(1) While Israel was staying at Shittim, the people profaned themselves by whoring with the Moabite women, (2) who invited the people to the sacrifices for their god. The people partook of them and worshiped that god. (3) Thus Israel attached itself to Baal-peor, and the LORD was incensed with Israel. (4) The LORD said to Moses, “Take all the ringleaders and have them publicly impaled before the LORD, so that the LORD’s wrath may turn away from Israel.” (5) So Moses said to Israel’s officials, “Each of you slay those of his men who attached themselves to Baal-peor.” (6) Just then one of the Israelites came and brought a Midianite woman over to his companions, in the sight of Moses and of the whole Israelite community who were weeping at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. (7) When Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, (8) he followed the Israelite into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite and the woman, through the belly. Then the plague against the Israelites was checked. (9) Those who died of the plague numbered twenty-four thousand. (10) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (11) “Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion. (12) Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship. (13) It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time, because he took impassioned action for his God, thus making expiation for the Israelites.’” (14) The name of the Israelite who was killed, the one who was killed with the Midianite woman, was Zimri son of Salu, chieftain of a Simeonite ancestral house. (15) The name of the Midianite woman who was killed was Cozbi daughter of Zur; he was the tribal head of an ancestral house in Midian. (16) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, (17) “Assail the Midianites and defeat them— (18) for they assailed you by the trickery they practiced against you—because of the affair of Peor and because of the affair of their kinswoman Cozbi, daughter of the Midianite chieftain, who was killed at the time of the plague on account of Peor.”
Rabbi J.D. Bleich, "Preemptive War in Jewish Law":
Were war to be sanctioned solely on the basis of the law of pursuit, military action would perforce be restricted to situations in which loss of life is inflicted only upon armed aggressors or upon active participants in the war effort; military action resulting in casualties among the civilian populace constitutes homicide, pure and simple. Not only does one search in vain for a ruling prohibiting military activity likely to result in the death of civilians but, to this writer's knowledge, there exists no discussion in classical rabbinic sources that takes cognizance of the likelihood of causing civilian casualties in the course of hostilities legitimately undertaken as posing a halakhic or moral problem.
Reminders:
All agree that wars waged by the House of David for the purpose of territorial expansion were discretionary and hence were governed by the provisions of Deuteronomy 20:5-7; similarly, all agree that the wars waged by Joshua for the conquest of the land of Canaan were obligatory and hence were not governed by the provisions of Deuteronomy 20.
Nevertheless, the Sages carefully employ the term "commanded" (mitsvah) in speaking of the latter while R. Judah uses the term "obligatory" (hovah) with equal precision, even though both are in total agreement with regard to the specific wars excluded from the provisions of Deuteronomy 20.
הדרן עלך משוח מלחמה
The mishna teaches: In what case are these statements said? They are said with regard to elective wars, as opposed to obligatory wars or wars whose mandate is a mitzva. Rabbi Yoḥanan says concerning the various categories of war: The elective war referenced by the Rabbis is the same as a war whose mandate is a mitzva referenced by Rabbi Yehuda, and the war that is a mitzva mentioned by the Rabbis is the same as the obligatory war mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda is merely stating that the wars which the Rabbis call elective are to be seen as mandated by a mitzva. Rava said: With respect to the wars that Joshua waged to conquer Eretz Yisrael, all agree that they were obligatory. With respect to the wars waged by the House of King David for the sake of territorial expansion, all agree that they were elective wars. When they disagree, it is with regard to wars that are waged to reduce the gentiles so that they will not come and wage war against them. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, called this type of war a mitzva, and one Sage, the Rabbis, called it an elective war. There is a practical difference between these opinions with respect to the principle: One who is engaged in a mitzva is exempt from performing another mitzva. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one fighting in this kind of war is exempt from performing another mitzva.
~ What is the dispute between R. Yehuda and the Sages?
~ What is the practical difference between the two?
R. Yehudah considers a preemptive war to constitute fulfilment of a mitzvah, in his opinion combatants are exempt from fulfiling other mitzvot, and so the "exemptions" would not apply to the soldiers. The Sages regard these wars as discretionary in nature and so all soldiers engaged in such battles are still fully obligated to other mitzvot, and therefore exemptions apply to them.
The question of whether a preemptive war is included in the category of milhemet mitzvah or milhemet reshut is crucial to how things will be seen in an even more basic level: the opening Mishna told us that a discretionary war may be undertaken only with the agreement of the Great Sanhedrin (71 members). Another Mishnah told us that a discretionary war may be undertaken only by a king. We also saw Sanhedrin 16a where we learned that the king may not undertake military action without the approval of the urim ve-tumim. For the urim vetummim we would need a kohen, or maybe the kohen gadol.
