The Satmar Rebbe, R' Yoel Teitelbaum: Reviewing his Biography, Beliefs, and Controversies
Biographical and theological insights into R' Yoel Teitelbaum, the founder and first Rebbe of the Satmar dynasty
Based on two book reviews of mine, previously published on the Seforim Blog:
“Satmar as Seen by an Insider: A Review of the New English Biography of Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe” - first published on the Seforim Blog in 2011 here, crossposted at my Academia.edu page here (registration required).
“A Review of R’ Mordechai Tzion, ‘Alo Na'aleh: A Response to sefer Va’Yoel Moshe / Responsa from R’ Shlomo Aviner’ “ - first published on the Seforim Blog in 2013 here, crossposted at my Academia.edu page here (registration required).
R’ Yoel Teitelbaum (Hebrew/Yiddish: יואל טייטלבוים, romanized: Yoyl Teytlboym, 1887 – 1979) was the founder and first Rebbe of the Satmar dynasty.1
A major figure in the post-war renaissance of Hasidism, he espoused a strictly conservative and isolationist line, rejecting modernity. Teitelbaum was a fierce opponent of Zionism, which he decried as inherently heretical. His role as a Jewish community leader in Transylvania during the Holocaust remains controversial.
Satmar as Seen by an Insider: A Review of the New English Biography of Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe
I recently bought the new biography of the Satmar Rebbe, called The Rebbe: The Extraordinary Life & Worldview of Rabbeinu Yoel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rebbe זי"ע, by Rabbi Dovid Meisels (Canada, 2011, distributed by Israel Book Shop). Rabbi Meisels is related to Rabbi Teitelbaum, and a staunch Satmar chossid, so you can assume that the views espoused in the book are Satmar’s true opinions. I also recently bought Solomon Poll’s classic study of hasidim in Williamsburg in the 1950s (The Hasidic Community of Williamsburg, 1962), during which Rabbi Meisel’s book is also mostly set. It was interesting comparing the two very different views, that of a Satmar hasid looking back at those times, and that of a contemporary secular scholar like Poll. (See also Allan Nadler’s interesting review of The Rebbe here.)
The book discusses many opinions of the Rebbe. Besides his famous anti-Zionist opinion, the book discusses such sundry topics as the required height of the mechitza in shul, metzitza b’peh, television, derech halimud, mikvaos, tznius (married women wearing sheitels, married women shaving their hair, women required to wear thick stockings—at least 90 denier), and the times for beginning and end of Shabbos. It is somewhat surprising that the book doesn’t mention the Rebbe’s famous opinion that a boy and a girl shouldn’t meet more than two or three times before getting engaged. On page 364, the book does mention the Rebbe’s opposition to “the chosson spend[ing] time with the kallah before and after the engagement,” but no mention is made of how the Rebbe held on the number of times the boy and girl should meet. There is a famous story told that Reb Moshe Bick, a prominent chassidishe posek in the Bronx, decided that boys and girls should meet at least 10 times before getting married. He felt that America was different from Europe, and too many divorces were happening because of improper matches. The Rebbe was strongly opposed to this position. Reb Moshe Bick explained that the difference of opinion stemmed from the fact that he was a mesader gittin, while the Rebbe was a mesader kiddushin!
Almost no sources other than Satmar publications are listed as sources. These 30 or so sources are listed in the Bibliography. The only non-Satmar sources I found were, “A Concise History of Agudath Israel” (p. 97), Uvdot Vehanhagot Leveit Brisk (p. 137) (a movement close to Satmar in many ways), the newspaper Hamodia (p. 220), and Rav Shach Speaks (p. 528). However, it is a breath of fresh air to see any sources listed; most heimishe publications opt to leave them out.
The book is notable in that it is very politically incorrect. It doesn’t beat around the bush when it confronts Reb Yoel’s opinion on Zionism. Reb Yoel was famously anti-Zionist—as are both camps of Satmar today—and Rabbi Meisels emotively explains the basis of his opinion. Of course, there are a lot of polemics, such as the story on p. 313, where Rabbi Meisels writes:
Indeed, one measure of the impact of Vayoel Moshe is that whatever books the Zionists have since published purporting to refute it (notably Hatekufah Hagedolah and Nefesh Adah) have not been taken seriously in the general Torah world. To this day, no serious mainstream work has been written to refute Vayoel Moshe. Even those rabbis who continue to advocate voting in the Zionist elections use the terms “eis laasos” and “aveirah lishmah,” indicating that at least in theory they agree with the central concepts of Vayoel Moshe.
