שופטים

A Time for War

A not-so epic battle speech

The parasha contains a series of passages dealing with war. The first of these relates to the speech(es) given to the soldiers on the battlefront on the eve of battle:

כִּי־תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל־אֹיְבֶיךָ וְרָאִיתָ סוּס וָרֶכֶב עַם רַב מִמְּךָ לֹא תִירָא מֵהֶם כִּי־ה' אלקיךָ עִמָּךְ הַמַּעַלְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃ וְהָיָה כְּקָרָבְכֶם אֶל־הַמִּלְחָמָה וְנִגַּשׁ הַכֹּהֵן וְדִבֶּר אֶל־הָעָם׃ וְאָמַר אֲלֵהֶם שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל אַתֶּם קְרֵבִים הַיּוֹם לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל־אֹיְבֵיכֶם אַל־יֵרַךְ לְבַבְכֶם אַל־תִּירְאוּ וְאַל־תַּחְפְּזוּ וְאַל־תַּעַרְצוּ מִפְּנֵיהֶם׃ כִּי ה' אלקיכֶם הַהֹלֵךְ עִמָּכֶם לְהִלָּחֵם לָכֶם עִם־אֹיְבֵיכֶם לְהוֹשִׁיעַ אֶתְכֶם׃ וְדִבְּרוּ הַשֹּׁטְרִים אֶל־הָעָם לֵאמֹר

מִי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה בַיִת־חָדָשׁ וְלֹא חֲנָכוֹ יֵלֵךְ וְיָשֹׁב לְבֵיתוֹ פֶּן־יָמוּת בַּמִּלְחָמָה וְאִישׁ אַחֵר יַחְנְכֶנּוּ׃
וּמִי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־נָטַע כֶּרֶם וְלֹא חִלְּלוֹ יֵלֵךְ וְיָשֹׁב לְבֵיתוֹ פֶּן־יָמוּת בַּמִּלְחָמָה וְאִישׁ אַחֵר יְחַלְּלֶנּוּ׃
וּמִי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־אֵרַשׂ אִשָּׁה וְלֹא לְקָחָהּ יֵלֵךְ וְיָשֹׁב לְבֵיתוֹ פֶּן־יָמוּת בַּמִּלְחָמָה וְאִישׁ אַחֵר יִקָּחֶנָּה׃

וְיָסְפוּ הַשֹּׁטְרִים לְדַבֵּר אֶל־הָעָם וְאָמְרוּ מִי־הָאִישׁ הַיָּרֵא וְרַךְ הַלֵּבָב יֵלֵךְ וְיָשֹׁב לְבֵיתוֹ וְלֹא יִמַּס אֶת־לְבַב אֶחָיו כִּלְבָבוֹ׃ וְהָיָה כְּכַלֹּת הַשֹּׁטְרִים לְדַבֵּר אֶל־הָעָם וּפָקְדוּ שָׂרֵי צְבָאוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הָעָם׃ (דברים כ:א-ח)

The motivational purpose of the Kohen's speech is clear. The final words of the officers requiring the איש הירא ורך הלבב to return from the battlefront are also understandable as they engage with, and follow directly from, the Kohen's call of אל ירך לבבכם אל תיראו. However, the instructions requiring the three groups to return home are more difficult.[1] Not only do they interrupt the aforementioned connected verses, but the very message seems to contradict the resounding confidence of victory expressed by the Kohen. The Kohen encourages the soldiers not to fear the battle for God will fight for them - only for the officer to then step in to list the people who are sent home lest they die. Even if these people should return home, why is it necessary for these instructions – with their repeated talk of potential death (פן ימות במלחמה) - to be conveyed on the eve of battle when they risk instilling fear in the soldiery? 

From a practical perspective too, why was it necessary to undergo the ritual of calling these people up only to send them home just prior to the battle?[2] The exemptions could easily have been taught as general laws without being embedded into the battle speech template - as the Torah did in fact do in other cases:

כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה חֲדָשָׁה לֹא יֵצֵא בַּצָּבָא וְלֹא־יַעֲבֹר עָלָיו לְכָל־דָּבָר נָקִי יִהְיֶה לְבֵיתוֹ שָׁנָה אֶחָת וְשִׂמַּח אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר־לָקָח׃ (דברים כד:ה)

To understand all these points, we need to first consider the rationale for the exemptions.

Reasons for the exemptions

Rashi explains this as a point of עגמת נפש – it would be particularly tragic for these people to die on the threshold of achieving these particular milestones. According to this explanation, the פן ימות statement is objective in nature – there is a genuine fear that these people may die.

