[Talk in the Yeshiva during Lunch]
In light
of several recent incidents in which people have attacked the Israeli army, we
have to clarify and make known a major principle of Jewish law as it relates to
the army: unity. This critical idea is
discussed by the Netziv's (Ha-Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin) in his commentary
on Rav Achai Gaon's She'eltot 142 (siman #143).
Regarding
Yoav, who waged war on Edom for half a year and exterminated all of their males
(Melachim 1 11:16), the Talmud (Bava Batra 21a-b) relates that David asked him,
“Why just every male? What about the females?” Yoav responded, “The Torah
states, 'You shall blot out the males (Zachar) of Amalek'" (Devarim 25:19),
which he saw as a precedent for dealing with Edom.
David
responded, “The Torah does not say Zachar (males) but Zecher (memory).”
Yoav then
said, “I was taught to read 'Zachar' and not 'Zecher'.” Yoav then went back to
his teacher and said, “You taught me 'Zachar', and he pulled out a sword to
kill the teacher, in accordance with 'Cursed be he who is slack in doing Hashem's
work' (Yirmiyahu 48:10). The teacher replied, “True, I am cursed, but that is
no reason to kill me.” Yoav then said, “That same verse continues, 'And cursed
be he who withholds his sword from blood'.”
In the
Talmud two opinions are expressed – he killed his teacher or he didn't. The
Netziv on She'eltot says that he did in fact kill him. So one might ask: The
verse, “Cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood” is not from the Torah
but from Yirmiyahu. How could someone base Jewish law on it?
To this
the Netziv responds: Certainly one does not normally kill a teacher who made a
mistake. Here, however, the laws of war are at issue. It may well be that if
someone sows confusion regarding the laws of war he should be killed, because
regarding those laws, we do not know what the results of an error will be.
Our Torah
source for this principle is taken from the laws of a soldier who flees the
battlefield. The law is that the military police, positioned in the rear, are
allowed to kill that soldier because he weakens morale. The Netziv says that
that soldier is classified as a Rodef Klal Yisrael, one who pursues Jews to
kill them. Whoever weakens the army, the fighting, the Chief-of-Staff, is the
worst Rodef there could be.
Applying this
principle, the Netziv explains many perplexing stories from the Tanach:
1. As is
well-known, Achan stole spoils of war and was killed for it (Yehoshua 7). We
might wonder whether such a soldier should really be killed. The Netziv answers
that a military order had been issued not to take booty, and Acahn had violated
it. He was weakening the army, so he could be killed.
True,
stealing booty does not constitute a clear-cut military debacle, but if there
is an order not to take it, then one should not take it, and if one takes it,
the army's authority is weakened.
2. In the
episode involving the murder of the concubine at Gibeah [Judges 19-21], the
Jewish People demanded of the Tribe of Binyamin that they hand over the
murderers. They refused, so the Jewish People killed the entire tribe of
Binyamin. Our medieval rabbinical authorities deliberated on whether or not
they were justified in doing so. The Netziv holds that they were right, because
the tribe of Binyamin had rebelled against the Jewish People. The Jewish People
had asked Binyamin to hand them over, so they should have done it. Otherwise,
every tribe would become its own country, and that would be the end of the
Jewish People.
Likewise,
before the battle against Binyamin, the Jewish People swore that whoever did
not go to war would be killed. Yavesh Gilead did not go, so all of Yavesh
Gilead was killed for draft evasion during a civil war. They refused the Jewish
People's call, weakening the army, and so they were killed (Shoftim 21:10).
3. King Shaul
gave orders not to eat on the day of a battle (Shmuel 1 14). Yonatan consumed
honey, and Shaul sentenced him to death. Was that a clear-cut military
offence?! It makes no difference. He violated military orders. In the end, the
people saved Yonatan, but Shaul had been ready to execute his son for violating
a military order.
4. Gideon
harshly punished the people of Succot for not wanting to provide food to
soldiers during the battle against Midian (Shoftim 8). That punishment was
unavoidable. If every tribe had its own militia, the enemy would destroy us!
The Netziv warns how much worse this would be: If there were individual militias,
this tribe would forge a covenant with this enemy and that tribe would forge a
covenant with that enemy, as in the times of Aristobulos and Hyrkanus. One
forged a covenant with the Greeks and the other forged a covenant with the
Romans, and we were left high and dry.
All of these
examples, states the Netziv, involve rebellion against the Chief-of-Staff.
Rambam writes in Hilchot Melachim 3:8: “The king has authority to kill whomever
rebels against him. Even if the king decreed that someone must go to a
particular place and that person did not go, or he decreed that someone must
not leave his home and he left it, that person incurs a death penalty, and if
the king wishes to kill him, he can, as it says, 'Any man who flouts your
commands' (Yehoshua 1:18).”
Rambam
explains that this verse is referring to the king. The Netziv explains
otherwise, that the verse is referring to the Chief-of-Staff of the army, for
the verse was addressed to Yehoshua bin Nun, who was not a king. True, the Rabbis
argue over whether or not the laws of kingship apply to him, but the Netziv
holds like the opinion that he was not a king.
We rule
that if the king issues a decree that goes against Jewish law, we don't heed it
(Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 3:9), as it says, “Any man who flouts your commands
and does not obey every order you give him shall be put to death” (Yehoshua 1:18),
and that verse concludes, “Only be strong and resolute!” which the Rabbis knew
to be referring to adherence to the Torah. In other words, the verse is saying:
Obey the king only if he issues orders according to the Torah.”
Yet Yoav
ben Tzruya did not hold to this view. He held that whoever violates a military
order, whether justly or not, incurs a death penalty. He therefore killed Amasa
ben Yeter who justly violated David's order to him (Shmuel 1 20:8-10). Yoav
himself was later sentenced to death for this by King Shlomo (Melachim 1 2:32).
Yoav held that one must obey the king even if he says one must do something
forbidden, because it is a matter of life and death. Otherwise, that person
weakens the king's authority.
We,
however, do not rule that way. A military order that involves a sin is patently
illegal, and there is no obligation to obey it (see Sanhedrin 49a).
In conclusion,
writes the Netziv, our Nation's unity is a matter of life and death. Whoever
violates that unity – no matter what the background – is clasified as a Rodef.
I'm not saying that anyone who violates it has to be killed.
Even the Rodef
is not always killed.
In our
country there are all kinds of people with all kinds of outlooks and ideas.
They are confused. They are not bad people. Yet one cannot begin to divide up
the Nation into two armies or more – one army to evict Arabs, another army to
evict Charedim, a third army to evict leftists, a fourth army to evict
rightists. That's a lot of armies. Every army would have its own insignia and
we would have to ask each soldier, “Are you willing to carry out this mission?”
That's impossible. When there's an order, you fulfill it and that's it.
We must
not inject political arguments into the army. It's busy with life or death
issues involving the entire nation. There are three hundred million Arabs
around us, and another billion and a half Muslims who support them, and another
billion Christians. Please leave the army out of it.