Notice that the all-inclusive term “Zionists” is used, with no mention of “rabbis,” even though the authors of the “Zionist books” cited were undoubtedly great Talmidei Chachomim. This pattern of not giving those who hold of Zionism any titles of respect holds true throughout the book. For example, on p. 294, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Maimon, the founder of Mossad Harav Kook, is referred to only as “Yehuda Leib Maimon.” It is therefore somewhat surprising that on p. 317, the Minister of Religious Affairs is referred to as “Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Toledano.” Maybe only Sefardim are allowed to be Zionists!
On page 178, the book says about the Satmar newspaper, Der Yid: “The policy of Der Yid was that whenever the State of Israel (Medinas Yisroel) was mentioned, the word ‘Yisroel’ was placed in quotation marks to show that Torah Jewry, the true Israel, did not recognize the Zionists’ right to use their name.” (Notice “Torah Jewry,” not just Satmar.) This is followed by Rabbi Meisels himself, such as on p. 249 (“State of “Israel”). Usually, just the term “Zionist state” is used (e.g., on p. 247). It is thus surprising that on p. 523 the book mentions “[t]he Israeli authorities.” I am sure this oversight will be corrected in future editions.
Throughout the book, the author hints at the Satmar opinion that kiruv rechokim is problematic. On p. 13 he writes: “One of the secrets of the Rebbe’s success is that he never tried to perfect all of American Jewry and bring it into his fold. Instead, he worked hard to keep himself and his own community, which was mostly made up of post-War immigrants, unscathed.” Satmar is famous for disagreeing with Lubavitch on this point; however, this disagreement is never stated explicitly. Rather, the author says that this is why Rabbonim before the War were not successful in planting Yiddishkeit in America (p. 150): “A certain writer wrote that he heard from the Rebbe in 1955, ‘Why was I more successful in planting Torah in America than all the other gedolim who tried? Because they took in too much, they wanted to make the whole America good. In order to reach people, they had to make compromises. But I realized that Yiddishkeit can only grow if you plant perfect seeds. It doesn’t grow from compromises.” This completely ignores the fact that the Satmar Rebbe was working with people who had relatively recently been forcibly plucked from their homes in Hungary, and dropped straight into Williamsburg. On the other hand, earlier Rabbonim were dealing with people who had willingly left their very religious hometowns in Eastern Europe to go to America, a much more secular country. In addition, some of the American Jews had been in America for decades, and had gotten used to the freedom of behaving how they pleased, without operating within the very strict confines of the Chassidic community. On p. 515, the book discusses the Rebbe’s opposition, based on halachic issues, to Lubavitcher chassidim putting tefillin on secular Israeli soldiers. Impressively, the book quotes the Lubavitch answer back, albeit with a rejoinder.
For some reason, the Rebbe did not like the chassidim in Borough Park. This is despite the fact that there were also Satmar chassidim in Borough Park. On page 400 and page 429, derogatory remarks about Borough Park are attributed to the Rebbe.
Very harsh words are quoted from the Rebbe about the Lithuanian derech halimud. On p. 457, he is quoted to have said about bochurim in Litvish yeshivas “undeniably” learning with more enthusiasm and hasmadah than the Satmar bochurim, “…Here too, there is no truth in the ‘belly logic’ (boich svaros) used in these yeshivas. It’s all their own made up ideas, and it’s fun for them to think about ideas that they themselves made up.” And again: “Their style is not more than three generations old. They created it in order to save the younger generation from the Haskalah. It’s a totally new derech. We see that not one halachic authority came out from them. There is one of them who paskens shailos, and he wreaks terrible destruction. It’s a totally new derech, and it’s not Toras Emes.” The Rebbe wasn’t exactly the open-minded or “eilu ve’eilu divrei elokim chaim” type. I’m curious to know which posek he was referring to who he feels “wreaks terrible destruction.” It’s not difficult to guess, because he was the only Lithuanian who paskens! I’m assuming he meant Reb Moshe Feinstein, with whom the Rebbe had many halachic/ideological disputes.
