Showing posts with label Judaism: War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judaism: War. Show all posts

Monday, March 6, 2017

Our Troubled History of Righteous Warriors (Pre-Purim Derashah)

I presented this derashah on Shabbos, and it was sufficiently well-received for me to post it here as well:

Children of the 1970’s and 1980’s will remember the movie Wargames, in which Matthew Broderick hacked into the Pentagon’s central computer system – the WOPR – and accidentally started playing a real-world version of a game called Global Thermonuclear War. At the end of the movie, the WOPR computer observed that war is, “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

Tanach and Talmud seem to come to the same negative conclusion regarding war:
·         Look at our earliest biblical battles:
o   Avraham battles an alliance of four kings to save his brother-in-law Lot; the Talmud[1] says that Avraham was then punished for drafting his students to fight in the war.
o   Yaakov prepared to fight against Esav, and we are told, ויירא יעקב מאד ויצר לו, Yaakov was afraid, and he was troubled. Midrashim[2] explain: Yaakov was afraid lest he be killed, but he was also disturbed by the possibility of killing others, apparently even in self-defense.
o   Shortly thereafter, Shimon and Levi smashed the city of Shechem and saved their sister Dinah. Yaakov responded, “You have muddied my name in the eyes of the nations of the land!”
·         Fast-forward to Nach, where we meet Dovid haMelech, who is told by G-d that he cannot build the Beit haMikdash because דמים רבים שפכת ארצה לפני, You have spilled much blood – but Ramban[3] says that this blood was spilled in wars ordered by Gd!
·         Or since Purim is coming, read Megilat Esther – the Jews didn’t want to go to war, even in their own self-defense. Esther and Mordechai pleaded with Achashverosh to rescind the decree against them, and only when he refused were they forced to resort to battle.[4]
·         In this light, it’s no wonder that we are prohibited from using iron to shape the stones of the mizbeiach; כי חרבך הנפת עליה, your sword is an unwanted, unrighteous weapon of death.
It seems that the WOPR is indeed correct about war – the only way to win is not to play!


The problem is that Judaism simultaneously depicts war as a righteous, even glorious pursuit!

The Torah presents war as a mitzvah:
·         וכי תבאו מלחמה בארצכם על הצר הצורר אתכם והרעותם בחצוצרותWhen you go to war, not if you go to war, against the enemies who attack you in your land, blow the trumpets and Gd will save you.[5]
·         כי תצא למלחמה על אויביךWhen you go to war against your enemies
·         לא תכרות להם בריתDo not make peace treaties with the seven Canaanite nations.
·         In the classic catalog of 613 biblical mitzvot, Sefer haChinuch records four separate mitzvot related to war (394, 525,526, 527)

And not only is war a mitzvah, but our Sages teach that war is a religious act pursued by righteous figures, specifically:
·         According to a mishnah, the Sanhedrin, the high religious court, approves all wars;
·         The Talmud describes Shaul’s general Doeg, and Dovid haMelech, and his Shlomo’s general Benayahu ben Yehoyada, as both warriors and Torah scholars;
·         The Talmud teaches that Jewish soldiers were given the opportunity to retreat from the battlefield if they had any sin on their records, however minor, leaving an army of soldiers who would be ideal tzaddikim.
We did not go as far as the Greeks, with Plato’s declaration that one must engage in military service in order to be a complete person – but we seem to have come pretty close!

So how do we reconcile biblical and rabbinic negativity toward war and warriors, with the idea that war is a great mitzvah, waged by our best and brightest? And to apply this today - how should we look at serving in our own IDF?


We could argue that war is simply a בדיעבד, a necessary evil; other mitzvot are necessary evils, too, like returning stolen goods and punishing criminals in beit din. If we were worthy, Hashem would battle our enemies and we would not need to fight, but we have not been worthy and so we have needed to fight.

The idea that war is a concession to reality is not new to Judaism; almost two thousand years ago, the Talmud[6] blamed our wars on the Golden Calf. Rav Ada, son of Rabbi Chanina declared: If we had not created the Golden Calf, Tanach would have been very short – we would have needed only the Chumash, and the book of Yehoshua describing the division of the Land of Israel. As Rav Kook explained:[7] We would have faced none of the wars and challenges and Divine rebukes which fill the rest of Tanach. Our righteousness would have awed the nations of the land, and we would not have needed to fight.[8]

Indeed, according to the Rambam these bedieved wars were an undesirable, weak and inferior means of sanctifying the land of Israel. He wrote[9] that sanctity which comes about via the sword can also be removed by the sword, and so the kedushah conferred by Yehoshua through battle was actually removed by the Babylonians when they conquered us.

Within this view, the ideal would be for victory to come through Divine intervention. Perhaps this is why our Sages looked for less bloody ways to re-interpret the violent exploits of our greatest leaders.
·         Moshe kills an Egyptian who is beating a Jew – but Avot d'Rabbi Natan[10] says he did it by invoking the Name of Gd.
·         The book of Shoftim says that Kalev marries off his daughter to the shofeit Otniel ben Kenaz, after he conquers the city of Kiryat Sefer – but according to the Talmud,[11] what Otniel actually did in “Kiryat Sefer” was to teach hundreds of laws which had been forgotten upon Moshe’s death.
Both of these derashot are based on solid textual analysis, but they also reflect a certain perspective: War represents a failure of spirituality, and our greatest leaders did not need to resort to fisticuffs.

