A page in the Talmud that was studied throughout the world earlier this week seems to refer to people figuratively climbing walls, which is a feeling almost all of us seem to be experiencing these days as we look at the world around us in frustration (for one reason or another; from one perspective or another). On the surface, the reference to a wall in this week’s Daf Yomi refers to aliyah. According to Rabbi Zayra, people aren’t supposed to ascend into Israel “as a wall” (Ksuvot, 111a), “together, with a strong hand” (per Rashi), which has been generally interpreted as meaning not to enter Israel en masse, but as individuals.

The Talmud, per Rabbi Yossi, son of Rabbi Hanina, then proceeds to derive three somehow interrelated, conditionally understood oaths based on repetition of language in the Shir HaShirim, the Song of Songs (2:7, 3:5, and 8:4), that seems, on the surface, to deal with not provoking God.

The oaths are enumerated in the Talmud on this page as

(1) Jews are not to ascend into Israel “as a wall.”

(2) Jews are not to rebel against the nations of the world (participate in actual “insurrections”?)

(3) Gentiles are not supposed to subjugate Jews excessively. (How gentiles are expected to make such an oath, let alone to be bound by it, needs further study, to put it mildly.)

Nevertheless, the prevailing current interpretation seems to be that since the Balfour Declaration opened the doors of the Holy Land to mass immigration (therefore, pre-state aliyah would not be an act of “insurrection,” despite the White Paper that came later), and since the Jews were certainly subjected to more than “excessive subjugation” in multiple countries prior to, during and even after the Holocaust, the second and third oaths were compromised, at the very least. This released the Jews as to the first oath, so the prevailing current interpretation seems to be that the Jews were then free—and remain free—to make aliyah “as a wall,” after all.

In one instance, the Talmud goes on to say, on the same page, that the Jews weren’t even permitted to leave their country of origin individually, to enter Israel, in dribs and drabs. This is a reference to the Jews in Babylonia, who were discouraged from leaving the world of the yeshiva, when the study of the Torah flourished there even more than in Israel. America, of course, is now Babylonia, at least in terms of Torah scholarship; but Israel is now comparable, if not superior.

Now, back to our discussion. Notice the difference. According to the position cited in the Talmud, immigration into Israel was to be with general limits (though not quotas) on how many people could come in at a time. The position on emigration from Babylonia to Israel or to anywhere else in the world was regardless of how many people would leave, or how many would leave at a time. The ruling limiting emigration from Babylonia focused on preserving the Torah centers in the golah, in the Diaspora. The ruling on immigration to Israel had many ramifications, some of which were actually positive, not the least of which was that it protected the communities of Israel as well as the communities of the Diaspora, as will be described below.

In addition to all other considerations, by making sure that everyone wouldn’t come to Israel all at one time, the facilities of Israel would not be overwhelmed and the immigration centers could gradually absorb the new families, may the flow never wane. With the assurance that everyone wouldn’t leave their homes in the Diaspora all at once, the communities in the Diaspora would not be decimated overnight; The Torah centers there could continue to function; People could sell their homes and possessions at reasonable prices without having to take a disastrous loss that would happen if everyone would sell their property all at one time; and some people would remain in the Diaspora to help support the Jews of Israel politically and economically.

Notwithstanding all of the above, it should be noted for the record that many scholars consider the whole passage of the Talmud just cited to be “mere” Aggadeta, non-legalistic exegesis, and therefore not binding, though still providing food for thought. Furthermore, the three famous oaths identified and discussed above were also the basis of opposition to Zionism by the Satmar Rebbe, on one hand (leaving out the release), and the justification of Zionism by Theodore Herzl, on the other hand, describing why the Jews should NOT feel limited in their approach to aliyah. This was further articulated in Ohr HaRaayon by the ultra-Zionist Rabbi Meir Kahane! The Yad Vashem has even based its existence, to a degree, on this very Aggadeta, on the grounds that it was designed to show the world some of the atrocities that were perpetuated against the Jewish people, releasing the Jews from any limitation to aliyah, and of course encouraging mass aliyah.

Any way you look at it, there are lessons to be learned.

Here in America, no matter what anyone thinks of what is left of the wall at the southern border, just as we read this daf in the Talmud, we are confronted with the breaches in that wall, whether people are literally climbing walls or finding ways to get around or underneath them. No matter whether we favor or oppose the immigration from the south and the way it is handled or mishandled at the border, there is no escaping the reality that massive numbers of immigrants are bused and flown, en masse, overwhelming communities that in many cases are not equipped or funded to help with the resettlement process.

Somehow the orderly process at Ellis Island that worked so well for our ancestors is not being replicated widely enough today, though the orderly and meticulous processing of immigrants to Israel remains a shining example to the world.

So once again the Talmud in general, and the timeless and timely Daf Yomi, in particular, show the way—more than one way—to make the most of challenging situations.

Note relevant to the reference to the Torah centers in Babylonia. At this writing, ArtScroll is about to celebrate the completion of the publication of its translation and commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud, which has traditionally been almost ignored compared to the Babylonian Talmud. ArtScroll’s founder, Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz OBM, was recently and posthumously quoted as saying he viewed the publication of ArtScroll’s work on the Jerusalem Talmud to be ArtScroll’s greatest achievement because this version of the Talmud was largely inaccessible to most scholars, let alone regular students, until “now.” The official celebration will be open to all, by contacting them directly, in case you will miss any of their publicity.

Rabbi Reichel practices law, tries to practice what he preaches and is the administrator of a Foundation. No entity with which he is affiliated is responsible for anything written in this article.