An interesting story is told on p. 474. One of the founding parents of “Bais Ruchel”-- the Satmar girls’ school—came to the Rebbe with a complaint. “He [had] discovered that the teacher had instructed the girls to write the Hebrew words “Ani ohev es habeged (I love the garment) as writing practice.” Now, you might think the parent had a complaint that the sentence is grammatically incorrect. A girl writing this sentence should write “ani oheves es habeged.” Or that he complained that his daughter shouldn’t be taught to love her clothing, but rather Hashem. But no. His complaint was: “The Rebbe founded a girls’ school to raise a new generation of girls like our mothers and grandmothers in Europe. Now I see that my daughter brought home a notebook in which she wrote ‘Ani ohev es habeged.’ The Rebbetzin argues that the girls can’t be so ignorant; they are allowed to understand what they are saying when they daven. I had a grandmother who passed away at 103, and she knew the entire Tehillim and Maamados by heart. But she didn’t understand what she was saying. That’s how our children should grow up as well.” The Rebbe is said to have told his rebbetzin: “He’s right!” In other words, this man’s grandmother had lived to such a ripe old age because she didn’t know the words she was saying! Rather, they should be some magical formula not to be understood.
The book discusses at relative length the process of founding Kiryas Yoel. On page 528, we read that “[a] Yekke from Washington Heights, who agreed with the Rebbe’s views on many issues, wanted to move to the new town. The Rebbe invited him, ‘Bring another nine Ashkenazim with you, and you can start your own minyan in Kiryas Yoel.’ ” I wonder who this “Yekke” was, and how long he would have lasted among the thousands of chassidim in Kiryas Yoel!
On p. 45, R’ Meisels brings the famous myth that the town of Satmar in Hungary was named after St. Mary. He writes: “The Rebbe never pronounced the name Satmar, since it is the name of avodah zarah. Instead he would say, ‘Sakmar.’ This pronunciation was also customary in Tzanz.” Throughout the book, when the Rebbe himself mentions the name “Satmar,” “Sakmar” is used instead. In truth, “Satmar” is a combination of the Latin word “sattu,” meaning village, and the Romanian word “mare,” meaning large. (See the beginning of the Wikipedia article on Satmar here.)
Lacking in the book is any sign of Yiddish whatsoever. The Satmar Rebbe was known as a smart person, and the book brings a nice number of stories that contain his witticisms. Since the Rebbe only spoke Yiddish, as the book says on p. 26, the Rebbe obviously said whatever he said in Yiddish. But here, the quotes are only in English. I enjoy seeing the actual Yiddish expression used, and most such biographies quote the exact expression, and then translate. Possibly, Rabbi Meisels didn’t use any English lehavdil bein kodesh lechol. I’ll explain. On p. 13, R’ Meisels writes that he really shouldn’t be writing the book in English, since the Rebbe was against the use of English “as a medium of speaking and reading within the Jewish community.” But since there were many outside of Satmar who were interested in the life of the Rebbe, the decision was reached to write a book in English. On p. 488, R’ Meisels writes with pride that in the Satmar summer camps, for two months the campers “did not even hear a single English word.” I guess once the decision was reached not to use Yiddish, Yiddish could never be used!
Some surprising stories are told about talmidei chachamim, which seem to be against halacha:
1) On p. 144, R’ Meisels talks about how after the Rebbe came to America from Israel in 1946, R’ Michoel Ber Weissmandel (Rosh Yeshiva of Nitra Yeshiva in Mount Kisco) wanted to make sure he wouldn’t return to Israel. He therefore took the Rebbe’s passport and ripped it up. Did this really happen? What is the heter to destroy someone else’s passport just because you think he shouldn’t continue travelling?
2) The book speaks about how the Rebbe was “very particular not to use tainted or impure money” (p. 187). It goes on to write that “[m]any times, they also witnessed him taking undesirable money and flushing it down the toilet.” Similarly, on pages 190-191, it is told that after accepting a 10-dollar bill from “a man who was not properly observant,” the Rebbe “took that 10-dollar bill, rolled it up and began to use it to scratch his ears. Soon he tore off a piece, and continued to scratch his ears with the remainder. He tore off another piece, until the entire bill was gone.” But didn’t all those people who gave the money give it to support charitable causes? Didn’t they want the zchut of their money being put to good use? If the Rebbe was planning on destroying the money, should he have accepted it in the first place?
