The
apocryphal First Book of Maccabees (which is believed to be an accurate
historical source) presents a moving description of Judah Maccabee’s
preparations for the Battle of Emmaus, his most stellar victory. (The Battle of
Emmaus is such an excellent example of how a battle should be run that until
today, more than 2160 years later, the battle is taught not only in officers’
training courses in the Israel Defense Force, but at the U.S. War College as
well.)
|
|
Next Judah appointed leaders for the
people, to command a thousand, a hundred, fifty or ten men. He told those who
were building houses, or about to be married, or planting vineyards, or who
were simply afraid, to go home every one of them, as the Torah
allowed. I
Maccabees 3:55-56
|
|
The
authors of First Maccabees (according to the tradition of Rav Yehudai Gaon [mid
eighth century], they were the elders of the Houses of Hillel and of Shamai)
end their description of Judah’s granting exemptions from battle by stating
that this was done in accordance with the Torah. This comment raises a
question: Maimonides (Law of Kings and Their Wars 7:4) states that the
exemptions apply only to a discretionary war (milhemet r’shut), but in a
mandatory war (milhemet mitzva) “all go out, even the bridegroom”.
Maimonides (ibid. 5:1) includes in his definition of milhemet mitzva
“a war to save Israel from the oppressor who comes upon them”. Thus, it
would seem that Judah Maccabee’s battles were part of a milhemet mitzva
and he should not have granted the exemptions.
The
late Rabbi Shlomo Goren (for many years the chief rabbi of the I.D.F. and
subsequently Israel’s chief rabbi) suggested that the obligation to participate
in a war of salvation derives from the mitzva “thou shall not stand
inactive by the blood of your friend” [Leviticus 19:17]. Accordingly, my father
explained that while in principle Judah’s war was a milhemet mitzva,
in practice, Judah acted correctly in granting the exemptions. The mitzva “thou
shall not stand ...” obligates one to try to save his fellow man only in a
situation in which he is capable of saving his fellow man (Babylonian Talmud,
Sanhedrin 73a]. (For example, a trained life guard who fails to rescue a
person who is drowning violates “thou shall not stand ...”. However, one who
cannot swim is not obligated to jump into the water and attempt a rescue.)
Since, on the natural level, Judah did not have a chance of defeating
the Greek army, in practice there was no obligation to fight. Therefore,
practically speaking, the war cannot be considered a milhemet mitzva.
In
a similar way, Rabbi Shmaryahu Arieli noted that the point of milhemet
mitzva is not the fighting, but the victory. Since Judah could not
expect to be victorious, his war could not be considered milhemet mitzva even
though its purpose was rescuing Israel from their enemy.
My
father’s own opinion is that the obligation to participate in a war of
salvation derives from the simple fact that one’s own life is in danger. If
this is the case, then one apparently should have an obligation to try to save
himself, even if the situation seems hopeless. Thus, the question arises again:
if Judah’s battle was within the framework of milhemet mitzva, how did
he issue exemptions?
My
father explained that the exemptions were issued based upon a technicality. Milhemet
mitzva requires a king to lead the people. Since Judah Maccabee was not
halachically king, he could not require the bridegroom, etc. to go to battle.
My
father concluded that even though Judah could not require his men to fight,
those who chose to certainly participated in a milhemet mitzva, since it
clearly was a war of salvation.
No comments:
Post a Comment