Devarim 20:10 -15 – Are optional wars permitted in the Torah?

The Rambam (Mishnah Torah, Laws of kings, 5:1) writes that there are two types of wars in Jewish law, a war that fulfills a mitzvah, milchmet mitzvah, and an optional war, milchmet reshut. The Rambam gives three examples of a war that is a mitzvah to fight: To fight the seven nations who lived in the land of Canaan, to fight Amalek and to defend the Jewish people from enemies who attack the Jewish people. There is support for each of these examples from the Torah. For example, Devarim 7:1,2 refers to fighting the seven nations, Devarim 25:17-19 refers to fighting Amalek and Bemidbar 10:9 refers to fighting a nation that attacks the Jewish people. Note, the wars with Arad (Bemidbar 21:1-3), Og (Bemidbar 21:33-35) and the war with Midyan (Bemidbar 25:17,18; 31:1-8, see our discussion on Bemidbar 25:14-18, “The battle with Midyan: Kozbi”) also were wars to stop these nations from attacking the Jewish people. Also, Avraham’s war with the four kings to save Lot (Bereshit 14) would fall into this category of being a war that is a mitzvah. On the other hand, the war with Sihon (Bemidbar 21:21-31) was under the category of a war with the seven nations, the Amori, but since the war was fought outside the land of Israel, Moshe was able to offer Sihon peace, which he refused, see Nachshoni 1987, pp. 657, 659.

The Rambam then gives two examples of an optional war, to increase the boundaries of the nation and to add prestige to the king. These wars do not seem to have any source in the Torah.

The Mishnah (Sotah 8:7, Talmud Sotah 44b) takes it as a given that there is a concept of an optional war, and in the discussion about the types of war, the Talmud quotes Rava that for sure an optional war was the wars fought by David to expand the borders of his kingdom. (Shmuel Rubinstein, 1975, p. 374, in his notes on Rambam 5:1, explains that the wars by David was when he fought with Aram Tzova, which I think is the reference to the wars recorded in Shmuel II chapter 10. Could it also refer to the war mentioned in Shmuel II 7:3-5 or is this the same war as in chapter 10? Other optional wars by David could be his war with Moav, Shmuel II 7:2, and/ or his wars before he was a king, Shmuel I 27:8,9.)

One possible source in the Torah for an optional war is the laws of warfare recorded in 20:10-15, as Rashi (on 20:10) writes that the laws in these verses are applicable to optional wars. Yet, as noted by Luzzatto (on 20:11), the Torah does not give any explanation for the source of the war referred to in 20:10-15. Luzzatto suggests that the context of the war in 20:10-15 can be known from the beginning of chapter 20, 20:1, which refers to the people going to fight an enemy, and Luzzatto argues that an enemy is a nation that harmed the Jewish people either by trying to conquer the land of the people to take possessions of the people. Accordingly, Luzzatto argues that the war referred to in 20:10-15 was not an optional war, but one to defend the people, the third example of the Rambam’s example of obligatory wars.  One could add to his argument by noting that the last law in the section on wars, the law of the captive women, also begins with the phrase when you fight your enemy, 21:10. Thus, both the beginning and the ending of the section on war refer to fighting an enemy and not some peaceful nation, and then all the laws within the section, which includes 20:10-15, are also referring to fighting an enemy. Note Shimon and Levi’s massacre of the people of Shekhem (Bereshit 34) was a case where they were “fighting” a war with a peaceful “nation” since the people of Shekhem made a deal with the family of Yaakov and this can explain why Yaakov was so furious with them, see our discussion on Bereshit 34:25-35:5, “The brothers of Dina go amok.”

If there is no source for an optional war, then participating in such a war should be forbidden since a person is killing other people for money or prestige. This “right” to fight such a war was the common understanding until the 20th century, but should people be allowed to kill for material gain or glory? My guess is that this concept in Judaism either derives from the culture and mind set of ancient times or to defend the actions of King David, as occurs in his actions with Uriah and Bat Sheva (see Shabbat 56a), but has no basis in the Torah.