In truth, this bedieved view of war may be part of a broader philosophical view of this world as a perfect planet shaped by imperfect people:
·         We should receive food from the heavens or miraculous crops, but because we are imperfect, we need to plow and plant and harvest.
·         We should be healed of disease upon praying to Gd, but because we are imperfect, we need to rely on painful, expensive and uncertain medicines.
·         And we should be protected from enemies without fighting, but because we are imperfect, we must go to war.

So the WOPR is indeed correct; the only winning move is not to play – but sometimes you don’t have another option.


But there is another layer to war. When the Torah depicts war as religious and righteous, it is because war is not only the act of bludgeoning the enemy.

War also means protecting our families and defending our ideals, and putting our own lives on the line to do so. War means seeing ourselves as part of a community, and recognizing that the parts must sacrifice on behalf of the whole. The redemptive character of war, that which makes it a mitzvah and a pursuit for our greatest and most righteous, is found in living beyond ourselves, pursuing neither pleasure nor power, but selfless purpose.
·         Avraham goes to war not to demonstrate power or gain spoils, but to save his brother-in-law;
·         Shimon and Levi are guilty of excess, but they went to war to save their sister;
·         Dovid haMelech cannot build the Beit haMikdash, but he fought the Plishtim in order to save his nation.

In truth, this approach requires more nuance; not every selfless fight is noble or heroic. The suicide bomber also thinks he is pursuing selfless purpose in the name of country and ideology. We need more discussion of what constitutes a “just war”, and that will be part of our panel discussion before minchah, at 4:45 PM. But the message I see in the Torah’s mitzvot of war is about not the glory of finishing our foes, but the glory of risking one’s life for others and for ideals.

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein made this point in an essay entitled The Ideology of Hesder. Describing the mission of the yeshivot which blend Torah study with military service, he wrote:
No one responsibly connected with any yeshivat Hesder advocates military service per se… No less than every Jew, the typical Hesdernik yearns for peace, longs for the day on which he can divest himself of uniform and uzzi and devote his energies to Torah… In one sense, therefore, insofar as army service is alien to the ideal Jewish vision, Hesder is grounded in necessity rather than choice…
In another sense, however, it is very much l'hathillah, a freely willed option grounded in moral and halakhic decision… We advocate it because we are convinced that, given our circumstances - would that they were better - military service is a mitsvah, and a most important one at that.


This is the source of our troubled history of righteous warriors – of Avraham and Yaakov, of Shimon and Levi.
·         The sword may not cut the stones of the mizbeiach, and Dovid haMelech cannot build the Beit haMikdash, because war is corrupting; the Golden Calf ensured that we must fight, as a bedieved concession to our imperfect spirituality.
·         But war is also an ennobling opportunity to live for others, to sacrifice years, and possibly one’s life, to serve the nation. In that sense it may be the greatest mitzvah we can perform.

In the beginning, Hashem created a garden, and populated it with many trees. One of those trees was the Tree of Life; eat from it וחי לעולם, and live forever. Another of those trees was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. We chose the latter, the fruit which gave us good and evil combined, and the result was the blending of good and evil in all of our pursuits, however noble. As a result, Chavah is told that bringing a baby into this world will involve not only life, but also pain. Adam is told that bringing food from the earth will involve not only life, but also pain. And serving our nation, too, involves both life and pain.

May we soon know a day when we will return to the Tree of Life, when the sin of the Golden Calf will at last be expunged, when לא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב ולא ילמדו עוד מלחמה – when nation will not raise sword against nation and no longer will they study war, when instead of מלאה הארץ חמס a land filled with chamas, we will have מלאה הארץ דעה את ד' כמים לים מכסים, a land filled with knowledge of G-d, as the sea is filled with water.





[1] Nedarim 32a
[2] See Rashi Bereishis 32:8, and Sifsei Chachamim there
[3] Ramban Bamidbar 16:21
[4] Esther 8
[5] Bamidbar 10:9
[6] Nedarim 22
[7] Orot HaMilchamah 4
[8] Ditto Shem miShemuel Succot 5674
[9] Hilchos Beis haBechirah
[10] 1:20
[11] Temurah 16a

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Esther's Bloody War?

In case the few remaining readers have been wondering where I've been, quite a bit of my time in the past week has been dedicated to writing a new edition of Shiur Theatre - "Esther's War" - for our Beit Midrash. In a presentation this Shabbos, we will look at the halachic and ethical questions raised by the bloodshed, and fear-based conversion, that occurred in the events of the original Purim.

I don't expect to share the script here (at least, not until I see how it is received on Shabbos...), but here is the accompanying source sheet. I don't imagine it will be all that intelligible without the script, but some of the sources may be interesting. It is also downloadable in pdf here.


Persian conversion to Judaism out of fear: Is it legitimate?
1.   Esther 8:17
וְרַבִּים מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מִתְיַהֲדִים כִּי־נָפַל פַּחַד־הַיְּהוּדִים עֲלֵיהֶם:
And many from the population converted themselves to Judaism, for the fear of Mordechai had fallen upon them.

2.   Talmud, Yevamot 24b
וכן מי שנתגייר לשום שולחן מלכים, לשום עבדי שלמה, אינן גרים, דברי ר' נחמיה; שהיה רבי נחמיה אומר: אחד גירי אריות, ואחד גירי חלומות, ואחד גירי מרדכי ואסתר אינן גרים... א"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב: הלכה כדברי האומר כולם גרים הם...
One who converts in order to partake of a royal table, or to be among Solomon's servants, is not a valid convert, per Rabbi Nechemiah. For Rabbi Nechemiah said: Those who have converted for fear of wild animals or due to dreams, and those who converted in the days of Mordechai and Esther, are not valid converts…
Rav said: The law follows the view that they are all valid converts [after the fact].

