Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: The Self-Proclaimed Sage of Selective Outrage and Historical Revisionism

Part One

This is a guest post from the JPF family by Sick and Tired of Pseudo Intellectuals originally published on Medium.

All future stories written by Reuben Salsa (every Thursday, 9 am Auckland time) will be for paid subscribers only. Guest posts will remain free and posted every Sunday (9 am Auckland time).

UPGRADE to a paid subscription and help fight antisemitism.

The JPF recommends:

The Liberal Jew by Jill - one of my favorite authors and a JPF regular, now on Substack. Unconditionally Zionist. Unapologetically a proud Jew.

Moral Clarity: Truths in Politics and Culture

Maccabee Nation

Blacklisted

Rocking the Suburbs

Andrew Fox

Special mention to:

Tzlil Berko

,

Karen Hunt aka KH Mezek

,

Kosher Cockney

and

Christopher Messina

---

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: The Self-Proclaimed Sage of Selective Outrage and Historical Revisionism

Writing this piece is particularly gratifying, as it allows me to call out this Rabbi Shapiro as well as the majority of the Satmar community and the Neturei Karta, whom I hold — at least indirectly — responsible for countless deaths during the Holocaust, as I will explain below. If forced to choose between the anti-Zionist camp and the Zionist movement, I would unequivocally side with the latter, as they actively worked to save Jewish lives, while these self-righteous zealots sat idly by, lecturing Jews that Zionism was forbidden.

Now let’s turn our attention to Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro — a man whose self-righteous anti-Zionist crusade makes him the poster child for intellectual dishonesty wrapped in a black hat. Let’s peel back the layers of this sanctimonious, arrogant “genius” to see the festering contradictions, selective ignorance, and outright delusions that drive his venomous drivel. If you would like to hear him and see him in action, he has a video of himself on his website.

Shapiro’s Platform: A Pulpit for Pseudo-Religious Nihilism

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, based in Far Rockaway, New York, leads Congregation Bais Medrash of Bayswater, which appears to be little more than a soapbox for his anti-Zionist tirades. As the self-appointed spokesperson for “True Torah Jews,” he conveniently twists Jewish tradition into a weapon against Israel, ignoring the fact that most Jewish communities worldwide embrace Zionism as a natural expression of Jewish identity and survival. His niche following is composed of those who revel in self-loathing rhetoric and reject the overwhelming consensus of Jewish history.

His Magnum Opus: A Literal Empty Wagon

Let’s talk about his infamous tome, The Empty Wagon: Zionism’s Journey from Identity Crisis to Identity Theft. Clocking in at >1,380 pages, it is more like a doorstop that could double as a cure for insomnia. It’s not so much a book as it is a bloated manifesto of cherry-picked sources, half-truths, and outright distortions. Imagine dedicating that much paper to a single idea — how much he hates Zionism — and yet failing to produce a coherent argument. One reviewer aptly described it as “an illogical and histrionic attempt to blame the evils of the Jewish world on Zionism,” comparing the experience of reading it to “reading Nazi, Hamas or similar anti-Semitic propaganda.”

• Lack of Scholarship: The book conveniently lacks a bibliography or an index, rendering it an insult to anyone who values academic rigor. Why cite sources properly when you can just bombard readers with untraceable quotes and uncontextualized rabbinic opinions, right?

• Misrepresenting Rabbinic Thought: Shapiro cherry-picks statements from pre-state rabbis opposed to secular Zionism, but he blatantly ignores the countless rabbinic figures who supported Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel. Convenient, isn’t it? Many of these rabbis harbored deep concerns that the non-practicing, secular political Zionists would exert an outsized influence on the Orthodox Jewish community, potentially undermining traditional values and halachic observance. Their apprehension was rooted in the historical context of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), a movement that had already challenged and, in many cases, eroded traditional Jewish life in Europe. Just as the Haskalah sought to modernize and secularize Jewish identity, these rabbis feared that Zionism, under the leadership of figures who were not committed to Torah observance, might further alienate Jews from their spiritual roots. For these rabbis, the prospect of a secular leadership defining the Jewish national mission raised alarm about the preservation of the sacred covenant and the role of Torah as the cornerstone of Jewish life.

• However, throughout the 18th to 21st centuries, countless Orthodox rabbis endorsed the concepts of Zionism, advocating for the Jewish return to and establishment in the Land of Israel. Below is a chronological list highlighting some of these influential figures:

• Rabbi Elijah Ben Solomon Zalman (Vilna Gaon) (1720–1797): Encouraged his disciples to settle in the Land of Israel, laying early foundations for modern Zionism.

• Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer (1795–1874): A German Orthodox rabbi, Kalischer advocated for Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine as a precursor to redemption.

• Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai (1798–1878): A Sephardic rabbi from Sarajevo, Alkalai was among the early proponents of modern Zionism, urging Jewish resettlement in Palestine.

• Rabbi Mordecai Gimpel Jaffe (1820–1891): Chief rabbi of Ruzhany, supported Kalischer’s Chevrat Yishuv Eretz Yisrael and the Chibbat Zion movement.

• Rabbi Samuel Mohilever (1824–1898): A Polish rabbi and one of the founders of the Religious Zionist movement, he played a pivotal role in promoting Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel.

• Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Reines (1839–1915): Founder of the Mizrachi movement, Reines was instrumental in merging Orthodox Judaism with Zionist ideology.

• Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935): The first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine, Rav Kook was a leading thinker of Religious Zionism, integrating Jewish mysticism with nationalist ideals.

• Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan (1880–1949): An Orthodox rabbi and leader in the Religious Zionist movement, he was instrumental in founding the Mizrachi organization.

• Rabbi Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel (1880–1953): Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel, supported the Zionist movement and Jewish settlements in Israel.

• Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap (1882–1951): Close disciple of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and a proponent of Religious Zionism.

• Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog (1888–1959): First Chief Rabbi of Ireland and later Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, he was a strong advocate for Zionism.

• Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook (1891–1982): Son of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, he was a leader in Religious Zionism and head of the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva.

• Rabbi Moshe Zvi Neriah (1913–1995): Founder of the Bnei Akiva youth movement and a central figure in Religious Zionism, he established numerous educational institutions in Israel.

• Rabbi Shlomo Goren (1917–1994): The first head of the Military Rabbinate of the Israel Defense Forces and later Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, Goren was a staunch advocate for Zionism.

• Rabbi Yehuda Amital (1924–2010): Founder of the Har Etzion Yeshiva and a leader in the Religious Zionist community, he also served as a government minister.

• Rabbi Chaim Druckman (1932–2022): A prominent Religious Zionist leader, head of the Or Etzion yeshiva, and involved in Israeli politics.

• Rabbi Shlomo Aviner (1943–present): A leading figure in the Religious Zionist movement and head of the Ateret Yerushalayim yeshiva.

• Rabbi Eli Sadan (1948–present): Founder of the Bnei David pre-military academy, promoting Zionist and religious education.

• Rabbi David Stav (1960–present): Co-founder of the Tzohar organization, promoting a Zionist and inclusive approach to Judaism in Israel.

This list is by no means exhaustive but highlights key rabbinic figures who have significantly contributed to the Zionist movement from the 18th century to the present day. These pro-Zionist rabbis viewed the emergence of Zionism as a divinely guided opportunity to accelerate the arrival of the Geulah, not that we have to wait for the Moshiach first.

His Tone: The Arrogance of a False Prophet

Shapiro doesn’t just disagree with Zionism; he sneers at it with the smugness of someone who believes he alone possesses divine truth, and possesses the extraordinary gift of knowing exactly what God wants and is thinking. His rhetoric reeks of condescension toward anyone who dares to view Zionism as a legitimate response to Jewish persecution. In Shapiro’s warped worldview, Israel’s existence is not a miraculous rebirth of a nation but a betrayal of Judaism. He treats the Holocaust as little more than a rhetorical tool to bash Zionism, all while ignoring the historical reality that a Jewish state slightly earlier in time could have saved many more millions of Jews.

The Anti-Zionist Echo Chamber

Shapiro’s rhetoric has earned him a cozy spot in the anti-Israel “peanut gallery”, where he parrots the same tired talking points as the likes of Norman Finkelstein and other fringe figures. He gleefully collaborates with groups that have no interest in Judaism and are motivated solely by their animus toward Israel. His willingness to lend a “rabbinic” veneer to anti-Semitic narratives disguised as anti-Zionism is not just irresponsible; it’s despicable.

• Alliance with Extremists: Shapiro aligns himself with groups and individuals who perpetuate hatred against Jews under the guise of anti-Zionism. He provides these groups with ammunition, knowing full well how his words will be weaponized.

• Historical Revisionism: By framing Zionism as a “colonial” project, Shapiro aligns himself with the worst kind of revisionist nonsense, erasing Jewish history and connection to the land of Israel in favor of regurgitated anti-Israel propaganda.

The Hypocrisy of “Cultural Authenticity”

Shapiro’s entire “shtick” is based on the claim that Zionism is an affront to “authentic Judaism.” But what is authentic about collaborating with groups that deny Jewish rights and history? What is Jewish about perpetuating hatred against fellow Jews? Shapiro’s version of “authentic Judaism” seems to revolve entirely around demonizing the Jewish state and legitimizing its enemies. His disdain for the vast majority of Jews who see Israel as integral to their identity betrays his contempt for the Jewish people as a whole.

