וזאת תורת זבת השלמים זש"ה דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום (משלי ג) כל מה שכתוב בתורה לשום שלום הוא נכתב ואע"פ שכתוב בתורה מלחמות אף המלחמות לשום שלום נכתבו אתה מוצא שבטל הקב"ה גזרתו מפני השלום אימתי בשעה שאמר הקב"ה למשה כי תצור אל עיר ימים רבים וכל אותו הענין (דברים כ) א"ל הקב"ה שיחרים אותם שנא' (שם) כי החרם תחרימם ומשה לא עשה כן אלא אמר עכשיו אני הולך ומכה מי חטא ומי שלא חטא אלא בשלום אני בא עליהם שנא' (שם ב) ואשלח מלאכים ממדבר קדמות דברי שלום אעברה בארצך כיון שראה שלא בא לשלום הכהו שנא' ויכו אותו ואת בניו ואת כל עמו אמר הקב"ה אני אמרתי כי החרם תחרימם ואתה לא עשית כן חייך כשם שאמרת כך אני עושה שנא' (שם כ) כי תקרב אל עיר להלחם עליה וקראת אליה לשלום לכך נאמר (משלי ג) דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום
Very nice. A while back I told R. Eytan Feiner that despite what it says about milchemes zayin amamin, or mechiyas amalek, no Jew could do that. So why was Shaul punished for having mercy? Answer, because he had previously threatened Dovid with a spear, so he had no valid claim to be a rachaman.
ReplyDeleteWhat's wrong with the kol ha'meracheim al ha'achazarim?
ReplyDeleteHow do you define a 4 yr old child as an achzar?
ReplyDeleteAfter checking psukim, my initial pshat may not work out chronologically, since Shaul tried to kill Dovid after the story of Agag. Nevertheless, it does not refute the concept that one can back out as a conscientous objector. So why, then, was Shaul punished? Because if he was a rachman, he would have killed the king and left the children. Since he killed the children, he had no excuse to leave the king.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, another justification to object is from the pasuk lo yumso avos al banim...ish bcheto, etc. So the aseh of timcheh es zecher amalek can't be docheh a lav and an aseh (lo yimsu, ish bcheto).
I'm not going to try and retroactively impose modern standards of warfare on historical events. Suffice it to say that the Torah's rare requirements of annihilation have not been operative for over 2500 years, and thus for most of history have been בגדר דרוש וקבל שכר.
ReplyDeleteYou may know the story of the young child who took ill, and his worried mother called the doctor to check her young boy. After the examination, the doctor came out with the grim news; "There's nothing I can do, we'll just have to let it run it's course. The prognosis is not good..." He promised to return the following morning, but his manner spoke of the probability there wouldn't be anything to return for.
ReplyDeleteAll that night the despairing mother sat by the child's bed, bathing his feverish head. Toward morning, the boy ceased his twisting and turning, and lay still, breathing slowly. The doctor came in with the first light of the morning and went into the room to examine the boy. Not five minutes went by, when the doctor came out, excitedly, "The danger has passed, Adolf will live!...."
Who said a four year old can't be an achzor?
I hear your point, but A) he wasn't an achzor at age 4; B) how would we like it if the Nazis justified killing our children by saying they will subvert the world if allowed to grow up.
ReplyDeleteI think this segways into 1) belief and trust in Torah - there is no other way to justify killing a child other than the overarching perspective of a Creator and Manager.
ReplyDeleteBut also 2) the point previously made by R' Bechhofer, "Suffice it to say that the Torah's rare requirements of annihilation have not been operative for over 2500 years, and thus for most of history have been בגדר דרוש וקבל שכר". The way G-d has engineered history clearly has precluded a practical implementation of this mitzvah, much to our detriment, and the detriment of the entire world.
I don't know why you call it a detriment. But, at any rate, belief in a Creator doesn't get one out of hot water here. The Arabs have demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to go into a Jewish home and slit the throats of little children in the name of their creator. Is there a reason why the same act is abhorrent if a Muslim does it, but commendable if a Jew does it? I call that the baseball hat paradigm. Morality should be invariant under a permutation of baseball hats. Can't be the rules are different for one team than the other. While I'm sure you will respond that we know our religion is right, but the Muslim believes just as strongly that his is right, which commands him to kill Jewish children. So therefore there must be a qualitative difference in our observance. I maintain that the Jews are rachmanim bnei rachmanim, and would find a way out of any command to annihilate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Barry. That's the point of this Midrash. One of the mefarshim points out it's a proof for the Rambam's opinion that one first extends an offer of peace even to Amalek.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, contrary to popular opinion, there is no mitzvah to kill individual Amalekites at all. Only to wage war as a last resort.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteWould not Hitler, and others of his ilk, dying or being killed at 4 years of age have made the world a better place?