3.   Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 268:12
כשיבא הגר להתגייר, בודקים אחריו שמא בגלל ממון שיטול או בשביל שררה שיזכה לה או מפני הפחד בא ליכנס לדת.
When one comes to convert, we investigate whether he might be trying to enter the religion to acquire money, or to achieve power, or out of fear.

4.   Tosafot, Yevamot 24b לא
קשה דאמרינן בהערל (עט.) גבי מעשה דגבעונים דבימי דוד נתוספו גרים על ישראל ק"ן אלף וי"ל דמעצמן נתגיירו כדאשכחן גבי מרדכי ואסתר ורבים מעמי הארץ מתיהדים
But doesn't the Talmud (Yevamot 79a) say regarding the event with the Gibeonites in King David's day, that 150,000 people converted? Perhaps they converted independently, as occurred in the days of Mordechai and Esther…

The invasion of Canaan: Does the Torah endorse bloodshed beyond self-defense, and looting?
5.   Bereishit 34:25-27
וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי־בְנֵי־יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל־הָעִיר בֶּטַח וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל־זָכָר: וְאֶת־חֲמוֹר וְאֶת־שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ הָרְגוּ לְפִי־חָרֶב וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת־דִּינָה מִבֵּית שְׁכֶם וַיֵּצֵאוּ: בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ עַל־הַחֲלָלִים וַיָּבֹזּוּ הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ אֲחוֹתָם:
And on the third day, when they were in pain, two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, brothers of Dinah, took their swords and came upon the secure city, and killed every male. And they killed Chamor and his son Shechem by the sword, and they took Dinah from the house of Shechem, and they left. The sons of Yaakov came upon the corpses and despoiled the city, for contaminating their sister.

6.   Yehoshua 12:7-24
וְאֵלֶּה מַלְכֵי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִכָּה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל... מֶלֶךְ יְרִיחוֹ אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ הָעַי אֲשֶׁר־מִצַּד בֵּית־אֵל אֶחָד: מֶלֶךְ יְרוּשָׁלִַם אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ חֶבְרוֹן אֶחָד: מֶלֶךְ יַרְמוּת אֶחָד מֶלֶךְ לָכִישׁ אֶחָד:... כָּל־מְלָכִים שְׁלֹשִׁים וְאֶחָד:
And these are the kings of the land whom Yehoshua and the Children of Israel struck… One was the king of Jericho, one was the king of Ai beside Bethel. One was the king of Jerusalem, one was the king of Hebron. One was the king of Yarmut, one was the king of Lachish… all of the kings were 31.

7.   Devarim 20:10
כִּי־תִקְרַב אֶל־עִיר לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ וְקָרָאתָ אֵלֶיהָ לְשָׁלוֹם:
When you draw near to a city, to battle it, you shall call to it for peace.

8.   Commentary of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to Devarim 23:10
הספרי מדגיש "על - איביך - כנגד אויביך אתה נלחם"; התורה מניחה שתילחם רק באלה שהראו את עצמם כאויביך, שסבלת מאיבתם ואתה מצפה מהם למעשי איבה, ולפיכך אפילו תתקיף אותם, רק תגן על עצמך; דברים אלה שוללים כל מלחמת כיבוש
"When you go to war against your enemy" – A midrash emphasizes, "against your enemy – you wage war against your enemies." The Torah establishes that you will battle only those who show themselves to be your enemy, from whose enmity you have suffered, and from whom you anticipate acts of enmity. Therefore, even should you strike them, you shall only defend yourself. This message rejects all wars of conquest.

9.   Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6:7
כשצרין על עיר לתפשה, אין מקיפין אותה מארבע רוחותיה אלא משלש רוחותיה, ומניחין מקום לבורח ולכל מי שירצה להמלט על נפשו
When besieging a city to capture it, we do not surround it on its four sides, but only from three sides. And we leave a space to flee, and all who wish may flee for their lives.

10.      Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:14
חייבין להושיב דיינין ושופטים בכל פלך ופלך לדון בשש מצות אלו, ולהזהיר את העם... ומפני זה נתחייבו כל בעלי שכם הריגה, שהרי שכם גזל והם ראו וידעו ולא דנוהו...
Noachides are obligated to establish judges in every place to judge these six commands and instruct the nation… and this is why all of the members of Shechem were liable for death. Shechem kidnapped, and they saw and knew and did not judge him

11.      Devarim 9:5
לֹא בְצִדְקָתְךָ וּבְיֹשֶׁר לְבָבְךָ אַתָּה בָא לָרֶשֶׁת אֶת־אַרְצָם כִּי בְּרִשְׁעַת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה ד' אֱלֹקֶיךָ מוֹרִישָׁם מִפָּנֶיךָ...
Not due to your righteousness and the straightness of your heart do you come to take their land, but due to the wickedness of these nations does your G-d take them from before you…

12.      Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, Amud haYemini 16:2
אין יסוד מספיק להתיר פעולה נגד הציבור שנמנע למלא חובתו ולבער מתוכו את המרצחים, כל עוד שיתכן שיש להם אמתלא של פחד או לחץ וכוצא בו.
There are insufficient grounds to permit action against a community that refuses to fulfill its obligation and eliminate murderers from their midst, so long as they may have the excuse of fear, pressure and the like.

