[By Rabbi Yair Hoffman]
The situation in Eretz Yisroel requires our Tefilos, especially so because any day now the ground forces could go into Gaza. YeshivaWorld reports that infantry troops are in a base near the Gaza border where they continue preparations for a possible ground incursion. While the cabinet authorized activating 40,000 reservists, only 15,000 have been called to duty. What will be the ultimate decision? It is difficult to know.
ONE WHO COMES TO KILL YOU
There is a Talmudic dictum found in the Gemorah in Sanhedrin (74a): “One who comes to kill you – arise earlier, and kill him.” Is this halacha or is it merely good advice? Is it obligatory, or is it optional?
The question is, of course, very pertinent on account of the fact that Hama terrorists in Gaza have been shelling the width and breadth of Israel with rockets. Airstrikes are effective, particularly pinpointed targeted assassinations. However, they are limited in what they can do in fully weeding out terrorists.
It might be a good idea to understand some of the halachos behind the concept. For example, is there a difference between the concept of “arise early and kill him” and another concept within Judaism known as a Rodaif – a pursuer? What about the law of “Ba BeMachteres” – one who breaks into your home – where the homeowner is allowed to take potentially lethal defensive action. Is this the same law as that of a Rodaif?
WHAT IS THE SOURCE?
Another question comes to mind as well. What is the exact source for the dictum of “One who comes to kill you – arise earlier, and kill him?” Usually the Talmud appends a verse to a dictum such as this one. Yet here, there isn’t one.
The Midrash Tanchuma (Parshas Pinchas 3) indicates that source of Haba lehorgecha emanates from the verse in this week’s Parsha BaMidbar (25:17) regarding the Midianites where it says, “Tzror es haMidyanim vehikisem osam – Afflict the Midianites and strike them.” It seems from the Midrash Tanchuma that this is obligatory and not voluntary. How so? It is because it is a verse in the Torah. Verses in the Torah are generally obligatory.
TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS
Rav Yitzchok Halperin in his Maaseh Choshaiv(Vol. III p.141) writes that it is in fact, not obligatory but optional. He does not mention Tzror es HaMidyanim as a source, however.
The former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv in his Assei Lecha Rav (Vol. IV p.35) follows the view that it is obligatory but qualifies the idea of it being obligatory as only when there is certainty that the enemy will attack. He distinguishes between the obligation of seeing a Rodaif in pursuit of his victim and the law of “One who comes to kill you.” His distinction is that the latter only applies when it is definite that he will try to kill you. In such an instance, there would be an obligation to kill him. It would seem that this is indeed the case regarding Israel’s enemies in Gaza, therefore Israel would, at first glance, be halachically unable to accommodate any future Hamas request for a ceasefire and might be obligated to continue . Presdient Obama might have to do the same thing as well.
WHY DID DOVID SPARE SHAUL?
We do find, however, that in Shmuel I (Chapter 24), King Shaul was in pursuit of the future King David, and would have killed him. Dovid, though, spared Shaul – only cutting his clothing. Certainly, Shaul would have killed him – why then did Dovid spare him, according to the Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi? He should have been obligated to kill him!
RAV POVARSKY’S VIEW
HaRav Boruch Dov Povarsky zatzal, in his Shiurim on Sanhedrin cites the Gemorah in Sanhedrin (74a) that the law in regard to a Rodaif is only if it is impossible to stop him in another manner. There is therefore an essential difference between the law of Rodaif and the law of HaBa L’horgecha. If someone is coming to kill you, then you may kill him without worry about stopping him in some other manner, and you are completely exempt. The law of Rodaif, however, limits an observer in killing the pursuer in a number of ways. If he could have stopped him in some other way then he might, in fact, be liable.
RAV ASHER WEISS’ VIEW
The Minchas Asher (Shmos #39) in trying to resolve the question on King David suggests another caveat to the laws of Haba lehargecha, even according to the opinion that it is obligatory. He writes that it is only obligatory to kill him if it is during the actual time when he is trying to kill you. If it is not during this time– then this is optional. The suggestion is somewhat perplexing because all cases of “waking up early to kill him” perforce deal with a case where it is not during the actual time. The “obligatory” nature of it would thus never be practically relevant according to the Minchas Asher.