A Legacy of Toxicity

Shapiro is not just a nuisance; he is a liability to Jewish unity and survival. His rhetoric undermines the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination, emboldens antisemites, and fuels division within Jewish communities. While Israel faces existential threats from its neighbors, Shapiro busies himself with tearing down the one Jewish state in the world.

A Despicable Jackass by Any Other Name

Let’s not mince words: Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro is a venomous, self-aggrandizing contrarian who thrives on the attention his anti-Zionist rants garner. He is the very definition of a useful idiot, lending credence to those who seek the destruction of the Jewish state while pretending to stand for Jewish values. If he truly cared about Judaism or the Jewish people, he might take a moment to reflect on the immense good Israel has done for Jews worldwide and the >70 years of incredible nissim v’niflaos (miracles and wonders) that have blessed Israel. But that would require intellectual honesty — something Shapiro has proven time and again he lacks.

In short, Shapiro is a loudmouth fraud whose contribution to the discourse is as meaningful as the hot air that fuels it. History will remember him not as a defender of Judaism but as a cautionary tale of how bitterness and ego can blind a person to reality.

The Three Oaths

Shapiro references the “Three Oaths” in his anti-Zionist arguments. These oaths, derived from the Talmud, Tractate Ketubot 111a, are interpreted by some as prohibiting mass Jewish migration to Israel and the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state before the arrival of the Moshiach. In his book The Empty Wagon, Shapiro discusses these oaths to support his stance against Zionism. This is the same viewpoint held by many in the Charedi community especially my favorites, the Satmar and Neturei Karta. The midrash quoted in the Gemara (Shir HaShirim Rabbah Chapter 2, Verse 7) states that the three oaths were

• Jews must not ascend to the Land of Israel “as a wall”

• Jews must not rebel against the nations.

• The nations must not oppress the Jews excessively.

The Weakness of the “Three Oaths” Argument

1. The “Three Oaths” are based on a Midrash; they are not Halacha

• The “Three Oaths” appear in the Aggadic (non-legal) portion of the Talmud, specifically in a poetic and metaphorical context. They are not cited in halachic works like the Mishneh Torah, the Shulchan Aruch, or any other codifications of Jewish law.

• Halacha is derived from legal rulings and discussions in the Talmud where often there is a maskana. Aggadic material, while spiritually meaningful, does not establish binding legal obligations.

• In contrast, the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel (Yishuv Ha’Aretz) is explicitly enumerated as a Torah commandment by the Ramban (Nachmanides) in his commentary on the Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 4). This mitzvah holds far more weight than an Aggadic statement.

2. The Gemara Reaches No Maskana

• The discussion of the “Three Oaths” in Ketubot 111a is presented without halachic resolution. Nowhere does the Talmud conclude that the oaths are binding, nor are they enforced in halachic practice.

• There is no practical application of the oaths in rabbinic responsa over centuries, while Yishuv Ha’Aretz and establishing Jewish control of the Land has been consistently upheld and encouraged as a central mitzvah in Jewish life.

3. The Oaths Refer to the Babylonian Exile (Bayis Rishon), Not Our Time

• The oaths must be understood in their historical and textual context. The verse in Yirmiyahu (27:22) quoted by Rabbi Yehuda on Ketubot 111a clearly refers to the Babylonian exile, during which time Jews were instructed by the prophet to remain in exile and not revolt against Babylonian rule until the appointed time for return.

בָּבֶ֥לָה יוּבָ֖אוּ וְשָׁ֣מָּה יִֽהְי֑וּ עַ֠ד י֣וֹם פׇּקְדִ֤י אֹתָם֙ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָ֔ה וְהַֽעֲלִיתִים֙ וַהֲשִׁ֣יבֹתִ֔ים אֶל־הַמָּק֖וֹם הַזֶּֽה

“They will be taken to Babylon, and there they will remain until the day I remember them, says the LORD, and then I will bring them back and restore them to this place.”

• The Neviim and Kesuvim in several places (Yeshayahu, Ezra, Divrei Hayamim) fall over themselves claiming that Koresh (King Cyrus of Persia) was inspired by Hashem to let the Jews return and build Bayis Sheni.

• This latter point although repeated a number of times seems disingenuous given that Cyrus the Great had a general policy of allowing conquered peoples to practice their own religions and rebuild their sanctuaries, as inscribed in the Cyrus Cylinder (~530 BCE) located in the British Museum, which praises him for restoring temples and repatriating displaced populations across Mesopotamia. The text emphasizes Cyrus’ role as a benefactor chosen by the Babylonian god Marduk to bring peace and order, illustrating his strategy of using religious tolerance to legitimize his rule. While the Bible portrays Cyrus as acting specifically to fulfill Hashem’s will in permitting the Jews to rebuild the Bais Hamikdash in Jerusalem, this act was consistent with his broader approach of accommodating the religious and cultural practices of all the peoples he ruled. The repeated insistence in biblical texts that Cyrus was uniquely fulfilling divine will seems to fall under the category of “thou dost protest too much,” given that his actions align with his general imperial policy rather than a singular divine mission. But who knows?