ועתה אתחיל בזכרון כל מצוה ומצוה ואבאר על צד פירוש השם כמו שיעדנו בתחלת מאמרנו כי זאת היא כוונת הספר. והנה יפה אצלי שאצרף אל זאת הכוונה תוספת, והוא בזכרי המצוה אשר יתחייב עליה העונש הן עשה או לא תעשה אזכור ענשה ואומר העובר עליה יתחייב מיתה או כרת או קרבן כזה או מלקיות או אחת ממיתות בית דין או תשלומין, וכל מה שלא נזכר בה עונש מן העונשין תדע שאם היא ממצות לא תעשה הוא כמו שאמרו כעובר על מצות מלך ואין לנו לענשו. אמנם מצות עשה בכללם כל מצוה מהם כשתתחייב עשייתה יש לנו שנלקה הנמנע מלעשותה עד שימות או יעשה אותה, וכשיסתלק זמן החיוב נמנע מזה, כמי שעבר ולא ישב בסוכה על דרך משל אין לנו להלקותו אחר הסוכות על עבירתו, ודע זה. ובעת זכרי גם כן המצות אשר לא יתחייבו לנשים עשה ולא תעשה אומר וזאת אין הנשים חייבות בהם, וידוע שאין הנשים דנות ולא מעידות ולא מקריבות קרבן בידיהן ולא נלחמות במלחמת הרשות וכל מצוה שהיא תלויה בבית דין או בעדים או בעבודה או במלחמת הרשות איני צריך לומר וזאת אין הנשים חייבות בה כי זה תוספת דבור אין בו צורך, ועוד כשאזכור המצות שאינן נוהגות אלא בארץ או בפני הבית יהיו עשה או לא תעשה אומר ואלו לא יתחייבו כי אם בארץ ישראל או בפני הבית. וידוע גם כן שהקרבנות כלם לא יקריבום כי אם במקדש ושלא הותרה העבודה חוץ לעזרה וכן דיני נפשות לא ידונו בהם אלא בהיות המקדש קיים. ולשון מכילתא מנין שאין ממיתין אלא בפני הבית תלמוד לומר מעם מזבחי תקחנו למות הא אם יש לך בית אתה ממית אם אין לך בית אי אתה ממית ושם נאמר גם כן מנין שתהא סנהדרין סמוכה למזבח שנאמר מעם מזבחי, וידוע גם כן שהנבואה והמלכות כבר נסתלקו ממנו עד שנסור מן העונות אשר אנחנו מתמידים עליהם ואז יכפר לנו וירחמנו כמו שיעדנו וישיבם כמו שאמר בשוב הנבואה והיה אחרי כן אשפוך את רוחי על כל בשר ונבאו בניכם ובנותיכם. ואמר בהשיב המלוכה, ביום ההוא אקים את סוכת דויד הנופלת וגדרתי את פרציהן וגו' ובניתיה בימי עולם, וידוע שהמלחמה וכבישת עיירות לא יהיו אלא במלך ובעצת סנהדרי גדולה וכהן גדול כמה שנאמר ולפני אלעזר הכהן יעמוד, ולכן פרסום אלו כלם אצל רוב האנשים כל מצות עשה או לא תעשה שתתלה בקרבנות או בעבודות או במיתת בית דין או בסנהדרין או בנביא ומלך או במלחמת הרשות לא אצטרך לומר בה זאת לא תתחייב אלא בפני הבית אחר שזה מבואר לפי מה שזכרנו. ואשר אפשר שיסופק בו ויטעו בו אעורר עליו בעז"ה. ועתה נתחיל בזכרון כל מצוה ומצוה בעזרת שדי:
And now I am going to begin mentioning every single mitzvah, and I will explain them, as I made clear at the beginning that this is the intention of the book. ... I will also explain the punishments for not doing a mitzvah or for a transgression ... And every one of those negative commandments for which we do not count a punishment among the punishments, you should know that that is like the mitzvah of a king, that for one that transgresses it we have no punishment in record. Even though for positive commandments in which one is obligated we have that one receives lashes if one refrains from observing them until that person either dies or does it, in any instance if the time is passed we refrain from doing [such punishment], like for instance a person during Sukkot who did not dwell in a sukkah, we do not lash such person due to his/her transgression, and you should know this. And I also announced the mitzvot in which women are not obligated, whether positive or negative... in several mitzvot I do not need to explain to you that they are not obligated, such as the mitzvot that deal with the temple or optional wars, because those are wordy add-ons that are superfluous, and this is also the case regarding mitzvot that only apply in the Land of Israel or when the Temple is standing. It is known that sacrifices are not done outside of the Temple area, and so too capital punishments are not judged unless the Temple is standing. And in the language of the Mechilta: "from where do we know that we do not sentence to death unless in front of the Temple? The text says: 'from My altar you will take him to die' (Exodus 21:14) - behold, if you have the Temple you make him die, if you don't have the Temple you don't." And there too it says "from where do we know that the Sanhedrin needs to be close to the altar? From what is said: 'from My altar'." And it is known that both prophecy and kingship have been taken away from us until we refrain from our constant sins, and then He will be forgiving to us, and will merciful to us, as we have testimony regarding prophecy: "And it will be, after I pour My spirit on all flesh, your sons and your daughters will prophesy" (Joel 2:28). And regarding the return of the kingship: "On that day I will restore the fallen sukkah of David, and I will repair its breaches and set up its ruins anew, I will build it firm as in the days of old" (Amos 9:11). And it is known that war and conquering of the cities cannot happen without a king and without the advice of the Great Sanhedrin and without a High Priest, as it says "he [Joshua] shall present himself in front of Eleazar the Priest [who shall on his behalf seek the decision of the Urim]" (Numbers 27:21). And therefore it should be announced for all people that all positive commandments that are dependent on sacrifices, Temple rituals, capital punishments, Sanhedrin, prophet and king, or optional wars one does not have to say that there is no obligation regarding those unless the Temple is standing, as we explained, may we be sufficient, and rouse ourselves for it, with God's help. And now I will begin the mentioning of each and every mitzvah with the help of Shaddai.