3) On pp. 193-194, the book tells how a man gave money to the Rebbe to pay his debts: “…he brought the Rebbe 20,000 crowns. ‘Now you can go and pay your debts.’ ” Soon after, the Rebbe gave the money to a poor girl for her dowry. When the person who gave the money to the Rebbe found out, he protested: “ ‘But I gave you the money only on condition that you would use it to pay your debts, not for tzedaka!’ the old chassid protested. The Rebbe replied: ‘The yetzer hara has already been arguing with me for quite some time, trying to convince me to stop giving tzedaka. And now you are arguing with me as well. Don’t worry, I will soon give you back your money.’ ” Here ends the story. The problem is, the halacha clearly states that if a person gives tzedaka with intentions that the money should be used for a specific purpose, the money cannot be used for any other purpose. See Rama, Yoreh De’ah 256:4; Shach ibid. s”k 10; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 125:1; ibid. se’if 5; ibid. se’if 6; ibid. se’if 7; Shach ibid. s”k 25. However, it is possible that the Rebbe thought that the donor wouldn’t mind. But if so, the book should make that explicit.
On p. 268, the book describes the tricks that the Neturei Karta employed to make sure they would win control of the Eidah Hachareidis: “Shortly before the election, the Neturei Karta divided their candidates into two parties, Neturei Karta, under Reb Amram, and Mesores Vene’emanus, under Rabbi Eliyahu Nachum Porush. In the second party, they placed candidates who were not so well-known. The goal was that some voters who did not support Neturei Karta would vote for this party and thus take away votes from Agudah.” This kind of book generally doesn’t bring any stories about its allies which recount misdeeds. It is therefore surprising that the book describes these devious schemes that were used to rig the election.
All in all, the book tells many interesting stories about the Satmar Rebbe. It also provides a good overview of the growth of Satmar in America from after the War until the 1970s. Some of the stories and views are a little extreme for the palate, and the book is very polemical in nature. However, this biography will be treasured for giving over a truly unique viewpoint of a gadol, a biography so different from other heimeshe biographies.
A Review of R’ Mordechai Tzion, Alo Na'aleh: A Response to sefer Va’Yoel Moshe / Responsa from R’ Shlomo Aviner
ר' מרדכי ציון, עלה נעלה: מענה לספר ויואל משה / תשובות מפי הרה"ג שלמה אבינר שליט"א, בית אל תשע"ב, 278 עמודים
The opinion of R' Yoel Teitelbaum, better known as the Satmar Rebbe, opposing the State of Israel has recently received a resurgence of interest. With the ongoing shift of the Orthodox Jewish world to the religious right, and attempts by some Israeli politicians to end Haredi draft exemptions, many Haredim are now feeling sympathetic to the Satmar opinion. In any discussion online about Israel drafting Haredim or cutting funding to yeshivas, there will always be one person commenting on the prescience of the Satmar Rebbe. I have heard that some people are using the Kahanist slogan in regard to this: “הרבי מסאטמאר צדק” (“The Satmar Rebbe was right”)! Therefore, the appearance of a book intended as a response to the Satmar opinion is timely.[1]
Alo Na’aleh is a response to the Satmar Rebbe's book, Vayo'el Moshe. To be more precise, it is a response to the first of the three parts of Vayo’el Moshe, which is titled “Ma’amar Shalosh Shevu’ot”. Alo Na’aleh is written by R’ Mordechai Tzion, in consultation with his Rebbe, R’ Shlomo Aviner.[2] It is published by Sifriyat Chava (ספריית חוה), the publishing house based in Beit El that publishes R' Shlomo Aviner's books. Vayo’el Moshe was published in 1961.[3] Although it might seem strange to write a response to a book so long after the book was originally published, the times seem to call for it.