13.      Rabbi Yehudah Loeb (Maharal), Gur Aryeh to Bereishit 34:13
ואף על גב דאמרה התורה (דברים כ, י) "כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה וקראת אליה לשלום", היינו היכי דלא עשו לישראל דבר, אבל היכי דעשו לישראל דבר, כגון זה שפרצו בהם לעשות להם נבלה, אף על גב דלא עשה רק אחד מהם - כיון דמכלל העם הוא, כיון שפרצו להם תחלה - מותרים ליקח נקמתם מהם.
Deuteronomy 20:10 says, "you shall call to it for peace", but that is where they have not acted upon Israel. Where they have acted toward Israel, such as here [Shechem] where they had broken forth, doing this repellent thing, then even though only one of them had done it, since they had attacked first, Israel was permitted to respond. So, too, for all wars, even where only one of them had acted, he is part of the nation. Since they attacked first, we were permitted to go to war against them…

14.      Talmud Yerushalmi, Sheviit 6:1
שלש פרסטיניות שלח יהושע לארץ ישראל עד שלא יכנסו לארץ מי שהוא רוצה להפנות יפנה להשלים ישלים לעשות מלחמה יעשה
Joshua sent three messages into Israel, before the Jews entered the land: Those who want to leave, may do so. Those who want to make peace, may do so. Those who want to make war, may do so.

15.      Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 6:1
אין עושין מלחמה עם אדם בעולם עד שקוראין לו שלום אחד מלחמת הרשות ואחד מלחמת מצוה, שנאמר כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה וקראת אליה לשלום, אם השלימו וקבלו שבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח עליהן אין הורגין מהן נשמה והרי הן למס, שנאמר יהיו לך למס ועבדוך
We may not declare war upon any human being, anywhere, until we first sue for peace. This applies both to "authorized wars" and "obligatory wars," as it is written, "When you draw near to a city to fight against her, you shall call to her for peace." Should they make peace and accept the laws in which Noachides are instructed, we would not kill anyone there. We would collect taxes, as it is written, "They will be tribute to you, and will serve you."

16.      Commentary of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to Bereishit 34:25
עתה מתחילה הגנות, ואין בדעתנו לחפות עליה. אילו הרגו את שכם וחמור, ודאי היה הדין עמהם. אך הם לא חסו על אנשים חסרי מגן, המסורים בידיהם בלא כוח. גדולה מזו, הם שדדו, ובדרך כלל פקדו על אנשי העיר את עוון אדוניהם. לכך לא היתה כל הצדקה.
Now the disgrace begins, and we do not intend to cover it up. Had they killed Shechem and Chamor, justice would certainly have been with them. But they did not spare the defenseless men who were given into their hands, who had no strength. Worse, they looted, and generally made the inhabitants pay for the crime of their master. For this there was no justification.

17.      Rabbi Avraham Shapira, War and Ethics, Techumin 4, pg. 182
כל עוד אין סכנה ממשית לחיילינו אין היתר לפגוע בנפש ואף לא ברכוש. אולם כאשר הסכנה היא מוחשית, הרי שיש לזכור שעל כף המאזניים אין עומדת רק היחידה הלוחמת מול האוכלוסיה האזרחית, איבודה של יחידה אחת או חלק ממנה עלול לפגוע במערכת המלחמה כולה.
When there is no substantive risk to our soldiers, there is no permission to strike lives or property. However, when there is a discernible risk, one must remember that it is not only a matter of weighing one unit opposite a civilian population on the scale. The loss of one unit, or part of it, can affect the entire battle…

18.      Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Ethics and War, Techumin 4, pg. 185
המחיר נתבע גם מהאויב, שאף הוא נחון בצלם אלוהים, ויש לדאוב בכל מקרה שמעשה ידיו של הקב"ה טובעים בים. בנקודה זו מהווה הגורם הכמותי גורם בעל משמעות, ויש בהחלט לשקול את מידת הצידוק שבפגיעה ברבים על מנת להציל את היחיד.
The price [of war] is also paid by the enemy, who is also graced with the Divine image, and one should grieve whenever G-d's creations drown in the sea. On this point, the issue of quantity is meaningful, and one certainly must weigh the justifications for harming many in order to save an individual.

The eternal war with Amalek: Where does it come from, and where is it going?
19.      Verses of Amalek
  • Bereishit 36:12                        Amalek is the grandson of Esav
  • Shemot 17                    Amalek's first unprovoked attack in the wilderness
  • Bamidbar 14                Amalek's second unprovoked attack in the wilderness
  • Devarim 25                  Amalek's first unprovoked attack in the wilderness, re-told
  • Shoftim 3                      Amalek and Moav join forces against the Jews
  • Shoftim 6                      Amalek and Midian join forces against the Jews
  • Shemuel I 15                King Saul leads a war against Amalek
  • Shemuel I 27                Future-King David raids Amalek
  • Shemuel I 30                Amalek burns down the Jewish city of Tziklag
  • Shemuel II 1                  An Amalekite claims to have murdered King Saul
  • Divrei haYamim I 4       The tribe of Shimon wages war upon Amalek

20.      Talmud Yerushalmi, Yevamot 2:6
"כי המן בן המדתא". וכי בן המדתא היה? אלא צורר בן צורר אוף הכא קוצץ בן קוצץ.
"For Haman, son of Hamedata" – Was Haman really a son of Hamedata? No; the text is simply identifying Haman as an enemy, "son of" an enemy.