A different approach is taken by Ramban, Ibn Ezra and Rashbam, who suggest the reason these people are exempt is because their preoccupation with their personal survival may negatively impact the collective fighting spirit. According to this approach, the פן ימות is not the reason they go back but an expression of the subjective fear of these groups of people which render them unsuitable for battle.[3]

A couple of years ago I spoke about this topic. I noted that the common denominator between these groups is the fear of the איש אחר. In a slight modification of the second approach, I suggested that the message is in fact targeted at those remaining on the battlefield. Anyone who is concerned about theאיש אחר  should not be on the battlefield. Although the normal operating principle in life is חייך קודמין and הקרוב קרוב קודם, during war the principal value is 'no man is left behind'. For the sake of morale, every soldier must believe that their comrades will risk everything for them. For those who stay to fight there can be no איש אחר. If one soldier sees the other as potential competition – as someone who might take their wife, house, vineyard in the event of death - then the trust structure of the army is broken, and the battle is doomed.[4]  

True as this point might be from a psychological and even halachic perspective[5], on reflection, I don't think this is the correct explanation of the passage. As part of the Tochacha the same categories reappear with familiar language:

אִשָּׁה תְאָרֵשׂ וְאִישׁ אַחֵר ישגלנה [יִשְׁכָּבֶנָּה] בַּיִת תִּבְנֶה וְלֹא־תֵשֵׁב בּוֹ כֶּרֶם תִּטַּע וְלֹא תְחַלְּלֶּנּוּ׃ (דברים כח:ל)

Clearly it is assumed to be an acute tragedy where someone dies just before these anticipated milestones. The nature of the tragedy seems to be connected to the prior verse which states:

וְהָיִיתָ מְמַשֵּׁשׁ בַּצָּהֳרַיִם כַּאֲשֶׁר יְמַשֵּׁשׁ הָעִוֵּר בָּאֲפֵלָה וְלֹא תַצְלִיחַ אֶת־דְּרָכֶיךָ וְהָיִיתָ אַךְ עָשׁוּק וְגָזוּל כָּל־הַיָּמִים וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ׃ (דברים כח:כט)

There is a sense of theft resulting from the prospect of the fruits of one person's labour being enjoyed by someone else. A life was not only lost but was stolen. This is the injustice which we perceive in the tragedy and that is the essence of the curse. I would add that this stands true regardless of whether the איש אחר represents the enemy responsible for the person's premature death or any other beneficiary. It seems, therefore, that the focus on the איש אחר is simply the means to highlight the deep tragedy and perceived injustice were this person to die just before reaching these milestones.[6]

This being the case we need to revisit the earlier questions of why they are sent home at this sensitive juncture (or why the relevant law is placed in this textual location[7]).

The countervalues to war

The logical conclusion is that the message underpinning these exemptions is so fundamental to the Torah's conception of war that it need be conveyed to the soldiers (or to the reader) precisely at this critical point. If the Torah views the ultimate tragedy as not being able to enjoy the house one built, the vineyard one planted, and marry the woman one loves, then the upshot is that building, planting and marriage are life's primary values. If these people are exempt from war then that is because the Torah wishes for these values to rise above the perceived glamour of war. Building, planting and marriage express human creativity and productivity. The destructive and brutal nature of war, though at times necessary, directly negates these values.

It is not surprising that in the preceding passage we read about the Israelites living in cities and houses which they did not build, and in the subsequent passage we read how the people will consume the spoils of their enemies:

כִּי־יַכְרִית ה' אלקיךָ אֶת־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר ה' אלקיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ אֶת־אַרְצָם וִירִשְׁתָּם וְיָשַׁבְתָּ בְעָרֵיהֶם וּבְבָתֵּיהֶם׃ (דברים יט:א)

רַק הַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף וְהַבְּהֵמָה וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בָעִיר כָּל־שְׁלָלָהּ תָּבֹז לָךְ וְאָכַלְתָּ אֶת־שְׁלַל אֹיְבֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' אלקיךָ לָךְ׃ (דברים כ:יד)

One may mistakenly read these passages and conclude that the capture of booty and self-enrichment are key objectives and even legitimate motivations to engage in warfare. The Torah is protesting this attitude to war by casting war as a necessary evil with tragic consequences.[8]

R. Elchanan Samet notes that the war passages follow a chronological sequence with each passage containing a subtle protest as to the destructive effects of war.[9] This first passage deals with the battle preparations within the Israelite camp. The next passage deals with the first engagement with the enemy and requires a peace offer to be made prior to engaging in battle:

כִּי־תִקְרַב אֶל־עִיר לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ וְקָרָאתָ אֵלֶיהָ לְשָׁלוֹם׃ (דברים כ:י)[10]

