Mandatory war

Last updated

Mandatory war (Hebrew: מלחמת חובה; milḥemet ḥovah), or compulsory war, is a technical term found in Hebrew classical literature and denoting a war that requires the entire nation of the Jewish people to rise-up and to become actively engaged-in [1] because of an existential threat to the Jewish nation. [2] The aim is to thwart the enemy advances against the nation of Israel, without the necessity of enslaving and exterminating the enemy, or of annexing the enemy's territory.

Contents

Characteristics

A mandatory war is to be distinguished from a "voluntary war" (מלחמת רשות; milḥemet reshūt), that is to say, a battle waged of free choice, which requires the approbation of the Sanhedrin, presumably in order to impose a religious and moral check on reckless warfare. [3] It is also to be distinguished from a "religious war" (מלחמת מצוה; milḥemet mitzvah), which is restricted to those nations mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, such as Amalek and the nations of Canaan. [4] [5] [6] The biblical command, in the case of the Canaanite inhabitants, was to exterminate them and to annex their territory, [7] whereas others who made peace with Israel could be enslaved and forced to pay tribute. [8]

For all practical purposes, a mandatory war can be described as a defensive war.

General overview

Specifically relating to the halachic laws governing the Jewish nation, Spanish Jewish rabbi and scholar, Menahem Meiri, has described the conditions needed for there to be a "mandatory war", saying that all wars, excepting those made for the conquest of the Land of Israel (such as at the time of Joshua), are to be deemed as "voluntary wars". [4] A ruler cannot compel the Jewish people to fight in such "voluntary wars" (so-named because the ruler of that nation is either angry at his enemy, or simply wishes to show his prowess, or to extend his territorial domain), unless it be by the authorization of the greater Sanhedrin, composed of seventy-one judges. [4] [9] However, if there were a case whereby the nation of Israel had been attacked by an enemy for any reason, that would be tantamount to a battle waged in a religious cause ("religious war"), in which case it is the bounden duty of all in Israel to fight and resist the enemy, hence: a mandatory war (or battle waged in duty bound). [4] [10]

Maimonides further explains that whenever Israel finds itself fighting a battle in a religious cause, such as when an oppressor has come upon them in war to destroy them, the people of Israel need not obtain prior permission from the Rabbinic court to fight, but may go forth to the battle, and compel others to do the same. [11]

Wars fought to redeem captives, such as those wars waged by Abraham to free Lot, and by David to free Jewish women and children in Ziklag (1 Sam. 30), are generally categorized as defensive wars. [12]

The Hebrew expressions, Milḥemet mitzvah (religious war) and Milḥemet ḥovah (mandatory war), are sometimes used interchangeably, since they include the reactive defensive wars when Jewish habitations were attacked. [13] Rabbi Yehuda, however, distinguishes between these two expressions. [10] [14] [lower-alpha 1]

Rabbinic discussions

[When you go out to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt, etc. (Deut. 20:1–ff.)] What does the saying here advanced pertain to? Said Rabbi Yehuda: 'The matter concerns a religious war (milḥemet mitzvah). However, in a mandatory war (milḥemet ḥovah), all go forth [into battle], even a bridegroom from his room and a bride from her bridal-chamber.' Our Mishnah [in Soṭah speaks of] when you go out to war against your enemies. The writing [in Mishnah Soṭah] speaks about the voluntary war (milḥemet ha-reshūt) [fought at Israel's own discretion]. [16]