• If Koresh (King Cyrus), an idolater who worshipped the Persian god Marduk, could serve as an instrument of Hashem, then why not Herzl, Ben Gurion, and Weizmann — the visionary leaders of Zionism, or for that matter, President Harry Truman? We do not have Neviim today and I am pretty sure that Shapiro and his ilk have no clue, as do none of us.

• Another point of view is that the oaths likely addressed fears of premature rebellion against the dominant empires of the time (Babylonia, Persia), not a universal or eternal prohibition on Jewish return to the Land of Israel.

4. The Torah Explicitly Commands Settling and Ruling the Land

• “And you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to possess it.” (Numbers 33:53)

• This verse makes the mitzvah of settling and ruling the Land of Israel explicit. It is a Torah commandment, and no Aggadic statement can override explicit Torah law.

• The Ramban emphasizes that Jewish sovereignty over the land is integral to this mitzvah. Building a Jewish state fulfills this mitzvah, even in the absence of the Moshiach.

5. The Source Verses in Shir HaShirim Are Obscure and Allegorical

Given that Rabbi Zeira (Rabbi Yehuda’s pupil) points out the prior verse in Yirmiyahu is referring to the Klei Shareis (כלי שרת), the sacred vessels used in the Avodah in the Beis HaMikdash, such as bowls, cups, shovels, and basins, which were sanctified for use in various rituals and sacrifices. (The Menorah is a sacred object and its unique purpose and elevated status place it in a category of its own, distinct from the general Klei Shareis). Thus, the verse in Yirmiyahu is not talking about the people; it is referring to the Klei Shareis; so the Gemara says that Rabbi Yehuda actually uses a different source for the 3 oaths. In Shir HaShirim there are 3 verses, 2:7, 3:5, 8:4, two of which are identical. These verses become central to the remainder of the Talmudic discussion in Ketubot 111a.

• Shir HaShirim 2:7
  הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם בִּצְבָאוֹת אוֹ בְּאַיְלוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה אִם תָּעִירוּ וְאִם תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ. “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, that you not awaken or arouse love until it pleases.”

• Shir HaShirim 3:5
  הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם בִּצְבָאוֹת אוֹ בְּאַיְלוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה אִם תָּעִירוּ וְאִם תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ.

• Shir HaShirim 8:4
  הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם מַה תָּעִירוּ וּמַה תְּעוֹרְרוּ אֶת הָאַהֲבָה עַד שֶׁתֶּחְפָּץ.“I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, why would you awaken or stir up love until it pleases?”

These verses are highly allegorical and poetic, part of this love song traditionally understood as describing the relationship between Hashem and Israel. It is far from a clear legal prohibition. In addition, I can understand how the first oath might be derived from the verse, but the second is far less clear, and the third is downright perplexing. Interpreting these verses as a legal injunction against Jewish return to Israel is a real stretch, especially when weighed against the Torah’s explicit mitzvot.

6. The Jewish People Have Historically Rejected This Interpretation

• Many great rabbinic authorities, including the Vilna Gaon, Rav Yehuda Alkalai, Rav Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, Rav Kook, and the Chofetz Chaim, have supported Jewish return to the Land of Israel in modern times. They presumably understood that the mitzvah of settling the land overrides any allegorical interpretation of the “Three Oaths.”

• Historically, Jews prayed for the rebuilding of Jerusalem and yearned for return to Zion. The establishment of Israel fulfills these prayers and prophecies.

7. The Oaths Assume Reciprocity, Which Has Been Broken

• The Gemara mentions that the nations were also bound by an oath: not to oppress the Jewish people excessively. Given the centuries of persecution and the horrors of the Holocaust, it is clear that the nations have violated their part of the agreement.

• Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, the Ohr Somayach (1843–1926) and others argue that when the nations broke their oath, the Jewish people were no longer bound by theirs.

Thus, the “Three Oaths” lack the halachic authority or practical relevance to serve as a prohibition against Jewish return to Israel or the establishment of the State of Israel. They are Aggadic in nature, lack a binding conclusion, and are outweighed by explicit Torah mitzvot to settle and rule the Land of Israel. Misusing the oaths to oppose Zionism ignores their historical context and distorts Jewish law and tradition.

---

Part 2 will be live on Tuesday 14th January