Q&A: An Obligatory War Without a King
An Obligatory War Without a King
Question
People are accustomed to relying on Maimonides’ view that the definition of war in our generation is an obligatory war, based on his statement that a war to assist the Jewish people against an enemy that attacks them is also an obligatory war.
But at the end of the introduction to his Book of the Commandments, Maimonides says that there is no need to mention regarding certain matters that they do not apply in our time because that is obvious, and among the examples he lists there is an obligatory war, Because we have no king..
It also seems that he does not agree with the statement attributed to Maimonides that anyone who has authority over the people is sufficient for this purpose, because if so there would be no reason to list this as something that cannot apply nowadays, since in principle such a situation could exist.
Do you therefore think that the war in our day can be defined as an obligatory war according to Maimonides?
The wording of Maimonides:
Also, it is known that war and the conquest of the Land can only be conducted by a king, and by the authority of the Great Sanhedrin and the High Priest, as it says: “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest” (Numbers 27:21). And since all these matters are well known to most people, every positive or negative commandment that depends on offerings or Temple service, or on capital punishments imposed by a religious court, or on the Sanhedrin, or on a prophet and king, or on an obligatory war, or on a discretionary war—I will not need to say regarding them: “And this commandment applies only when the Temple stands,” since this is clear from what we have mentioned. But with regard to anything in which there could be doubt or error, I will note it, God willing.
Answer
In column 649 I explained that in my view Maimonides does not mean to say that assisting the Jewish people against an enemy is an obligatory war. That is a matter of saving life. See there.
However, even if the argument is sound, there is an answer. He is saying that all kinds of laws that apply in an obligatory war do not apply in our time, even if he does not point this out explicitly, because it is obvious—but that does not necessarily mean that there are no obligatory wars in our time. Not for nothing does he open with war for conquering the Land and not mention assisting the Jewish people against an enemy attack.
Discussion on Answer
Absolutely not. The last people I would ask are halakhic decisors. Public life-saving is not judged like individual life-saving, and there does not have to be a direct and concrete threat. I noted this in the ruling.
With God’s help, 14 Sivan 5784
According to the IDF spokesperson, there is no possibility of toppling Hamas. In his view, the purpose of the war is to weaken Hamas in order to bring it to join a “political arrangement.” When asked whether he meant an arrangement with the Palestinian Authority, he replied that this would have to be decided by “the political echelon.” But it seems to me that this is indeed the direction being pursued by the General Staff—that the Palestinian Authority’s rule over Gaza be restored, supposedly ensuring our security. About that one must ask whether this is considered an “obligatory war.”
Best regards, Fish”l
However, it seems that in the Prime Minister’s view it is important that the IDF maintain military control in Gaza even on “the day after,” so as to prevent the terrorists from once again turning Gaza into their stronghold. This goal, in my humble opinion, comes closer to the definition of an “obligatory war.”
Best regards, Fish”l
If this is only a matter of saving life, then as I understand it, for every action you would need to consider whether it meets the threshold of justified danger—which doesn’t seem to me to be what happens in the army.
For example, it could be that right now there is no life-saving justification for continuing to kill a few more terrorists in the central camps… In general, the threat from Gaza has been removed. One can argue that in a few years they may build themselves up again, but it is not at all clear that one is allowed to take risks now for that.
In short, this is complicated, and it seems to me that you would need halakhic decisors to rule on every matter. Is that correct?