One of the fine points arising from the rabbinic discussions on the subject is that, whenever Israel voluntarily wages a battle of free choice against another nation, unto Israel would apply all the conditions mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Deuteronomy 20:1–ff.) and in Mishnah Soṭah (chapter 8). Although certain persons were permitted by Deuteronomy, chapter 20, to leave the field before a battle began, this was allowed, according to rabbinical opinion, only in case of a voluntary war. [17] Wherefore, a man who has betrothed a wife and has yet to consummate that marriage, or who has planted a vineyard and has yet to partake of its fruit, or who has built a new house and who has not yet lived in that house for a year's time, [18] [19] etc. is exempt from participating in that war. [20] [21] However, if Israel were faced with an existential threat, the conditions of Deuteronomy (chapter 20) and of Mishnah Soṭah (chapter 8) would not apply, as not even a bridegroom is exempt from that war, but must rally behind Israel, and go forth to fight in Israel's defense. [20] A mandatory war is, therefore, tantamount to a "religious war" and, as such, the general principle applies to everyone: "He that is currently engaged in performing one biblical commandment (i.e. defending Israel), he is exempt from doing another biblical commandment (i.e. cohabiting with his bride, etc.)" (העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה). [20] [22]

Jewish soldiers conscripted in foreign armies

Although the laws governing a Mandatory war pertain to wars conducted in the Land of Israel, because of an existential threat to the Jewish people, it is still permissible for Jewish soldiers serving in foreign armies to set-out and rescue other Jewish and Gentile soldiers who had been taken captive by enemy forces, since the saving of Jewish life is tantamount to a Religious war, [23] and may be waged without obtaining permission from the Court.

Warfare and the Sabbath-day

In Tractate Eruvin [45a] it was explained that the nations of the world who lay siege to the cities of Israel on the Sabbath-day, the people of Israel are not permitted to go out against them on the Sabbath-day with their armaments, but rather they (the besieged) are to shut themselves up before them and try to observe the laws of Sabbath as much as possible. [24] What does the saying here advanced pertain to? This pertains to a case where it is certain that they have come to take away only money, or objects of money-value. [24] [25] However, if they had come to take away lives, even if it were only a doubtful case, the people of Israel are permitted to go out to battle against them and they desecrate the Sabbath on their account, in order to rescue them. [24] [26] [25] If there was a Jewish city situated along the frontier of the Land of Israel where non-Jewish forces had laid siege to the city, even in such cases where they only came to take away bales of hay and straw, it is permitted for the Jewish nation to go out in battle against the invading army and to desecrate the Sabbath-day in order to save the city. [24] [26] [25]

Elsewhere [ibid.], it was explained that even in the remaining cities and towns of Israel, it is one's bounden duty to go out to battle on their behalf, in order to assist them, [27] and when they have eventually rescued their fellow countrymen, they are allowed to return to their place [on the Sabbath-day] with their own armaments in hand, seeing that if they were not allowed to do so they would refrain from assisting their brethren in future conflicts. [24] [25]

Ethical question

An ethical question was raised in the early 20th-century about whether or not one is permitted to give-up his own life in order to avert danger to the Jewish people as a whole, both in war and non-war situations, in which the answer posited by Abraham Isaac Kook (1865–1935) and by Shlomo Zalman Pines  [ he ] (1874–1954) was an unequivocal yes, although each man gave different reasons for this allowance. [28] According to Rabbi Kook, "we expose ourselves to the dangers of killing and being killed in accordance with the nature of the world." [29]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mishnah</span> First major written collection of the Oral Torah

The Mishnah or the Mishna is the first written collection of the Jewish oral traditions that are known as the Oral Torah. It is also the first work of rabbinic literature, with the oldest surviving material dating to the 6th to 7th centuries BCE.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sanhedrin</span> Assemblies of twenty-three or seventy-one Jewish elders

The Sanhedrin was a legislative and judicial assembly of either 23 or 71 elders, existing at both a local and central level in the ancient Land of Israel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerusalem Talmud</span> Talmud that was compiled in Southern Levant

The Jerusalem Talmud or Palestinian Talmud, also known as the Talmud of the Land of Israel, is a collection of rabbinic notes on the second-century Jewish oral tradition known as the Mishnah. Naming this version of the Talmud after Palestine or the Land of Israel—rather than Jerusalem—is considered more accurate, as the text originated mainly from Galilee in Byzantine Palaestina Secunda rather than from Jerusalem, where no Jews lived at the time.