21.      Talmud, Gittin 57b
מבני בניו של המן למדו תורה בבני ברק
Some of Haman's grandchildren learned Torah in Bnei Brak.

22.      Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, Fate and Destiny, footnote 25, citing Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik
If any people seeks to destroy us, we are commanded to do battle against it when it rises up against us, and this battle of ours is an obligatory war on the basis of the verse from Exodus (17:16), "The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

23.      Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence, pg. 1
In the spring of 2004, as this book was slouching toward completion, Jeffrey Goldberg reported in the New Yorker about a series of disturbIing interviews he had recently conducted with Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza. "The Palestinians are Amalek," he was told by Benzi Lieberman, chairman of the Council of Settlements. "We will destroy them," Lieberman continued. "We won't kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism." And Moshe Feiglin, a leading Likud activist, told Goldberg: "The Arabs engage in typical Amalek behavior. I can't prove this genetically, but this is the behavior of Amalek."

The bloody war of Purim: How bloody was it?
24.      Esther 8:5-8
וַתֹּאמֶר אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב וְאִם־מָצָאתִי חֵן לְפָנָיו וְכָשֵׁר הַדָּבָר לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְטוֹבָה אֲנִי בְּעֵינָיו יִכָּתֵב לְהָשִׁיב אֶת־הַסְּפָרִים מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הָמָן בֶּן־הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי אֲשֶׁר כָּתַב לְאַבֵּד אֶת־הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ... וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וּלְמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי הִנֵּה בֵית־הָמָן נָתַתִּי לְאֶסְתֵּר וְאֹתוֹ תָּלוּ עַל־הָעֵץ עַל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בַּיְּהוּדִים: וְאַתֶּם כִּתְבוּ עַל־הַיְּהוּדִים כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ וְחִתְמוּ בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי־כְתָב אֲשֶׁר־נִכְתָּב בְּשֵׁם־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְנַחְתּוֹם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין לְהָשִׁיב:
And Esther said: If it would be good before the king, and if I have found favour before him, and if it would be appropriate before the king, and if I would be good in his eyes, let it be recorded to retract the scrolls, the plan of Haman son of Hamedata the Aggagite, who has written to destroy the Jews in all of the king's lands!...
And King Achashverosh said to Queen Esther and to Mordechai the Jew: Behold, I have given the house of Haman to Esther, and they have hung him upon the tree for sending his hand against the Jews. Now, write upon the Jews as is good in your eyes in the name of the king, and seal it with the king's ring, for one may not retract a text written in the king's name and sealed with the king's ring.

25.      Esther 8:10-11
וַיִּכְתֹּב בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ וַיַּחְתֹּם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים בְּיַד הָרָצִים בַּסּוּסִים רֹכְבֵי הָרֶכֶשׁ הָאֲחַשְׁתְּרָנִים בְּנֵי הָרַמָּכִים: אֲשֶׁר נָתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־עִיר־וָעִיר לְהִקָּהֵל וְלַעֲמֹד עַל־נַפְשָׁם לְהַשְׁמִיד וְלַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד אֶת־כָּל־חֵיל עַם וּמְדִינָה הַצָּרִים אֹתָם טַף וְנָשִׁים וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז:
And he wrote in the name of King Achashverosh… that the king had permitted the Jews of every city to gather and stand upon their lives, to destroy and kill and eliminate the collective might of the nations who had besieged them, children and women, and take their spoils.

26.      Esther 9:15-16
וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר־בְּשׁוּשָׁן גַּם בְּיוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וַיַּהַרְגוּ בְשׁוּשָׁן שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אִישׁ וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת־יָדָם: וּשְׁאָר הַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בִּמְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ נִקְהֲלוּ וְעָמֹד עַל־נַפְשָׁם וְנוֹחַ מֵאֹיְבֵיהֶם וְהָרֹג בְּשֹׂנְאֵיהֶם חֲמִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעִים אָלֶף וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת־יָדָם
And the Jews of Shushan gathered on the 14th of Adar as well, and they killed in Shushan 300 men, and they did not extend their hand to the spoils. And the rest of the Jews in the king's lands gathered and stood for their lives, and gained reprieve from their foes, and killed their enemies, 75,000, and they did not extend their hand to the spoils.


Monday, November 16, 2009

Banning Muslims and Jews from the US Military

[Note: Haveil Havalim is here!]

I am a big fan of the Treppenwitz blog; David Bogner often makes me laugh as well as think.

The other day he commented on Ed Koch's suggestion that Muslims in the US military be exempt from fighting wars against Muslim countries. An excerpt:

I don't see the value in allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military if the only place in the whole world that their expensive training can be utilized is along a 155 mile stretch of the 38th Parallel. And even there, with North Korea, Syria and Iran being all chummy... well you see the problem.

I hear his point (which is somewhat exaggerated, of course; there are a few US deployments that relate to conflicts involving non-Muslim entities). Still, it makes me uncomfortable. I am reminded of the Jewish response to Napoleon's sixth question to his Sanhedrin:

Question: Do Jews born in France, and treated by the laws as French citizens, consider France their country? Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and to conform to the dispositions of the civil code?