There have been other attempted rebuttals to Vayo'el Moshe (including by R’ Aviner himself, see further), but Alo Na'aleh is probably the most comprehensive (though it is only on the “Ma'amar Shalosh Shevuos” part of Vayo'el Moshe). It is the most comprehensive both in the sheer amount of sources quoted, and in terms of the fact that every point made by Vayo’el Moshe is discussed and disputed (including the reason given by R’ Yoel for the title of his book!). Much of the earlier literature that responds to Vayo'el Moshe is quoted by Alo Na'aleh, but no bibliography is provided. I will therefore provide a selected bibliography of some recent traditional works on the topic here (including works not mentioned in Alo Na’aleh):
1. ר' חיים שרגא פייביל פראנק, בירור הלכה במעלת ומצות ישובה של ארץ ישראל : תולדות זאב, ירושלים תשכ"ד (ומילואים בכתב-עת 'המעין', טבת תשכ"ה)
2. ר' מרדכי עטייה, סוד השבועה, ירושלים תשכ"ה
3. ר' מנחם מנדל כשר, התקופה הגדולה, ירושלים תשכ"ט
4. ר' רפאל קצנלנבויגן, 'לא מרד אלא השבת גזילה לבעליו', שערים, כ' בסיון תשכ"ט
5. ר' משה מונק, 'שלושת השבועות', שערים, ד' בתמוז תשכ"ט
6. ר' שמואל הכהן וינגרטן, השבעתי אתכם, ירושלים תשל"ו
7. ר' חיים צימרמן, 'בענין שלש שבועות', תורה לישראל, ירושלים תשל"ח (available here)
8. מחבר אונונימי, פוקח עוורים, ירושלים תשמ"ד[4] (available here)
9. ר' שלמה אבינר, 'שלא יעלו בחומה', הלכות משיח לרמב"ם, ירושלים תשס"ג
10. ר' יעקב זיסברג, 'נפש עדה', נחלת יעקב, ב, הרב ברכה תשס"ה
11. מחבר אונונימי, הנותן ליעף כח: כ"ח קושיות על ויואל משה, הוצאת בני הישיבות
12. הרב אברהם ווייס, מחנה החרדי, גליון 341
13. חוברת בעית זמננו (א:ד)
The beginning of the introduction is fascinating. It attempts to find an ultimately uncomfortable middle ground between attacking the Satmar Rebbe for his harsh anti-Zionism, and respecting him for his greatness in Torah. The introduction begins by quoting a Shu”t Radvaz (4:187), which says that it is prohibited to degrade a talmid chacham, even if that talmid chacham is “making a mistake in the foundations of the religion” ("תלמיד חכם הטועה בעיונו בדבר מעיקרי הדת").[5] While the author states clearly that despite their differences of opinion he will still respect the Satmar Rebbe, there is an implicit polemic against the Satmar Rebbe's famously harsh attacks against his opponents.
The rest of the introduction of the book is gossipy. A string of juicy stories are told, portraying the negative attitude of various people toward Vayo’el Moshe. The book then gets down to business, responding to Vayo’el Moshe point by point.
Alo Na'aleh indeed lives up to its aspiration of pointing out the many (apparent) mistakes in “Ma'amar Shalosh Shevuos” of Vayo'el Moshe. The author even demonstrates that the Satmar Rebbe made some historical mistakes. For example, in the introduction of Vayo'el Moshe, the Satmar Rebbe explains why all the poskim didn't bring the Three Oaths in their halacha seforim: “This issue of the awakening of a movement to transgress these oaths, we have not found from the days of Ben Koziba until the time of the Rambam, which is about a thousand years, and so too from the time of the Rambam until the days of Shabsai Tzvi, and so too, from after the time of Shabsai Tzvi until now in these generations. Therefore the poskim in all these generations did not see any need to explain this issue in their times.” Alo Na'aleh correctly points out (pg. 15) that there were many other attempts by Jews to rebel against the non-Jewish majority in the time period discussed by the Satmar Rebbe.
However, true to form, Alo Na’aleh attempts to defend the Satmar Rebbe. Before discussing a particularly egregious misreading of a source in Vayo’el Moshe, Alo Na’aleh (pg. 172-3) claims that the misreadings of the sources exhibited in Vayo’el Moshe don’t stem from actual mistakes by the Satmar Rebbe. Rather, the Satmar Rebbe was convinced that Zionism was a terrible calamity, and was willing to twist sources in order to convince people that it is wrong. In other words, the ends justify the means. Alo Na’aleh finds a source permitting such tactics in the well-known Talmudic passage in Pesachim 112a, where it says that "הרוצה ליחנק היתלה באילן גדול", explained by Rashi there to mean that one is permitted to falsely quote his teacher if he knows the halacha to be true, and he won’t be listened to otherwise.[6] However, Alo Na’aleh limits this heter to polemical works such as Vayo’el Moshe.
