Q&A: War of Revenge
War of Revenge
Question
Hello Rabbi,
In the article (p. 114, note 23) there is uncertainty whether a war of revenge (for the sake of sanctifying God’s name) is an obligatory war or a discretionary war. Because of the lack of sources and discussion on the topic (aside from the responsum of Rabbi Yisraeli), it remained unresolved. Does the Rabbi know of any sources that could help clarify this?
Answer
I don’t understand the uncertainty. In Jewish law (for example, in Maimonides’ Laws of Kings) there is a definition of what counts as an obligatory war, and I did not see a war of revenge there.
Discussion on Answer
First, as I recall, in an obligatory war one plainly does not need the Urim and Thummim. See Maimonides, Laws of Kings 5:2.
Second, even if so, IDF operations are not obligatory wars and do not require the category of obligatory war. This is saving Israel from an attacking enemy, which appears in Maimonides’ list of wars, but it is not an obligatory war in the usual halakhic sense. It falls under the commandment of “and live by them.”
Third, one does not need any Urim and Thummim or any other condition in order to go out to a defensive operation by virtue of saving life. If I am in danger and there are no Urim and Thummim, am I supposed to die?
The Rabbi wrote that Maimonides does not mention that a war of revenge is an obligatory war, so it follows that it falls under a discretionary war, and for a discretionary war, according to some opinions, you need a Sanhedrin, and according to others the Urim and Thummim. As far as I know, IDF retaliatory operations are not “defense” but only raising Israel’s honor (such as killing Nazis or former Arab terrorists who no longer pose a danger, but are still liable to death, and killing them is not even for the sake of creating deterrence but purely for revenge).
A war of revenge is not an obligatory war, and if it is undertaken merely as an optional matter, one has to weigh its harm against its benefit, and there is no justification for risking lives for that. Not with the Urim and Thummim and not without them. In my view it makes no sense unless there is an operational consideration and a security benefit (not to glorify Israel’s name or anything like that). And indeed that is what is done today (that is, it is an act of defense and not raising Israel’s honor or other unreasonable goals). Once it is done for those needs, there is no need for any Urim and Thummim or any other factor. That is a matter for the government to decide. Killing Nazis or terrorists is not war but an execution. The kingdom/government has the authority to execute people in appropriate circumstances, and no Urim and Thummim or Sanhedrin is needed for that.
And in truth, it follows from this that today there is no place for a discretionary war at all. The time for such wars has passed.
A side question that occurs to me now: according to the Rabbi’s words, that a war of revenge is a discretionary war, how was it permitted for the Jews in Shushan “to avenge themselves on their enemies,” and they did so not only for self-defense (as some of the commentators there somewhat imply)?
Either to eradicate evil or to deter future harm.
Beyond that, in the ancient world the norms were different.
Besides, there was no war there, so the laws of war are irrelevant. It was a community defending itself.
try to comment, test.
According to that, are all IDF retaliatory operations (the killing of Eichmann and the like) forbidden without the Urim and Thummim?