<i>Shmita</i> Seventh year of the seven-year agricultural cycle mandated by the Torah for the Land of Israel

The sabbath year, also called the sabbatical year or shǝvi'it, or "Sabbath of The Land", is the seventh year of the seven-year agricultural cycle mandated by the Torah in the Land of Israel and is observed in Judaism.

Capital punishment in traditional Jewish law has been defined in Codes of Jewish law dating back to medieval times, based on a system of oral laws contained in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, the primary source being the Hebrew Bible. In traditional Jewish law there are four types of capital punishment: a) stoning, b) burning by ingesting molten lead, c) strangling, and d) beheading, each being the punishment for specific offenses. Except in special cases where a king can issue the death penalty, capital punishment in Jewish law cannot be decreed upon a person unless there were a minimum of twenty-three judges (Sanhedrin) adjudicating in that person's trial who, by a majority vote, gave the death sentence, and where there had been at least two competent witnesses who testified before the court that they had seen the litigant commit the offense. Even so, capital punishment does not begin in Jewish law until the court adjudicating in this case had issued the death sentence from a specific place on the Temple Mount in the city of Jerusalem.

Modern attempts to revive the Sanhedrin are the efforts from 1538 until the present day to renew the Sanhedrin, which was the high court and legislative authority for Jews in ancient times. The Sanhedrin was originally dissolved in 358 by the edict of the Roman emperor Constantius II.

Milḥemet mitzvah or in Tiberian Hebrew milḥemeth miṣwah is the term for a war during the times of the Tanakh when a king would go to war in order to fulfill something based on, and required by, the Torah without needing approval from a Sanhedrin, such as war against Amalek, or the seven nations of Canaan. In contrast, a milkhemet reshut is a discretionary war, which according to Jewish law requires the permission of a Sanhedrin.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tithes in Judaism</span> Religious donations in Judaism

The tithe is specifically mentioned in the Books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The tithe system was organized in a seven-year cycle, the seventh-year corresponding to the Shemittah-cycle in which year tithes were broken-off, and in every third and sixth-year of this cycle the second tithe replaced with the poor man's tithe. These tithes were akin to taxes for the people of Israel and were mandatory, not optional giving. This tithe was distributed locally "within thy gates" to support the Levites and assist the poor. Every year, Bikkurim, terumah, ma'aser rishon and terumat ma'aser were separated from the grain, wine and oil. Initially, the commandment to separate tithes from one's produce only applied when the entire nation of Israel had settled in the Land of Israel. The Returnees from the Babylonian exile who had resettled the country were a Jewish minority, and who, although they were not obligated to tithe their produce, put themselves under a voluntary bind to do so, and which practice became obligatory upon all.

The House of Hillel and House of Shammai were, among Jewish scholars, two schools of thought during the period of tannaim, named after the sages Hillel and Shammai who founded them. These two schools had vigorous debates on matters of ritual practice, ethics, and theology which were critical for the shaping of the Oral Law and Judaism as it is today.

Beginning in October 2004, an attempt was made to re-establish a revived Sanhedrin, a national rabbinical court of Jewish law in Israel. The organization heading this attempt referred to itself as the nascent Sanhedrin or developing Sanhedrin, and regarded itself as a provisional body awaiting integration into the Israeli government as both a supreme court and an upper house of the Knesset. The Israeli secular press regards it as an illegitimate fundamentalist organization of rabbis. The organization, which was composed of over 70 rabbis, claimed to enjoy recognition and support from the entire religious Jewish community in Israel. However, it was mostly ignored by the Haredi community, and stirred debate in both religious and secularist circles. There has not been a "full meeting" of the Sanhedrin since 2005 and its leader resigned in 2008. Haredi Zionist rabbis involved in the Sanhedrin revival attempt included Yisrael Ariel and Yoel Schwartz.

Kil'ayim are the prohibitions in Jewish law which proscribe the planting of certain mixtures of seeds, grafting, the mixing of plants in vineyards, the crossbreeding of animals, the formation of a team in which different kinds of animals work together, and the mixing of wool with linen in garments.

