Introduction
Perhaps
the most critical Halachic/ethical issue facing the Jewish State and
indeed the entire civilized world is the question of avoiding civilian
casualties when battling terrorists. Groups such as Al Qaeda and
Hezbollah take advantage of Western sensibilities by deliberately
embedding themselves within civilian populations and cynically using
them as human shields. The civilized world struggles to strike a
balance between combating such evil groups on one hand and trying to
limit civilian casualties on the other.
Israel
in particular must confront this terrible challenge. In recent years,
Israel has risked and lost many of its precious soldiers in order to
reduce Arab civilian casualties. For example, after a series of
horrific terrorist attacks in the first half of 2002 (including the
bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya in which 29 people partaking in a
Pesach Seder were murdered by a homicide bomber), the Israeli army
launched an operation with the goal of severely weakening terrorist
groups. A hotbed of terrorists had been the Jenin refugee camp in the
Northern Shomron. The Israeli army could have bombed this refugee camp,
but instead it chose to send foot soldiers house to house to eliminate
the terrorists located in the camp, by which it hoped to reduce
civilian casualties. Such casualties certainly were kept to a minimum
in this effort. However, 23 Israeli soldiers were killed in the Jenin
operation who would have been spared had Israel attacked only from the
air.
Similarly,
in the summer of 2006 Hezbollah mercilessly pounded Northern Israel
with hundreds of rockets. Israel could have responded by "carpet
bombing" Southern Lebanon but instead it chose to attack Southern
Lebanon with a combination of air attacks and ground forces hoping to
reduce civilian losses. While Israel certainly reduced non-combatant
deaths, more than one hundred Israeli soldiers were killed, and the
stated goal of eliminating Hezbollah's presence in Southern Lebanon was
not achieved. We must ask whether the Israeli government made an
appropriate moral decision in both Jenin and Lebanon. In other words,
does Halacha permit and/or require the sacrifice of our soldiers in
order to reduce enemy civilian losses?
Rav
Yuval Sherlow, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Hesder Yeshiva of Petach Tikvah
and an advisor to the Israeli army on ethical matters, visited the
Torah Academy of Bergen County in March 2007 and told the students of a
specific issue in this regard that he was asked to resolve. The Israeli
Air Force had located a very dangerous terrorist leader and had the
opportunity to eliminate him. The terrorist noticed the plane and
slipped into a taxi cab that had a passenger. The question was whether
to bomb the cab despite the presence of non-combatants in the car.
In
this series, we shall outline the Halachic and Hashkafic issues
involved in resolving such critical issues. We will not address the
political and military questions involved in making these decisions,
leaving such considerations for experts in these areas. There has been
extensive Halachic discussion of this issue, including a Teshuvah
written by Rav Shaul Yisraeli (Teshuvot Amud HaYemini number 16 and
BeTzomet HaTorah VeHaMedinah 3:253-289) and a lengthy essay written by
Rav Dr. Neriah Gutel (Techumin 23:18-42). We will seek to discover a
consensus approach that has emerged from the prominent Rabbanim who
have addressed this issue, who include Rav Yisraeli, Rav Yaakov Ariel,
Rav J. David Bleich, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, Rav Hershel Schachter,
and Rav Mordechai Willig.
Shimon and Levi at Shechem
The
point of departure for this discussion is the evaluation of Shimon and
Levi's actions at Shechem (Bereishit 34). Subsequent to the kidnapping
and rape of Dinah, Shimon and Levi attacked Shechem, killing not only
the rapist Shechem and the town leader Chamor, but also all of the
males of Shechem who had a Brit Milah. (For a discussion of whether
they killed every male in the city, including those without a Brit
Milah, see Megadim 23:14). We shall survey the three primary views: the
respective approaches of the Rambam, the Ramban, and the Maharal. For a
full analysis of this event, see Binyamin Mallek's essay that appears
in Megadim (23:9-30).
The
Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 9:14) believes that Shimon and Levi acted
appropriately at Shechem. He notes that Halacha demands of all of
humanity to eliminate evil from its midst. This is the obligation of
Dinim, one of the seven Noahide laws. The failure of the males in
Shechem to protest and prevent the rape and continued abduction of
Dinah was a violation of the Noahide Code punishable by death (see
Sanhedrin 57a).
The
Ramban (commentary to Bereishit 34:13 and 49:5-6) strongly disagrees
with the Rambam's opinion. He believes that Shimon and Levi were
justified in killing Shechem and Chamor. However, he argues that the
killing of the males of Shechem was entirely unjustified. His basic
argument is that it was wrong for Shimon and Levi to kill the males of
Shechem, since they did nothing wrong to Yaakov's family. The Ramban
asserts that the residents of an area do not deserve death for failure
to control the evil actions of their leader. He adds that even if they
deserved to die due to other violations of the Noahide Code, Shimon and
Levi were not authorized to execute such punishment.