And part of the Jewish response:
The love of the country is in the heart of Jews a sentiment so natural, so powerful, and so consonant to their religious opinions, that a French Jew considers himself in England, as among strangers, although he may be among Jews; and the case is the same with English Jews in France.
To such a pitch is this sentiment carried among them, that during the last war, French Jews have been seen fighting desperately against other Jews, the subjects of countries then at war with France.

(For the full text, go here.)

I believe many modern observant Jews would not follow this pseudo-Sanhedrin's formulation, in the absence of a direct threat. So should Jews be banned, publicly declared persona non grata, as well?

In truth, David does distinguish between Jews and Muslims. He notes that the US deploys a significant portion of its forces in conflicts involving Muslim countries, but does not currently deploy forces against Israel - and that even were such a thing to happen, that would still leave many other places a Jew could serve. According to this argument, the issue is not moral philosophy, but military utility; a Muslim will have few places to serve, a Jew will be able to serve more. The Jew would be the equivalent of a Catholic during a conflict against Vatican City; he could avoid this war, and still fight in others.

But I think this still misses a key point; the issue is fundamentally about morality.

I believe that what offends the American mind about Nidal Malik Hasan, even before the horror of his mass murder, is his distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim. Apparently, he is comfortable with the idea of going to war for the US to kill Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus or atheists, but he would not be comfortable killing Muslims. Loyalty to the US can justify killing anyone except a Muslim.

That Muslim/non-Muslim distinction is what brings about the call to exclude Muslims from the US military - the fear that they are Muslim first, and American second.

And in this regard, Jews may be no different - we might have difficulty shooting at a co-religionist over a territorial dispute, too. Therefore, an exclusion of Muslims must also lead to an exclusion of Jews. That's why this idea makes me uncomfortable; I'd rather see an exclusion from this war rather than an exclusion from the military.

One question, though: Why are Protestants and Catholics different in this regard?

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

What’s so bad about Holy War?

The New York Times testifies:
A soldier, identified by the pseudonym Ram, is quoted as saying that in Gaza, “the rabbinate brought in a lot of booklets and articles and their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle, God brought us back to this land and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land. This was the main message, and the whole sense many soldiers had in this operation was of a religious war.”

On which Paul Raushenbush at Beliefnet.com editorializes:
Hmmm, moving from a war of necessity to a war of choice and one viewed through the axis of good vs evil. Sounds familiar to me. I am near despair over the misguided fanaticism of the religious right whether it is Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu. Enlightened religious communities and secular humanists must join together in Israel, Palestine, America, India, Pakistan, and throughout the world to counter the dogma of war and domination that we see in religious fundamentalists throughout the world.

The Times and Beliefnet articles are both built upon the same assumptions:
1. Holy War means a war fought out of religious belief that I should kill the enemy, and
2. Israeli soldiers motivated by their rabbinate fight for that "Holy War."

But they miss the truth; their anti-Israel jingoism ignores nuance.

To the Iranians, perhaps, religion means an aggressive "Death to the Infidel." To the Jew, though, the religious argument means a religious imperative to remain in Israel. We could do that in peace, if they would let us alone. We don't fight for the sake of religion. We stay for the sake of religion; we fight for the sake of survival.

Israel’s wars, since before 1948 and long before there was any so-called Occupation, have been about that necessary self-defense and survival. Belief motivated Jews to remain in the land; Necessity motivated them to fight back.

When Jews living in Hebron and elsewhere were attacked by Arab marauders in the 1920s, they organized a military response and fought back. Jews chose to stay because of religion, and then to fight so that they could live.

Note that Israel has not launched aggressive wars. If the imperative for Israel's army were religion, they would attack offensively. Instead, Israel only reacts to being attacked.

Contrast this approach with Arab actions, and Muslim actions in Europe, Southeast Asia, and around the world. They do not need to fight against Jews, and against the West. No one is coming after them, no one is trying to harm them, to take away their sovereignty and autonomy. But they go pursuing “the enemy,” the demonic Jew and his Western allies. Their war is built on the foundation of religious belief, without any element of self-defense beyond the claim that the existence of a Jew in dar-al-Islam is an inherent threat to their existence.

What Israel is doing may more fairly be termed “Holy Self-Defense.” Arab aggression, on the other hand, is “Holy War.”

For more in the same ugly vein, see CNN here. But then be sure to see Jack here.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Praised is the one who will grab and smash… (Psalms 137:8-9)

בת בבל השדודה אשרי שישלם לך את גמולך שגמלת לנו
אשרי שיאחז ונפץ את עולליך אל הסלע

I have reached a nadir moment I would have hoped never to reach. I finally feel I can understand some element of Tehillim 137:8-9, “Looted daughter of Bavel, praised is the one who will pay you your just desserts, as you did to us. Praised is the one who will grab and smash your infants against the stone.

What a horrible wish!

I have taught this line in various adult contexts over the years, and, invariably, it has inspired in me, as well as in my classes, appropriate revulsion. How could anyone ever hope for such a thing, for the death of children, for the violent death of children?! What in the world is this doing in Tanach?

And every time, I have tried to provide context for the class:
I explain that this is supposed to be Dovid haMelech’s nevuah, his prophecy.
He sees his son succeed in constructing a Beis haMikdash, a home for Gd.
He sees succeeding generations bring korbanot and celebrate together and build a thriving society.
Then he witnesses the decline of that society, his realm split in two, worship of Baal and Asherah, intramural violence, false prophets, the deterioriaton and decay of everything he loved.
He sees prophets like Eliyahu and Elisha and Yeshayah and Yirmiyah cry out to no avail.
His hopes swell with the Yoshiyahus and Chizkiyahs, and sink with the Achavs and Menashehs.
And, painfully, he watches helplessly as the Assyrians invade and exile the northern tribes, as the Egyptian Paroh Nechoh invades and brutally kills Yoshiyahu, and then as the Babylonians conduct their multiple invasions and sweep off the remaining population.

