A response about the 3 ??????:
If our disputants look at ?????? 110-111, the entire subject is derived from ??? ??????. We do not derive Halacha from ???, also known as ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????. If our disputants learned any ????, they know this. I will be ?? ??? ???? that they aren’t so mindnumbingly stupid as to argue otherwise. Our disputants therefore need to find another source for banning moving to Israel before Moshaich’s arrival that is sourced in ????, ??????, ???? ???? ?????, ??? ????? or the ???? itself, not ?????? or ??????. Their only resort is to insist on a divine decree akin to that in ?????? 27:22, which also happens to be in the relevant section of the ????. But that isn’t a strong enough argument considering the source being ???.
In addition, that section of ?????? is clearly ????? or ???? ????. We do not rule ???? based on ????? or ???? ???? per the above maxim.
So the premise has major problems to begin with.
Rambam doesn’t mention the 3 ?????? anywhere in his writings other than in ???? ????, where they are referred to as being metaphorical, not actually binding. In fact, a simple reading of the relevant ????? in ???? ???? does not line up with our disputants’ position. To get to our disputants’ position, we would have to intentionally misread the ????? and ???? ???? to reflect positions that are simply put, not there.
We can also argue that even if the 3 ?????? were in fact binding throughout most of Jewish history – and it indeed appears to have been the case, considering the long, bitter ???? since ????? ??? ??? – they are now null and void due to the Holocaust. That horrific treatment by nations of the world was an absolute violation of the oaths on their part; per the Shulchan Aruch, we no longer need to maintain our part. The Maharal’s commentary on ?????? also applies here.
Those are strong arguments in our favor.
I will also point out – and this is after learning ????? ???, that the author himself says the ?????? are metaphorical and not actual oaths, yet he still argues it is essentially heresy to leave ???? before Moshiach’s arrival.
Sorry, that’s a really weak argument, ????? ????? ?????.
Our disputants’ primary source admits the ?????? are metaphorical and not actual oaths. Ergo, if the oaths are indeed metaphorical and not actual oaths, then they don’t apply, and at most constitute a stern warning or food for thought. Certainly that is the case if they are ????? or ???? ????. If they aren’t and are instead binding Halacha, then the only questions to be discussed are whether they are currently void or not, and how to act based on such. Our disputants argue the ?????? are not void. We argue otherwise or lean in the opposite direction. But even that argument is moot because the State exists. Both positions are valid, but the trajectory of history is ??? ??? ??? tending to show that our disputants’ position is increasingly untenable. ???? ???? ??? ??? that shall continue, and our disputants will eventually repent.
Second, essentially being heresy is not actual heresy. Leaving ???? before Moshiach’s arrival is not heresy, especially if you consider Rambam’s position in ???? ????. It doesn’t violate any ????? ????? despite the insistence that such does. I’d like our disputants to prove such, something they have avoided doing up until now. Quotes from REW, Brisk or Satmar without any explanation or expansion thereupon are inadequate, and may be considered simple hyperbole to keep students in line.
To those who consider this heresy and will invariably call me a heretic: You can answer ????? for that accusation after 120. “?? ????? ????? ????” applies to you.
That’s all I have time for at the moment.