Impurity of the land of the nations is a rabbinic edict stipulating a specified degree of tumah (impurity) on all lands outside the Land of Israel. The demarcation lines of foreign lands effectually included all those lands not settled by the people of Israel during their return from the Babylonian exile during the Second Temple period, and was meant to dissuade the priests of Aaron's lineage from venturing beyond the Land of Israel where graves were unmarked, and who may inadvertently contract corpse uncleanness and thereby eat their bread-offering (Terumah), unawares, in a state of ritual impurity and becoming liable thereby to kareth. The declaration with respect to foreign lands includes also the "virgin soil" of those lands, and was, therefore, a safeguard meant to prevent the priests from inadvertently transgressing the Law of Moses.

Dina d'malkhuta dina is a principle in Jewish religious law that the civil law of the country is binding upon the Jewish inhabitants of that country, and, in certain cases, is to be preferred to Jewish law. The concept of dina de-malkhuta dina is similar to the concept of conflict of laws in other legal systems. It appears in at least twenty-five places in the Shulchan Arukh.

<i>Demai</i> Agricultural produce whose tithing status is uncertain

Demai is a Halakhic term meaning "doubtful". The demai status applies to agricultural produce acquired from common people who are suspected of not correctly separating tithes according to Jewish law. As a result, one who acquires demai produce must separate some of the tithes himself, in case this was not done earlier.

Sicaricon, lit.'usurping occupant; possessor of confiscated property; the law concerning the purchase of confiscated property', refers in Jewish law to a former act and counter-measure meant to deal effectively with religious persecution against Jews in which the Roman government had permitted its own citizens to seize the property of Jewish landowners who were either absent or killed in war, or taken captive, or else where Roman citizens had received property that had been confiscated by the state in the laws prescribed under ager publicus, and to which the original Jewish owners of such property had not incurred any legal debt or fine, but had simply been the victims of war and the illegal, governmental expropriation of such lands from their rightful owners or heirs. The original Jewish law, made at some time after the First Jewish-Roman War with Vespasian and his son Titus, saw additional amendments by later rabbinic courts, all of which were meant to safe-guard against depriving the original landowners and their heirs of any land that belonged to them, and to ensure their ability to redeem such property in the future.

Relative hour, sometimes called halachic hour, temporal hour, seasonal hour and variable hour, is a term used in rabbinic Jewish law that assigns 12 hours to each day and 12 hours to each night, all throughout the year. A relative hour has no fixed length in absolute time, but changes with the length of daylight each day - depending on summer, and in winter. Even so, in all seasons a day is always divided into 12 hours, and a night is always divided into 12 hours, which invariably makes for a longer hour or a shorter hour. At Mediterranean latitude, one hour can be about 45 minutes at the winter solstice, and 75 minutes at summer solstice. All of the hours mentioned by the Sages in either the Mishnah or Talmud, or in other rabbinic writings, refer strictly to relative hours.

Biblical mile is a unit of distance on land, or linear measure, principally used by Jews during the Herodian dynasty to ascertain distances between cities and to mark the Sabbath limit, equivalent to about ⅔ of an English statute mile, or what was about four furlongs. The basic Jewish traditional unit of distance was the cubit, each cubit being roughly between 46–60 centimetres (18–24 in) The standard measurement of the biblical mile, or what is sometimes called tǝḥūm šabbat, was 2,000 cubits.

Corpse uncleanness is a state of ritual uncleanness described in Jewish halachic law. It is the highest grade of uncleanness, or defilement, and is contracted by having either directly or indirectly touched, carried or shifted a dead human body, or after having entered a roofed house or chamber where the corpse of a Jew is lying.

Hefker beth-din hefker, "that which is declared by a court ownerless property is forthwith accounted ownerless property", is a principle in Jewish religious law that stipulates the right of a Jewish court of law in what regards jus in re aliena. The principle is derived from an episode in the Book of Ezra, where Ezra the Scribe commanded the Jewish people to return to their former country, threatening to confiscate the property of anyone who refuses to go-up to the Land of Israel, after having lived in exile.