To watch your life’s work and the nation you love demolished and reduced to ash, to witness the bloody death of thousands of your descendants, all while you – a warrior and king – are forced to sit on your hands, helpless… yes, I believe that would be sufficient to goad King David to this sanguinary extreme.

And, still, I never really understood it. I can’t say I really understand it now. But I had a taste of it watching the ugly Lebanese celebration of Samir Kuntar, who smashed a four-year old girl’s head in against a rock. Yes, I know the facile “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” sentiment. But to glorify that brutality? To honor one who would do that? No. Absolutely not.

And I found myself, as I watched that scene, repeating Dovid haMelech’s words.

I wish they would not know the return of a murderer who has been coddled and offered a healthy diet, conjugal visits, university courses and a warm bed for all of these years. I wish, instead, that they would know what it means to be one of his victims.

See also:
Treppenwitz here.
Jack's Shack here and here.
Shira bat Sarah here.
Soccer Dad's roundup here.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Of Myanmar and Canaan: Ethnic Cleansing or Termination of an Unworthy Society? (Derashah: Shelach)

I know this will be a controversial speech, but I've wanted to speak about this for years. So here goes!


The forty years we spent in the desert were a disaster for us - an entire generation of Jewish men died, and everyone else waited to enter Israel. But to another population - the Canaanites - those forty years were a reprieve, a last breath of survival before the Jewish people entered and launched a series of wars which we call כיבוש הארץ but they would have called Ethnic Cleansing.


“Ethnic Cleansing” - some prefer Genocide - sounds harsh, but think about it: The Torah instructs the Jews as they enter Israel, “לא תכרת להם ברית ולא תחנם, Do not make a covenant with the Canaanites and do not show them favor,” but instead go to war with them. This sounds like a blueprint for the massacre of an indigenous population, and the wholesale takeover of their land.
How do we justify this? How do we hold up our beautiful Torah as a light unto ourselves, let alone the nations?


Some address this problem by pointing to Yehoshua’s warnings - the sages teach that Yehoshua sent messengers into Israel before we crossed the Yarden River, offering the chance for native Canaanite tribes to move out or to accept the Noachide laws. Indeed, the Girgashi fled the land. Rachav’s family, in Yericho, is an example of a clan that accepted Yehoshua’s terms.


But this doesn’t really address the problem: Fundamentally, what gave us the right to enter a land and forcibly evict its societies?


Here is a fundamental Torah principle: Individuals, by definition of their basic humanity, have an automatic right to life - and so do societies. And just as individuals have laws by which they are obligated to live, so societies are judged by their adherence to certain laws - and just as individuals are punished for violation of the law, so societies are punished for their violations of law.


Individuals have a right to life and dignity which stems back to our common parentage of Adam and Chavah. As the classic work Metzudat Dovid records, “All of us are brothers because all of us come from the same womb, that of Chavah.”


All of us, Jew and non-Jew, regardless of nationality or race or gender or anything else, are created בצלם אלקים, in the image designated for us by Gd, and therefore, as the Rambam wrote, we are obligated to treat every human being with basic כבוד, basic respect. A human being’s life must be honored, even if he is not particularly wonderful.


However, every person is also charged with fulfilling the basic Noachide laws - Not to murder, not to steal, not to worship idols, not to practice sexual immorality, not to blaspheme against Gd, not to eat meat that came from a live animal, and to help create a system of justice - and violation of those laws carries with it harsh penalties.


The Torah applies the same combination of respect and responsibility to societies:
• The seven Noachide laws center around the logical steps for building proper societies.
• We are taught that HaShem waited 26 generations to give the Torah, in order to provide humanity with time to learn to get along together first.
• We are taught that HaShem honored the unity of the people who built the Tower of Bavel, and spared their lives, even though they had built the Tower for the sake of rebellion against HaShem!



But societies, like individuals, are held to moral standards. As the gemara explains, “When HaShem saw that the nations did not keep the Noachide laws they had been commanded, He exiled them from their land.” This Exile is a nation’s death knell - for almost every nation in the history of mankind, exile from its land has meant dissolution of the national identity. Exile is the Death Penalty, writ large. And the Torah believes in a Death Penalty not only for individuals, but also for societies.


This may sound harsh, but it actually reflects the beliefs of most human beings in America, and worldwide.


Think back a few weeks to the polygamist sect in Texas, accused of abusing young girls. By what right did the government break them up? They didn’t meet the criteria of a basic society.


Or think globally: This was the basis for opposition to the government of the former Soviet Union, and it is the basis for the opposition to China today. Think of Myanmar, and the government which was so concerned about its own survival that it did not allow in rescue workers, that it barred humanitarian aid from suffering children. You saw the pictures of the devastation - Who among us would not want to see that government dissolved, that society re-worked entirely?


Indeed, naive trust in government led the America administration to push for democratic elections among the Palestinian Arabs a couple of years ago, and they got Hamas in return - because not every government deserves to rule.


The Torah shows us the same lesson, repeatedly; as Ramban wrote, the purpose of the entire book of Bereishis is this lesson, to teach us what HaShem rewards and what HaShem punishes.
We watch Noach’s world sink into חמס, into abuse and kidnapping and theft, and HaShem says, “This society does not have the right to survive.”