A THIRD SUGGESTION
This author would like to propose an altogether different caveat. The laws of “waking up early to kill him” might be limited by another factor. That factor is the following question: What are the ultimate repercussions of killing this person? If Dovid HaMelech killed Shaul the King, the repercussions would reverberate in Jewish history for thousands of years. That being the case, it would not be obligatory but would be optional. Israel as well might be limited by this factor too. What are the ultimate repercussions of sending in ground forces? What will be the repercussions in the immediate future? If it may be too devastating then the normally obligatory nature of “arise early and kill him” changes and becomes optional.
CONCLUSIONS
The leaders of the country would have to use their judgment in each situation as it comes up and there is no clear halachic mandate according to this view. It would seem, however, from a political and strategic point of view that now is the time not only to punish the Hamas organization severely, but to eliminate its military component altogether.
The author can be reached at [email protected]
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
8 Responses
This analysis is missing the point and lacking in many ways. The author cites habo bamachteres and asks whether that applies or habo lehorgecho applies here or if roidef applies here.
The answer is clear. All of them apply here together. In fact the gemoro learns the halocho of habo lehorgecho from the posuk of habo bamachteres, so I do not understand the distinction the author is making by citing them as 2 different issues. Only the din if roidef which we learn out from a different posuk, has the condition attached to it, that it must be when there is no alternative.
This does not apply by habo lehorgecho. And when it says that one should wake up early and kill him first, the gemoro is clearly telling us, that a preemptive strike is considered an act of self defense. Therefore, it is justified just the same way as if you do it during the actual time itself.
Anyway, all of the above is really irrelevant to what is happening in Israel today which goes way beyond the issues discussed in the gemoro in sanhendrin. The gemoro is talking about killing a jew where your life may be in danger, even if the danger does not come from an immediate life and death issue such as habo bamachteres. Meaning that even if you are being robbed you may kill because your life is in danger.
In this case we are talking about goyim who are intent on killing jews en masse, and they are in the middle of their actions, so its not even a case of a preemptive strike, whuch which would also be permissible. For thus case there is a clear and unambiguous psak in shulchon oruch oirach chaim 329. It states that goyim who surround jewish settlements, if they are close to the border, then one must take weapons and fight them even on shabbos, even if their whole intent is to steal straw! And if they came to kill, then one must fight them on shabbos even if they are not close to the border! This is clear cut. Hamas is not coming for straw and they are right on our borders shooting inside and endangering jewish lives. There is no need for an analysis. We are obligated to wipe them out without question.
If anyone questions this, then rachmono litzlan he is a shoifech domim, because the gemoro says and its in shulchon oruch, that someone who questions pikuach nefesh is a shoifech domim. And to all the kanoim out there, this has zero to do with zionism. Thus is all about pikuach nefesh!
The problem in the Gaza situation is that we are not only killing Roidfim but also endanger our soldiers and for this you need a psak based on daas torah neither on kanoes nor on selfish political considerations.
Everyone should calm down — I’m sure that the governments and generals are calling the gedolim in Bnei Brak and Yerushalayim, to ask them for advice in running this. If they’re not, it’s too bad, since of course the gedolim would be able to give them very useful guidance in how to fight a war…
To Uzbek,
Thanks for a an excellent response to the above article. When it is comes to pikuach nefesh, no one should hesitate even to ask advice from gedolim(no disrespect intended). The response Israel should make is clear cut. Israel must move forward and destroy our enemies. End of story.
Mr. Kanoi. This has nothing to do with selfish political interests. Thats the opinion of the neturei karta . Its about pikuach nefesh. Therefore, according to shulchon oruch in cases of pikuach nefesh you consult with medical experts and not with rabonim. In our case military experts need to make that decision. Not rabonim and not politicians. This is a clear and unambiguous psak in shulchon oruch. Im not trying to exclude rabonim from something that belongs to daas torah. But according to shulchon oruch, the rabonim need to make their opinion well known in advance of these problems, so that there is no need to ask questions later.
“It would seem, however, from a political and strategic…”
Who made Hoffman into a political and strategic maven?
I am surprised the author did not bring up the issue of Milchemet Mitzvah which according the Rambam and Ramban applies today please see Sefer Melachim.
Well, here’s the problem. We are already fighting back from the air. We know where they are hiding…behind civilians. We could bomb them without any risk to our side and that would be the end of it.
But we don’t because it would be bad PR to bomb mosques and schools. That’s we have calls for a dangerous ground invasion.