Bibliography

Nachshoni, Yehuda, 1987, Notes on the parashot of the Torah, Tel Aviv: Sifrati.

Rubinstein, Shmuel, 1975, Commentary on Rambam’s Mishnah Torah, Rambam La’am, Vol. 17, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Introduction to four kinot relating to the massacre of the Jews in Germany by the Crusaders

On Tisha B'av there are four kinot which re-call the slaughter of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Worms and Mainz (all in Germany along the Rhine River) by the Crusaders in 1096. These kinot are Hacharishu mimeni, Mi yeten roshi mayim, Amarti sheu meni and Evel aorer. The kinot also describe how the Jews refused to become Christians and instead killed themselves, and even their children.

On November 27, 1095, in Clermont, France, the Pope Urban II made an appeal that Christians in the West should go help the Christians in the East and this led to a series of Crusades by people in Western Europe to capture land in the Middle East and specifically the land of Israel. One group of at least 15,000 people from apparently Northern France responded to the Pope’s call, and started to walk to the land of Israel in the spring of 1096. However, these people were not willing to wait to fight until they got to the land of Israel, but they started to attack Jewish communities almost from the get go. Sperber (1990, p. 109) writes that it seems that the first Jewish community that they attacked was in Rouen in northwest France. Afterwards, they travelled eastwards towards Germany, and they attacked the Jewish community of Speyer on May 9, 1096 (8th of Iyar). Note, the kinah Mi yeten roshi mayim gives the dates for the attacks on the Jews of Speyer, Worms and Mainz. Also, note that since the Crusader mob travelled eastwards from France to Germany, north of Paris, they did not encounter the Jewish communities south of Paris where Rashi lived, and Rav Soloveitchik (2010, p. 431) writes that this enabled the Torah shebe’al peh to continue since there was no destruction of Torah scholarship in France in 1096.

From Speyer, the Crusader mob went north along the Rhine to kill the Jews in Worms (around 50 kilometers north of Speyer) on the 23rd of Iyar and Rosh Chodesh Sivan (May 24 and May 31, 1096) and then they continued north again to Mainz (another 50 kilometers north of Worms) to kill the Jews in Mainz on the third of Sivan (June 2, 1096). Afterwards they continued marching northwards, 165 kilometers, to the city of Cologne and they killed the Jews there on Shavuot (June 5, 1096). This last pogrom is not mentioned in the kinot, but is mentioned by Sperber (1990, p. 108). The fact that Crusaders marched northwards, which was out of their way since they were supposed to be walking east or south to go to the land of Israel, shows their cruelty as they were just going to kill the Jews. According to one estimate, during these two months of May and June 1096 in Germany, “as many as 8,000 Jews were massacred or took their own lives,” (Haag, 2014, p. 106).

Most of the mob who attacked the Jewish communities died on their march to the land of Israel, but some joined with a Crusader force, which was led by various knights, and they conquered Jerusalem on July 15, 1099 (17th of Tammuz). This led to more massacres of the Jewish community of Jerusalem, and the burning of synagogues where Jews were hiding. These massacres are not mentioned in the kinot, but the entire period of the Crusaders was a terrible period for the Jewish people.

One oddity about the four kinot relating to the destruction of the Jewish communities of Speyer, Mainz and Worms is that they are not grouped together. Instead, in between the four kinot, there are kinot about the destruction of the first Bet ha-Mikdash and the second Bet ha-Mikdash. I have never understood this disorder. People have suggested to me that this apparent disorder is to show that all the tragedies are related. I doubt this and think there could be some historical reasons, but I do not know of any particular reason.

Bibliography:

Haag, Michael, 2014, The tragedy of the Templars: The rise and fall of the Crusader States, London: Profile Books.

Soloveitchik, Rav Yosef, 2010, The Koren mesorat harav kinot: Commentary on the kinot based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, edited by Simon Posner, Jerusalem: Koren Publishers; New York: OU Press.

Sperber, Daniel, 1990, Minhagei Yisrael, Volume 1, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.