2, p. 42.
The very thought [of creating a Jewish state] is an offence to the memory of the immortal seers in their illumined vision Israel stood purified seven-fold as the embodiment of a humanizing belief as the acknowledged educator of mankind… Not the mere possession of a patch of ground guaranteed by protocols is the aspiration of pious hearts among the remnant of the tribes… [Efforts to create a state] would prove worse than a chimera. It would be an absolute evil. – Sábato Morais (1823 – 1897), “The Dispersed of Judea”, Evening Telegraph, Jan 29 1877, Ledger p. 102. Sábato was a Sephardic Italian rabbi of Portuguese converso decent three generations prior, leader of the Spanish & Portuguese Congregation Mikveh Israel (Philadelphia, USA, est. 1740). He, along with R. Henri Pereira Mendes of S&P Congregation Shearith Israel (New York, USA, est. 1654), was founder of the Jewish Theological Seminary (est. 1886), which was meant as an education center for traditional Torah observant Jews.
Modern Opinions and Declarations of Sepharadí and Must‘arabí Community Leaders and Activists
If we, the heirs of Rabbi Yehuda haLevi and Maimonides, wish to follow in their ways, we must know Arabic as well and merge with the Arabs the way they, the great sages, did. As a semitic nation we must reinforce our semitic nationhood and not blur it within European culture. By utilizing Arabic we can create real Hebrew culture, but if we blend it with the European elements we will simply be committing suicide. – A. Nissim Ya‘aqob Malul (1892 – 1959), “The question of Hebrew teaching of Arabic”, Ha-Herut, June 19, 1913. Nissim was born in Safed to a family of Tunisian origins. His father was Moshé Hayyim Malul, rabbinic leader for the Jewish communities of Tanta and Cairo.
[October 14] Even our new [Zionists] institutions and press helped to fan the flames of the misunderstanding between the Arabs and us [Jews]. These institutions do not take into consideration anyone but the Jews and Europe, and totally ignore their neighbors. They treated Arabs prejudicially and dismissed them – imitating the prevailing Western attitude toward the Arabs, even though the strong Europeans actually use different methods here in the region. It is two and a half years now that the Balfour Declaration has been in our mind. It is always present in our newspapers, meetings and festivals, and it is entirely out of control. The many celebrations should not have taken place and the many [self-congratulating] articles should not have been written. The noisy articles and carnivals that are not coming in the right time or place only undermine the leader’s actions while muddling up their “perspective.”
[October 15] Those who accuse the old Jewish community – especially the Sephardic community – of “Arab assimilation” indicate, if they truly believe what they are saying, that they do not know what assimilation is. Assimilation means using the country’s language and manners; it is the total submission to its culture… When such sentiments take over the individual and govern his life, the result is that he assimilates. Assimilation is a sense of smallness, of mental submission before the strong. The mentally assimilated person does not remember that Israel is unique, the “chosen people.”
This kind of attitude cannot be born with the Oriental Judaism and Jewry.
[…] The Jews in the Orient did not assimilate. This is because Islam protects the religions and the traditions of other peoples because this is how it keeps its own identity intact. This is why Israel survives in the Orient.
[…] Assimilation mandates “let us Jews be like the rest of nations”; nationalism declares “let us Jews be as one of the other nations.” I am not an expert authorized to say anything about this dilemma. But I must comment that we should be careful with this culture coming to us in new vessels. We must be watchful that it does not ruin the feeling of Jewish pride that is prevalent particularly in the Orient. We must stay alert that our culture maintains its old character and spirit and does not become a Hebrew-speaking European culture. – Hayyim ben Kiki (1887 – 1935), “Ha-Tarbut ha-Eropit ba-Mizrah,” Do’ar Hayom, October 14 and 15, 1920. Hayyim was a Sephardic intellectual from Tiberias, son of Rabbi Shemuel ben Kiki (d. 1919), chief rabbi of Tiberias rabbinic court. My emphasis in bold.
Before the war [the Great War, World War I], the Nationalist [Zionists] viewed our Land as destroyed and deserted, awaiting our industrious hands. They believed that the Land’s inhabitants, whether they wanted to or not, would have to accept us.
[…] True, before the Great War it was impossible to imagine that the [Arab] Question would develop into such a complicated matter. But still, the [Jewish] natives of this Land [the Sephardim] felt that matters were not being well organized and that all that noise – accompanied with that ringing arrogant tone that came at us from outside – was inappropriate for both the time and the place. The [older] Sephardic Yishuv, a community that came from the lands of the East to an Eastern country – whose soul was forged and formed along several generations with the Arab peoples – sensed that something unpleasant was taking place here, and that all this movement [activity] was not carried out decently. But the admonitions, criticisms, and warnings [of Palestine’s Sephardim] were considered meaningless. They stirred only ridicule and gave rise to accusations of assimilation. The new [European] settlers say that any Jew who speaks the language of his native country is assimilating.
The leaders now see that the seed of evil that they have planted is beginning to produce fruit and thus see their mistakes. – Hayyim ben Kiki, “Al She’elat haShe’elot beYishub haAress”, Do’ar Hayom, August 30, 1921.