The passage which follows deals with the battle itself and prohibits the cutting down of a fruit tree when laying siege:

כִּי־תָצוּר אֶל־עִיר יָמִים רַבִּים לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ לְתָפְשָׂהּ לֹא־תַשְׁחִית אֶת־עֵצָהּ לִנְדֹּחַ עָלָיו גַּרְזֶן כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת כִּי הָאָדָם עֵץ הַשָּׂדֶה לָבֹא מִפָּנֶיךָ בַּמָּצוֹר׃ (דברים כ:יט)

Consistent with the message our passage, the fruit tree represents the values of creativity and productivity. It is not for nothing that Chazal derived from here a general prohibition against wanton destruction. By prohibiting such acts, the Torah favours the values of creation over destruction.

The next passage deals with the Eglah Arufah. This deals with the loss of a single life where the murderer is unknown. There is deep symbolism in the ritual itself but the mere fact that there is such an involved process, is intended to counter the devaluation of life which is an inevitable consequence of war. In the chronological sequence it addresses the after-effects of war and protests the devaluation of life and desensitisation which result from it. Notwithstanding the carnage and mass slaughter inherent in war, even the needless loss of a single life is intolerable in the eyes of God. Once again productivity emerges as the symbolism of life's potential as the victim is represented by a young unproductive heifer, and the choice of location is an uncultivable wadi.

The passage of the אשת יפת תואר continues this pattern and relates to the sensitive integration of the captive woman into the Israelite camp. Its basic purpose is to protest the prevailing norms of wartime rape and offer protection and dignity to the captive. As Samet demonstrated, the fact that this is a post-war passage is evident from its placement in the sequence, the use of the single as opposed to the collective (the main war passages are written in the collective), in addition to the opening phrase -וּנְתָנוֹ ה' אלקיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ - which implies the battle has already been won.[11]

Returning to our passage, it is particularly poignant that at a time when the Torah could have appealed to the glory of sacrifice and martyrdom, it chose to focus instead on the joys and potential of life. The concern shown for these special circumstances serves to remind the soldiers what they are fighting for and the values they are protecting. One need not look far to understand how a culture of martyrdom can be cynically exploited to cheapen the life of its followers and the victims. Conversely and somewhat counterintuitively, it is specifically the army which appreciates the supreme value of life which fosters the highest level of trust and strengthens the fighting spirit and morale. It is noteworthy that the exemptions provided for these milestones are generally expected to be accessible to all the soldiers at some point and, therefore, relatable to everyone on the battlefront.

Additionally, it seems that the passage is intended to drive an enhanced sensitivity on the part of the soldiers and improve the battlefield ethic. By creating a vivid image of individual life in its most idyllic and joyous form and by focusing on the basic rights of a person to enjoy the fruits of their labour, the Torah discourages the gratuitous cruelty and pillage which, particularly in biblical times, were standard in wartime. The rationale is therefore complimentary to the surrounding passages discussed above. The special focus on these exempt groups engenders a sympathy for all innocent victims of war (and we need not enter a discussion here as to how these are defined) that face having their life stolen away from them. Therefore, as well as being a symbolic protest to the idolisation of war, it subtly acts to reign in the excesses of war by creating a culture in which life and its accomplishments are treasured, and promoting an ideal in which instruments of death are converted to tools of creativity:

...וְכִתְּתוּ חַרְבֹתֵיהֶם לְאִתִּים וַחֲנִיתֹתֵיהֶם לְמַזְמֵרוֹת לֹא־יִשְׂאוּ גּוֹי אֶל־גּוֹי חֶרֶב וְלֹא־יִלְמְדוּן עוֹד מִלְחָמָה׃ וְיָשְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחַת גַּפְנוֹ וְתַחַת תְּאֵנָתוֹ וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד... (מיכה ד:ג-ד)

 

---

[1] According to the Talmud (Sotah 43a) these instructions were said over by the Kohen and then amplified to the people by the officers.

[2] Perhaps due to this problem (the apparent pointlessness of marching these groups out to the battlefront only to send them back prior to battle), the Talmud (Sotah 42a) seems to assume that, contrary to the chronology of the text, these groups were in fact sent home as they reached the border. If this were true, it simply shifts the problem to the text itself - why were these instructions appended to the words of the Kohen as if they were said on the battlefront? The Rambam, perhaps trying to harmonise the Talmud with the plain text, states that the same announcements were made twice, once as they left the border and then again on the battlefront.

[3] The apparent advantage of the second approach is it fits better with theאיש הירא ורך לבב  who is instructed to return in order that he not weaken the morale of his comrades. On the other hand, this last group is included within its own speech/category following the words ויספו השוטרים לדבר אל העם which supports a fundamental distinction between the איש הירא ורך הלבב and the preceding exemptions.