Proofs to the Rambam and the
Ramban
The
Ramban supports his opinion from the fact that Yaakov Avinu strongly
criticized Shimon and Levi's actions (Bereishit 34:30). The Rambam
could answer that the Torah (ibid. verse 31) records Shimon and Levi's
justification of their actions. Moreover, Yaakov Avinu does not respond
to this justification, and the Torah gives the last word to Shimon and
Levi. On the other hand, the Ramban could argue that Yaakov criticizes
Shimon and Levi on his deathbed (Bereishit 49:5-7). Thus, the Torah in
fact gives the last word to Yaakov Avinu. The Rambam might reject this
proof by noting that Yaakov on his deathbed criticized Shimon and Levi
for their leading roles in the sale of Yosef, not for killing the
inhabitants of Shechem. (The Ramban would disagree, since he believes
that Yaakov never discovered that it was the brothers who sold Yosef;
see his comments to Bereishit 45:27.) Indeed the words "Ish" and "Shor"
used in Bereishit 49:7 fit Yosef, as he is referred to as a Shor in
Moshe Rabbeinu's final blessing (Devarim 34:17) and as an Ish no less
than fourteen times in Sefer Bereishit (as noted in Megadim ibid.
25-26).
I
would suggest that the Rambam interprets Peshuto Shel Mikra as
implicitly sanctioning the actions of Shimon and Levi at Shechem. In
Devarim chapter 27, Moshe Rabbeinu describes the future placement of
the Shevatim on Har Gerizim and Har Eival (located in Shechem) during
the ceremony announcing the various Berachot and Kelalot that will come
upon those who do/do not keep the Torah. The Berachah is given on Har
Gerzim and the curse on Har Eival. It is interesting to note that of
the three sons whom Yaakov criticized on his deathbed, Reuven alone was
placed on Har Eival, while Shimon and Levi were placed on Har Gerizim.
It is hardly surprising that Reuven was positioned on Har Eival for
this ceremony, which included, "Cursed is the man who sleeps with his
father's wife" (Devarim 27:20), a sin to which Reuven had connection
(see Bereishit 35:22). However, it is quite noteworthy that Shimon and
Levi were placed on Har Grizim despite the fact that the ceremony would
occur in an area where their ancestors sinned (according to the
Ramban). The positioning of Shimon and Levi on Har Gerizim might be
interpreted as Hashem sanctioning the actions of Shimon and Levi at
Shechem more than two hundred years earlier.
The Maharal and
Twentieth-Century Applications
The
Maharal (Gur Aryeh to Bereishit 34:13) adopts a compromise of sorts
between the Rambam and the Ramban. On one hand, he agrees with the
Ramban that the people of Shechem cannot be held accountable for the
actions of their leaders, for the leaders exercised a form of coercion.
On the other hand, the Maharal justifies the actions of Shimon and Levi.
He
argues that the Torah sanctions waging war when a nation has attacked
us. In such circumstances, we are permitted and perhaps obligated to
respond to the other nation's provocation. In responding, we attack the
other nation and do not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent
members of that nation. Shimon and Levi appropriately responded to
Shechem's aggression. Once they responded, they were permitted to
attack the entire nation, because this is the manner in which war is
waged.
It
would appear obvious that the Maharal does not sanction frivolous
attacks on civilian members of an enemy nation. When the proper
execution of battle plans necessitates killing non-combatants, though,
he would permit doing so. For example, it appears that the Maharal
would sanction the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in 1945 despite the Japanese babies who were killed in this attack. He
also would sanction the unrelenting Allied bombing of Germany towards
the end of World War Two despite the killing of German babies in towns
such as Dresden.
I
should stress that many people probably would not be alive today had it
not been for these attacks. My father, for example, served as a combat
soldier in the Pacific during World War Two and might not have survived
an American invasion of Japan. Many Holocaust survivors owe their
survival to the relentless Allied bombing of Germany, which brought
that evil nation to its knees. The Maharal believes that my father's
blood was "redder" (see Pesachim 25b) than the blood of the Japanese
babies who perished in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
This is the price of being a member of an aggressor nation.
Next
week, we shall discuss how contemporary Poskim apply the dispute
between the Rambam, the Ramban, and the Maharal to the awful challenges
faced by Israel today.
0 comments Leave a Comment