It must be stated in the clearest terms possible: our leaders committed an unforgivable sin in the immediate aftermath of the [1917] Balfour Declaration and the British conquest of the Land [of Palestine] when they refused unwisely to come to grasps with reality. When the first [Zionist] Board of Representatives began taking action, it ignored the Arabs who had been living here for centuries; who viewed this place as their home; and who have past, present, and future rights in this land.
[…] All of the earlier warnings expressed by the best members of the Land’s older [Sephardic] community – those who right form the outset cautioned our leaders – were in vain. These warnings, incidentally, did no harm to our fundamental national aspirations; the exclusive purpose of those [Sephardic old-timers] who advised caution was to insist on propriety when forming relations with those [non-Jewish Arabs] who were already living in the Land… It is nonetheless hard to comprehend how these leaders failed to grasp the situation and did not search for a more realistic course of action that takes into account the Land’s existing reality. – Elie Eliachar (1899 – 1981), “Yehudim weArabim.” HaMizrah, September 11, 1942. Elie was born to a distinguished Jerusalem Sephardic family of rabbis, leaders and entrepreneurs. With David Sutton, he was one of the founders of the World Sephardic Federation and served as the head of the Sephardic community in Jerusalem for many years, before and after the founding of the state of Israel.
The Jews of Iraq do not feel that they have a problem to be solved with outside help. Their domestic troubles – if any – must be settled by mutual understanding and cooperation [with the Arabs in Iraq]. They do not feel the necessity of emigrating to Palestine, America, or any other country, and if there are some exceptions, they must be due to commercial, religious, and perhaps other sentimental reasons.
The Jews in Iraq have no political organizations; they are not politically minded. The masses know very little about Palestine except what they read about it in the Bible and other religious texts. There may be some extremists on both sides, but their influence must be negligible. – Ibrahim al Kabir (d. after 1964), “Testimony before Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,” Public Record Office, London, 371/52514. Ibrahim was born to a distinguished Iraqi Jewish family, was one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Baghdad.
It is critically important for anti-Zionists advocates to differentiate between Zionism and Judaism. The former is a racist movement designed to dominate Arab Palestine, evacuate its indigenous population, and form a Zionist government. Judaism, on the other hand, is a divine religion that has nothing to do with political Zionism. However, the latter is often well disposed to agitate in the name of the Jewish faith, with the tendency to manipulate it to serve colonialist ends, similar to any other reactionary exploitative movement.
[…] Jews in Arab countries also denounced Zionism, with 1,000 Jewish youth forming an anti-Zionist group, and spiritual and pious Jewish leaders in Damascus and Aleppo participated in demonstrations protesting against Zionism… Zionism is forcefully poised to confound itself with Judaism. It falsely claims to “represent world Jews.” It should thus be expressly declared that whoever confuses Zionism for Judaism – no matter what his religion, denomination, or ideology – is, in fact, serving, willingly or unwillingly, Zionism and its master, that is colonialism. – Yusuf Harun Zilkha (b. 1921), alSahyuniyah ‘aduwat al’arab wa al-yahud (Zionism against Arabs and Jews), in ‘Usbat Mukafahat alSahyoniyya fi al‘Iraq 1945-1946 (The League for the Struggle against Zionism in Iraq 1945-1946). ed. ‘Abd al-Latif al-Rawi (Damascus: Dar al-Jalil, 1986), 99-185. Zilkha was a Baghdadi Jew who worked as a railway clerk, journalist, author and Communist activist, who was elected leader of the League for the Struggle against Zionism at the age of twenty-five.
The Egyptian Arab Jewish community has lived for long centuries side by side in amicability and fraternity with the rest of the population of Egypt… A few years ago, Egyptian Jews themselves were under pressure from, and much influence by, the widespread concerted Zionist propaganda trying to instill in them the chauvinistic and racist ideas that overwhelmingly their approach to creating the so-called Jewish state in Palestine.
[…] We expressly criticize Zionist propaganda in Egypt aimed at the drastic ostracizing of the Jewish community by the Egyptian people. We are determined with all our strength to fight against agents of Zionism in Egypt who betray the real interest of Egyptian Jews to serve interest absolutely at variance with those of Jews and even of the entire Egyptian people.
[…] Zionism, meanwhile, is designed to throw the entire world’s Jewish population into confusion and place them in a tight spot. It also endangers the fate of the Jews in Palestine and for selfish reasons capitalizes on the misery experienced by migrants. Zionism finally endeavors to seriously isolate the Egyptian Jewish community from the total Egyptian population. Therefore, the [Jewish] League [to Combat Zionism] can safely assert that Zionism represents the most dangerous movement that has ever surfaced in Jewish history and is a hindrance to the settlement of the Jewish problem. – Marsil Shirizi, Awraq munadil Itali Fii Misr (Papers of an Italian fighter in Egypt) (alQahirah, Egypt: Dar al’Alam alThalith, 2002). 52-56. Marsil was a leading Marxist activist and the author of many works in Arabic, French and Italian. He was born in Cairo to an Italian Jewish family. At twenty-one, he joined the antifascitst International Peace Movement, and in 1939 he cofounded – with Henri Curiel and Hillel Schwartz – the Marxist movement al-Itihad alDimuqrati (The democratic union).
David Ramírez 