[4] I subsequently came across the Abarbanel who also assumes that the main audience of these announcements were those who remained on the battlefield, albeit for a very different reason:

הספק החמשה ועשרים בדברי הכהן והשוטרים. שאתה תמצא שהם אומרים אל העם דברים טובים לישרם בגבורת המלחמה. ולא תמצא שיאמרו אליהם דבר מהתשועה הנפשית. ולמה לא יעדום שהמתי' במלחמה תהיה נפשם צרורה בצרור החיים את הש"י. אשר שם השלמות והעונג הבלתי משוער. וכדרך המיסרים את אנשי המלחמה כי תמיד ירחיבו אליהם במעלת שכר הנפש וכמו שהיו עושין אנשי בית שני. וכמו שבא בדברי יוסף בן גוריון...

והנה היה תועלת רב בהכרזות האלה והוא להחזיק לב הלוחמים כי בשמעם הדברים האלה יאמרו בלבבם ששר צבאם באמת אינו ירא כלל. ושנכון לבו בטוח בה' שינצח עכ"פ כיון שלא יחוש מהחזרת העם וממיעוט הלוחמים. ובזה יקנו אומץ לב והתתזקות נמרץ ובטחון גדול באלדית.

I think this is difficult to accept. It seems highly improbable that returning these people from the battlefront in case they die would have inspired confidence in the specific way the Abarbanel describes.

[5] שו"ת ציץ אליעזר, חלק יב, סימן נז

...מסתבר לומר, דכשם שאי אפשר ללמוד מהמותר במלחמה למקום אחר, כך אי אפשר גם ללמוד מהאסור במקום אחר לגבי מלחמה. וכשם שהכלל של "וחי בהם" לא חל במלחמה, כך הכלל של "חייך קודמים" גם כן לא חל במלחמה, אלא כאיש אחד מחויבים למסור כל אחד ואחד את נפשו בעד הצלת חייו של משנהו. ונכנס זה גם כן בכללי הלכות ציבור והנהגת המדינה ותקנתה...

[6] Interestingly, in Sefer HaMaccabim, the groups of people are ordered to return without specific reference to the איש אחר.

ויעבר קול במחנה לאמור: מי האיש אשר בנה בית חדש ולא חנכו, או ארש אשה ולא לקחה, או נטע כרם ולא חללו, או איש אשר ירך לבבו - ילך וישוב לביתו, ככתוב בספר תורת ה'. (ספר המקבים א ג:נה)

[7] See note 2

[8] I acknowledge that these passages are written in the form of a blessing, however that does not necessarily express an ideal. Suffice it to point to the first and last Jewish battles in Tanach - in which the rejection of the spoils is a fundamental element in the story - as evidence that the attitude towards spoils of wars is complex. When Avraham battles Chedorlaomer and his allies, he states unambiguously:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל־מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִימֹתִי יָדִי אֶל־ה' קל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ׃ אִם־מִחוּט וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ־נַעַל וְאִם־אֶקַּח מִכָּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָךְ וְלֹא תֹאמַר אֲנִי הֶעֱשַׁרְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָם׃ (בראשית יד:כב-כג)

In Megillat Esther, three times we are told that the Jews did not partake in the spoils as they repelled the attack of their enemies:

וּבַבִּזָּה לֹא שָׁלְחוּ אֶת־יָדָם (אסתר ט:י,טו,טז)

For further reading see R. Yoel Bin Nun’s article (written in Suez just after the Yom Kippur war) - שלל מלחמה בישראל - http://etzion.gush.net/shvut/042e10/e_10shalal.html#_ftn1

[9] פרשת כי תצא: דיני המלחמה בספר דברים: סדרם ומגמתם

[10] According to the Rambam this applies to all wars including Amalek and the seven Canaanite nations:

אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִלְחָמָה עִם אָדָם בָּעוֹלָם עַד שֶׁקּוֹרְאִין לוֹ שָׁלוֹם. אֶחָד מִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת וְאֶחָד מִלְחֶמֶת מִצְוָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כ, י) "כִּי תִקְרַב אֶל עִיר לְהִלָּחֵם עָלֶיהָ וְקָרָאתָ אֵלֶיהָ לְשָׁלוֹם (הל' מלכים ומלחמות ו:א)

[11] The fact that some of Chazal interpreted the passage as permitting the ביאה ראשונה is indicative of how normalised wartime rape was. In the peshat it seems – like the Ramban suggests – that sexual relations are only permitted after she has been brought in as a wife.