As to the comparison to Arabs, in a vacuum you certainly are right... and that is where I appeal to belief in Torah. Again, the point here is the divinity and truth of Torah. If one believes that, and you had better be brutally honest in your investigation of this point, then what remains for us is to wrap our heads around this unequivocal Mitzvah. I theorize that because we have a tough time understanding the validity of this mitzvah, Hashem orchestrated that it not be carried out on a practical level. But that in no way changes the fact that we are worse off for it.
R' Bechhofer,
I believe that the חינוך says בפירוש that coming across an עמלקי and not killing him is how you are עובר on this mitzvah. The story with דוד המלך killing the עמלקי who bore the news of שאול's death should be proof of this as well (although there are other questions on that story which need to be answered, and perhaps the answer may refute this point as well).
Either way, this would not satisfy Barry's problem, for in a מלחמת מצוה where they don't answer בשלום we would kill young children as well. And if I understood correctly, what is bothering Barry is that you cannot call a 4 year old an achzor, and there's no justification for killing him.
While after the fact one can say would have been better had Hitler not survived childhood, but there was no crime to charge him for at the time. By Yishmael it says baasher hu sham. People are judged according to their present merits, although G-d knows the future. BTW this whole discussion may have ramifications for the nature vs. nurture debate, or genes vs. environment, etc.
ReplyDeleteWe do find that Ben sorer umoreh (rebelious minor) is punished al shem haasid (because of his future tendencies), but there, too, it is theoretical drosh vkabel schar, and no cases were ever prosecuted in history.
No matter how well we may know the Torah is absolute truth, the Arab believes the Koran to be the same. Would you expect him to investigate on his own, challenge his teachers and be labeled an unbeliever any more than you would want a Jewish child to challenge his rebbeim and family and community? It is not reasonable or possible. Therefore one can only conclude that one must abstain from anihilation. However, there may be cases where collateral damage cannot be avoided in legitimate defense.
Note that Dovid was prevented from building the beis hamikdash because he fought wars. If he was doing a great mitzvah, why should he lose the privilege? Makes no sense if he was obeying G-d's command.
I would like to add a few more cases which may follow the principle that Chazal (our Rabbis) and the Jewish people as a whole were rachmanim bnei rachmanim (had innately inherited merciful attributes).
ReplyDelete1) Written Torah says eye for an eye, and Rabbis reinterpreted as meaning monetary restitution.
2) Principle of eivah allowing Jewish doctors to treat all people on Shabbos, not only Sabbath observers.
3) Fact that although Torah is full of harsh verses of capital punishment, Rabbis said that any court administering capital punishment more than once in 70 years is a murderous court. Instead, must use loopholes to get defendant
4) Ben sorer umoreh (rebellious child) despite written Torah's prescription of capital punishment because of severe future potential of dangerous activity, was never once carried out in practice, but was termed drosh vakabel schar (merely a theoretical lesson).
Point 3 above was cut off. Should say "must use loopholes to get defendant off the hook".
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/04/an-amazing-wonderful-and-fundamental-tanchuma.shtml
ReplyDeleteI translated the Tanchuma.
I apologize for the long delay in responding. I actually had my original visceral reaction, which I'll share, but was unable to find the time to respond.
ReplyDeleteBarry writes:
"No matter how well we may know the Torah is absolute truth, the Arab believes the Koran to be the same. Would you expect him to investigate on his own, challenge his teachers and be labeled an unbeliever any more than you would want a Jewish child to challenge his rebbeim and family and community?"
My answer:
An emphatic YES!!
"Haya lo lilmod v'lo lamad!"
And as for us, we are nothing ourselves, and are not educating our youth properly, if we don't ourselves take a long HARD look at WHY we believe what we believe, and aren't open and actively prodding our children and talmidim to understand this as well. Otherwise, our entire religious existence is predicated on a shaky foundation.
Rabbi Dovid Orlofsky tells of the time he met a fellow in Washington DC. In conversation, the guy proclaims, "Rabbi, I'm an atheist!" Rabbi Orlofsky became excited and said, "Really, that's fascinating! I never met an atheist!"
"So, tell me, What do you think of Kant?"
"Well, I, um, don't really know so much about it..."
"And what's your thoughts on Spinoza?"
"Um, I'm not so familiar..."
"What about Aristotle?"
"I haven't really looked into it..."
"So you're not an atheist, you're an idiot!"
That being said, it's important to note that a candid and honest examination of truth must be conducted from the perspective of trying to understand why we believe what we believe, as opposed to challenging or undermining the very right to believe. The horror stories of teachers or parents smacking or admonishing children for DARING to ask a question is oftentimes the result of misunderstanding the child's desire to understand, as a desire to challenge and undermine. It's only with us adults, or children tainted by us, that the egotistical need for "My own opinion", or "Noone has the right to tell me what to do or think", starts taking hold - and shapes our ideologies.