We see the city of Sdom display barbaric cruelty to strangers, and HaShem says, “See that? This society does not deserve to survive, either.”


We see it among Jews, too - Korach’s crew is condemned to die, and so are the men who follow the Meraglim in our parshah. Social obligations are across the board, for Jew as much - or more than - for non-Jew.


Which returns us to the Canaanites, a set of populations whose eponymous ancestor mocked his disgraced grandfather Noach, who displayed sexual immorality regarding Sarah and Rivkah, who cheated Avraham when selling him a grave for Sarah and who destroyed Yitzchak’s wells, who displayed cruelty in Shechem in their treatment of Dina and did not bring a rapist to justice, who worshipped the many gods of their pagan system - in short, who violated pretty much every one of the Noachide laws - until Gd decreed, “Enough.”


This is the invasion which the Torah justifies - not an act of ethnic cleansing, not an act of genocide, but an act of justice against a society which had long ceased to respect what the Torah considers a responsible ethical code.


HaShem said to Avraham, hundreds of years before bringing the Jews to the land, “The fourth generation of your exiled descendants will return to this land” - but not until then. Why? כי לא שלם עון האמורי עד הנה, because the Emorites do not yet deserve to vanish; their sin is not yet at a level warranting their national dissolution.


HaShem told the Jews themselves in the desert, לא בצדקתך וביושר לבבך אתה בא לרשת את ארצם, כי ברשעת הגויים האלה - You are not acquiring this land because you are so wonderful, so righteous. Rather, HaShem has decided that this society of cruelty must cease to exist, and you are the tool by which HaShem will achieve that end.


That explains the Torah’s view of ancient conquest - but I am still bothered by the ramifications today: Where is the limit for us, today, to keep us from using this biblical text as justification for international violence? What will prevent us from emulating the Muslim genocides of the 7th century, or the Crusader massacres of the 11th century? Those people also thought Gd had authorized them!



To me, the answer is in the system itself, in the Torah’s own standards and expectations, on two levels:


First, in the standard we set for going to war: If war is simply a land grab, an attempt to aggrandize our kings and enrich our treasuries, then we are as ugly as those other nations I just mentioned, guilty of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the worst way. The standard must be that which is set by Gd in the Torah - which is why, halachically, the Jewish nation is not permitted to go to war without the authorization of the Sanhedrin, the high court, as well as the prophecy of the אורים ותומים, and why the army was led not by expert warriors but by a specially appointed Kohen Gadol.


And second, but perhaps more important, is the standard we set for ourselves: Our conduct, not just in war but in our day-to-day national function, must meet the highest standard, lest we be as guilty as those we uproot. Even in war, which brings out the worst in people, our soldiers are expected to conduct themselves morally. And in peace we are expected to build a society which will be the moral envy of the world. The greatest refutation of our critics, the greatest response to those who read the wars of Bamidbar and Devarim and Yehoshua and cry “Genocide,” is the ethical, moral, enlightened society we create in times of peace.


Sometimes Jews become impatient with what we see in Israel, with flaws of society, the same problems which plague nations everywhere. But this rejection of what Zecharyah called the יום קטנות, the “day of small things,” would be short-sighted.


Rav Leibele Eiger noted that in our parshah, the Canaanites are repeatedly described as העם היושב בה, and העם היושב עליה, the nation that lives in this land. This land is no longer theirs; the land is due to transition from ארץ כנען, Land of the Canaanites, to ארץ ישראל, the land of Israel. But the name ארץ ישראל doesn’t actually appear until the book of Shemuel, centuries after the Jews cross the Yarden. It took a long time to earn the title.


Gd-willing, there will come a day when all of us will make aliyah, when all of us will reclaim our portion in the land. On that great day, which I daven will be soon, we will face the same society-building challenge that was put before our ancestors 3400 years ago. If we remember the lessons of the Torah about what HaShem condemns and punishes and what HaShem desires and rewards, about society’s worth and society’s responsibility, then we will merit to help build a land worthy of that title, ארץ ישראל.



-

Notes



1. Metzudat Dovid is to Iyyov 31:15. The "26 generations" is from Avot d'R' Natan. Ramban's note is to the beginning of Bereishit. Yehoshua's warnings are mentioned in Yerushalmi Sheviit 6:1. The "day of small things" is from Zecharyah 4:10. R' Leibele Eiger is cited in Mishlei Chasidim al haTorah to Parshat Sh'lach. The first mention of ארץ ישראל in Tanach is Shemuel I 6:5, but see also Yehoshua 11:22.



2. Re: Noachide laws, see the 7th chapter of Sanhedrin, where there seem to be more than 7 on the list.



3. R' Saadia Gaon is the one who observed that the 7 Noachide laws are essential to building a society.



4. Ibn Ezra has a very different version of the Tower of Bavel.



5. The gemara about exiling the nations for failing to fulfill the 7 mitzvot is in Bava Kama 38a. There is a different take in Avodah Zarah 2b, which talks about the mitzvot the nations accepted and did not practice, and how the nations lose reward for those mitzvot they fulfill - but do not receive Exile as a punishment. Apparently, failure to fulfill mitzvot they have accepted means they lose גר תושב status and so lose their special reward. Failure to fulfill mitzvot they have been commanded means they lose all status and are forced to cease to exist.



6. Perhaps Dovid haMelech's military advice on Berachot 3b was about Canaanites?