~ What is needed, according to the Rambam, for wars? How applicable are those today?
~ What are the consequences of having a Temple?
(א) אֵין הַמֶּלֶךְ נִלְחָם תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא מִלְחֶמֶת מִצְוָה. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא מִלְחֶמֶת מִצְוָה זוֹ מִלְחֶמֶת שִׁבְעָה עֲמָמִים. וּמִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק. וְעֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִיַּד צָר שֶׁבָּא עֲלֵיהֶם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִלְחָם בְּמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת וְהִיא הַמִּלְחָמָה שֶׁנִּלְחָם עִם שְׁאָר הָעַמִּים כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיב גְּבוּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וּלְהַרְבּוֹת בִּגְדֻלָּתוֹ וְשִׁמְעוֹ:
(1) A priori, the king does not go to fight other than a War of Mitzvah. What is a War of Mitzvah? This is the war against the Seven Nations. And the war against Amalek. And to deliver Israel from the hand of an enemy that comes after them. After thoses he may fight Discretionary Wars, which are those wars he conducts against the rest of the nations in order to enlarge the borders of Israel, and increase his renown and reputation.
~ Can you find in the Rambam the concept of preemptive war? Why or why not?
~ GO back to the rabbinic understanding of wars. Do we have preemptive wars there? How are they described? What does the Rambam add regarding "discretionary wars" that is absent in the Talmud?
~ How do you understand שֶׁבָּא עֲלֵיהֶם "that comes after them"? What are the two possibilities?
~ Is "to enhance his greatness and prestige" the same as the Gemara's notion of a war "to diminish the heathens so that they shall not march against them"?
~ Do countries and national states fight wars "to increase greatness and reputation"?
Hazon Ish, Orah Hayyim-Mo'ed 114:2, carefully defines the term "she-ba aleihem" as meaning "she-kvar ba aleihem-who has already attacked them."
R. Menahem Me'iri, in his Bet ha-Behirah, Sotah 43a indicates that the controversy between the Sages and R. Judah is limited to preemptive war against a potential aggressor. However, asserts Me'iri, in a situation in which an attack is already underway, all agree that military action in response constitutes an obligatory war.
Me'iri writes, "(R. Judah and the Sages) disagree only when they go to war against their enemies because they fear lest (their enemies) attack or when it is known by them that the enemies are preparing themselves (for attack)," thereby implying that once the attack has commenced a defensive military response constitutes an obligatory war.
~ What are the consequences of a governments making pacts of defense with one another? What kind of war would be a war waged by a third party in order to defend a smaller country or a helpless population from attacks by aggressor governments?
~ Are preemptive wars different than preventive wars, in your opinion?
A preemptive strike, as we use the term, is one launched against an enemy that has mobilized or is engaged in obvious and active preparation for war ... there is clear prima facie evidence that the enemy is planning to attack. Given this state of affairs, national security is definitely threatened, and it serves no moral purpose for the nation to wait for the enemy to strike before undertaking measures of self-defense. A preemptive strike can in fact shorten the war and thus save many lives that would have been lost in a protracted conflict.
Our concern is with the preventive war, initiated against a nation that may plausibly pose a threat to us in the future, even though it poses no immediate or near-term threat and is not currently planning to attack us or, for that matter, any other nation. Can we understand a war such as this as a case of milchemet mitzvah, a war that a nation is morally entitled to fight?
[CCAR responsa, 5762.8]
As a conclusion: How much information does one need in order to make this decision?
Is there a difference between morally justified and morally justifiable, in your opinion?
Is it possible, in your opinion, for a government to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt? Yes, or no? Why?
A Last Text
“Even though the mitzvah to fight wars is laid down in the Torah, we are commanded to show mercy to the enemy. Even during wartime, we are permitted to kill only in self-defense or in pursuit of legitimate military objectives. We are forbidden to harm a non-combatant population, and we are surely prohibited from striking at women and children who take no part in battle.”
R. Shelomo Goren, Meshiv Milchamah, 1:14-16