While Alo Na'aleh does identify mistakes exhibited in Vayo'el Moshe, it has many flaws itself. It is often long-winded, bringing paragraphs from pro-Zionist authors having nothing to do with the issue at hand. In addition, there is a lack of consistency in the writing style, as entire articles, or pieces of articles, are brought down verbatim in the main body of the text, without any kind of indentation or other helpful citation. Besides for ruining the literary consistency, it can take an effort to know when the quotation ends. It is for these two reasons that Alo Na'aleh runs to a long 278 pages.
Another issue is the lack of clear organization in Alo Na'aleh. Often, the text will give one response to Vayo'el Moshe, move on to a different response, then return to the first response without any warning. This can make it difficult to follow.
A good amount of research has gone into Alo Na'aleh, and the responses to the Satmar Rebbe are the most comprehensive to date. But it is a work marked by flaws: technical errors, a propensity to go off on tangents, and a lack of clarity in its argumentation. A respectable effort that falls short of its promise[7].
* I would like to thank Eliezer Brodt for reviewing this post, and my father for editing it.
[1] Although the Satmar Rebbe (meaning R’ Yoel Teitelbaum, throughout this piece) wasn’t the first to attack Zionism based on halachic sources, he was the one to have the biggest impact. For a short scholarly discussion of the Samar Rebbe’s opposition to Zionism (focusing on his interpretation of the Three Oaths), see יצחק קראוס, שלש השבועות כיסוד למשנתו האנטי-צונית של ר' יואל טייטלבאום, עבודת גמר לתואר מוסמך בפילוסופיה יהודית, האוניברסיטה העיברית בבלטימור, תש"נ. A general history of discussion of the Three Oaths is given by Mordechai Breuer: מרדכי ברויאר, 'הדיון בשלוש השבועות בדורות האחרונים', גאולה ומדינה, ירושלים תשל"ט, עמ' 49- 57. For a history of Eastern European Haredi opposition to Zionism, see יוסף שלמון, 'תגובת החרדים במזרח אירופה לציונות מדינית', הציונות ומתנגדיה בעם היהודי, ירושלים תש"נ, עמ' 51- 73.
[2] R’ Tzion seems to claim at the end of his introduction (p. 14) that the book basically consists of his writing down the responses of R’ Aviner; however, from R’ Aviner’s haskama it is clear that the R’ Tzion had a much more substantial part in the writing of the book.
[3] Shalmon (ibid., footnote 1), says that that was a second edition. I am not sure when the first edition was published, and what the difference was between the first and second editions.
[4] This book claims that a large part of Vayo’el Moshe was forged!
[5] The Shu”t Radvaz proves this from the famous Talmudic passage in Sanhedrin 99a, where R' Hillel says that Mashiach will never come, since there was only a one-time chance in the time of Hizkiyahu Hamelech. R' Yosef there responds to this statement of R' Hillel by saying, “Hashem should forgive him” (שרי ליה מריה), and does not degrade him. As to whether R' Hillel's statement makes him a heretic, see Marc Shapiro's Limits of Orthodox Theology. R' Tzion on page 10 quotes a responsum from R' Yehuda Hertzel Henkin, a grandson of R' Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, that Chazal even refrained from degrading the famous heretic Elisha ben Avuyah (Shu”t B'nei Banim 2:34). With respect to R' Henkin, I find this attitude of respect to one's enemies he attributes to Chazal does not fit in with hundreds of examples throughout the generations of Torah leaders' harshness to enemies and heretics. Even Elisha ben Avuyah was branded “Acher” (“The Other”) by Chazal, which is clearly not a respectful title.
[6] (E.B. 2023: I’d like to thank Dr. Marc Shapiro for clarifying this, in a personal communication commenting on the original blogpost. See Shapiro’s recent book, Changing the Immutable, on this passage at length. And see at length my recent draft at my Academia.edu profile, “A Preliminary analysis of stories of deception in the Talmud”.)
[7] The most comprehensive discussion of the Three Oaths that is also well organized is נפש עדה in נחלת יעקב, mentioned earlier (in the bibliography).
This paragraph and the next are based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Teitelbaum, with adjustments
Good stuff