Voluntary war, sometimes called a discretionary war, optional war, a non-obligatory war, or a war of free choice, is a technical term found in Hebrew classical literature and denoting a war that is waged of free choice by Israel, only at such a time when the people of Israel are settled in their ancestral homeland. Such a war cannot be waged without either the approbation of the Great Sanhedrin, consisting of no fewer than seventy-one judges, or, according to some authorities, without the command of a king.

References

  1. Hanschke 1980 , p. 191, citing the Jerusalem Talmud (Soṭah, end of chapter 8).
  2. Eisenstein 1970 , p. 228
  3. Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1:5
  4. 1 2 3 4 Meiri 2006 , p. 24 (Sanhedrin 16a)
  5. HaLevi 1958 , p. 318 (section no. 527), P. Shofṭim
  6. Kuzmarov 2012 , p. 54
  7. Maimonides 1974 , pp. 183–184 [92a–92b] (Hil. Melekhim 5:4)
  8. HaLevi 1958 , pp. 318–319 (section no. 527), P. Shofṭim
  9. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 2a (corresponding to Mishnah, Sanhedrin 1:5)
  10. 1 2 Danby 1977 , p.  303
  11. Maimonides 1974 , pp. 183–184 [92a–92b] (Hil. Melekhim 5:2)
  12. Elgavish 2008 , pp. 57, 61
  13. Ben Alexander 1985 , p. 22
  14. Babylonian Talmud, Soṭah 44b
  15. Ginzberg, Louis, ed. (1974). Yerushalmi Fragments from the Genizah (שרידי הירושלמי מן הגניזה אשר במצרים) (in Hebrew). Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Makor Ltd. p. 216. OCLC   233346011. (reprinted from 1909 Jewish Theological Seminary of America edition)
  16. Sifre on Deuteronomy 20:1
  17. "War—In Rabbinical Literature JewishEncyclopedia.com". www.jewishencyclopedia.com.
  18. Tosephta 1970 , p. 309 (Soṭah 7:20)
  19. Josephus 1981 , p. 101 (Antiquities 4.8.41.)
  20. 1 2 3 Obadiah of Bertinoro 2011 , p. 126 (Soṭah 8:7)
  21. HaLevi 1958 , p. 318 (section no. 526), P. Shofṭim
  22. Cf. Babylonian Talmud ( Sukkah 25a–26a)
  23. Sirkis 2005 , p. 34 ( Orach Chayim 249:1)
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 Meiri 2006a , p. 39 (Shabbat 19a)
  25. 1 2 3 4 Maimonides 1974b , p. 15 [8a] (Hil. Shabbat 2:23)
  26. 1 2 Tosephta 1970 , p. 142 (Eruvin 4:5)
  27. Tosephta 1970 , p. 142 (Eruvin 4:8)
  28. Eisen 2016–17 , pp. 50–52
  29. Eisen 2016–17 , p. 52

Notes

  1. Rabbi Yehuda's view on this subject is discussed in the Jerusalem Talmud (Soṭah, end of chapter 8). The account is as follows: "Said Rabbi Johanan: 'The difference between them (i.e. between the anonymous rabbi of the Mishnah and Rabbi Yehuda) is semantics. Rabbi Yehuda calls a voluntary war by the name religious war (i.e. since, in the final analysis, it is a war waged for Israel's benefit), but when it comes to a mandatory war, everyone goes out [to fight], even a bridegroom from his room, and a bride from her bridal-chamber.' Said Rav Ḥisda: 'There is a dispute between them (i.e. between the anonymous rabbi of the Mishnah and Rabbi Yehuda). As for the rabbis, they say that a religious war is the war of [King] David [which he waged against the Philistines and against Ammon], whereas a mandatory war is the war of Joshua [which he waged during the conquest of Canaan]. Rabbi Yehuda would call it a religious war, such as when we go out against them (i.e. against an enemy that has not physically attacked Israel, yet, one which bears animosity towards Israel), but [he would call it] a mandatory war, such as when they come out against us.' (End Quote) [15]

Further reading

Bibliography