The Rambam (Avodah Zarah 2:3) defines the trangression of "Lo sasuru achcarei l'vavchem - zu meenus" - as prohibiting opening your mind to false ideologies. But what is often mistaken as a transgression of this issur is in fact not only permitted, but the very basis of our Jewishness! See the Rambam (ibid 1:3) how Avraham Aveinu came to recognize G-d. Are we to do any less?!
The veracity of our tradition is the absolute most important thing for us to establish - the Ramban (סה"מ להרמב"ם - שכחת הלאוין לדעת הרמב"ן ב) has it as a separate mitzvah - and the Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 8:1) agrees to its centrality. Only after that is established can any other discussion of the mitzvos haTorah go forward. The Rambam who translates Lo Sasuru as closing your mind, is but bringing out the Torah's very true observation that our intellect is finite - and cautioning us to compensate for it. I think a careful reading of the Rambam bears this out.
Sorry for my rant.
I have thoughts and sources on some of the other issues brought up, perhaps for a different time.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
All the best,
NL
Dear Rabbi Lerman,
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe a Muslim who has been taught that Jews are apes and pigs, and tried to poison Mohammed, and all of them need to be killed, is going to challenge that any more than a Jewish child who is taught that Amalek attacked us on way out of mitzrayim, so all need to be killed? Haya lo lilmod what, exactly? What is he supposed to learn, and where can he get independent and reliable info on the truth of either of those two events? Never mind the even greater problem of let's say we grant that one or more of those events is in fact true. Does that give a nation the right to kill the descendants thousands of year later, including small chidren? If the Jews were found to some extent to have been involved in some way with the killing of Jesus, does that give the right for the Christians to slaughter untold numbers of Jews and children in all the numerous pogroms throughout history?
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your passion in this topic. It certainly is an expression of Jewish rachmanos and makes me proud to be a Jew.
I'd like to start from what I think is the beginning of this conversation; all else is subject to these points. There is a progression of questions, each subsequent question only has validity if the previous assumption is agreed upon;
1) Do I, and WHY do I, believe the world has a Creator?
2) Do I, and WHY do I, believe this Creator is intimately and absolutely involved in every facet of the world?
3) Do I, and WHY do I, believe this Creator made his will known through the medium of the Torah, and the Torah is an expression of what is good and right for the world, Mankind, and each individual?
4) Did the Torah clearly and unequivocally command the annihilation of an entire people, (a commandment that was clearly taken at face value in earlier generations)?
If the answer to all these questions is yes (this is where the Ramban I mentioned in the last post comes in - very important to see), then I think we've come to know what is GOOD for the world and Mankind.
I am not dictating the answer to these questions, although I'm sure you know what I think the answer is. And I believe the answers to these questions can be 'proven'.
I would put forward that it is the obligation of every observant Jew, and every observant Muslim in regards to the Koran, to closely and meticulously examine these questions, and come out with a real basis for their foundational beliefs. Certainly, it is permitted to ask the purveyors of your tradition what their basis is.
And yes, I believe it in the capacity of a straight and unbiased logic to investigate the claims and figure out what makes sense. To ask the hard question and see where the dice fall. Haya lo lilmod...
(Once again, parenthetically, it does take a brutal understanding of our own motivations and process to ensure our balanced logic is preserved. But I believe the average unsullied mind is up to the challenge.)
Once again, I reiterate, I am not dealing with the justification of the mitzvah itself; I think Rabbi Bechhofer's insight that Hashem has orchestrated the practical obviation of this mitzvah is correct (not that he needs my haskama). I would opine that this is because we cant fathom the depth of justification for this mitzvah, and it therefore would be improper to act upon. But that is Hashem's doing, not ours.
All the best and have a good Yom Tov!
NL
Dear Rabbi Lerman,
ReplyDeleteI understand that you believe that Judaism can somehow be proven correct from alll the other religions based on some purely logical process. While that might be true, to expect an 18 yr old Muslim to be able to succeed in this is simply unreasonable. Therefore, the only thing to fall back on (and which is the most distinguishing feature of Judaism) is that it has claim to be the most humane religion. So humane, that its followers will find any loophole to avoid cruelty, and if necessary, even argue with G-d himself. This is a mesorah going back to Avraham Avinu himself, where he pleaded for the Anshei Sdom. He did not mince words. He said Hashofet kol haaretz lo yaaseh mishpat?
We are called Yisroel, because Ki sarisa imelokim vim anashim vatuchal. We will not hesitate to argue with the RBSH, as gemara says kulhu mesivta drakia amri tamei vhkbh amar tahor.
Consider what would have been the result if Avraham was not asked to slaughter Yitzchak, but rather his neighbor's son. I am positive he would have refused.