Sotah 091

I will not be afraid of tens of thousands of people who have set themselves against me on every side. Arise, God! Save me, my God! For you have struck all of my enemies on the cheek. You have broken the teeth of the wicked. Salvation belongs to God. Your blessing be on your people. [Psalm 3:7-9]

1:
Our present mishnah, the last of this chapter, is well-known because it is often quoted in the context of who is required to serve in the modern Israeli army.

2:
There are two 'versions' offered by our mishnah: that of Rabbi Yehudah bar-Ilai and that of Tanna Kamma (the rest of the sages). We shall explain the teaching of Tanna Kamma first.

3:
The second mishnah of our present chapter introduced a midrash-like amplification of the biblical institution whereby before a battle certain officers on the eve of battle invite members of the assembled troops to retire from the field as being excused by divine sanction. The following mishnayot, 3 to 6, continued this amplification. Our present mishnah seeks to limit the seeming 'universal' application of what has come before. Under what circumstances does all this apply? asks our mishnah. When are so many people given the opportunity to leave the field of battle? The response of Tanna Kamma is to draw a distinction between a 'political' war and a 'religious' war. In the former case troops are offered the chance to retire whereas in the latter case everyone is required to participate in the war effort.

4:
In order to understand Tanna Kamma we must clarify the difference between a 'political' war and a 'religious' war. Before we allow our classical sources to speak for themselves I should perhaps offer a clarification of the translation offered. Since the ancient codices of the mishnah are unvocalized it is not clear whether the original intention of our mishnah is that the first term be understood as indicating a 'voluntary' war ('reshut') or a war initiated by the authorities ('rashut'). However, the practical implications of this unclarity may be seen as non-existent, so I have translated 'political' to indicate a war initiated by the government. The second term, which I have rendered 'religious' indicates a war mandated by divine command ('mitzvah').

5:
In his Mishneh Torah [Melakhim 5:1-2] Rambam explains the difference between these two terms:

Rambam details three situations which require 'a religious war', a war mandated by the Torah. The first, the war against the seven nations, is definitely historical and can have no further practical application; the second, the war against Amalek, is in all probability historical – unless we enlarge the scope of the biblical command to include all ideological descendents of Amalek. The third is, unfortunately, perennial: a Jewish king (i.e. government) is required to take the field in order to save Jewish lives from their enemies.

To be continued.

When we studied mishnah 2 of this chapter, which introduces the idea of dismissing soldiers from the field on the eve of a battle, I wrote that this passage seems to be yet another example of the extreme and impractical idealism of many aspects of the book of Deuteronomy. Avraham Jacobs writes something that many may feel has a distinct topical application:

As I remember, these exceptions hold only for profane wars (reshut), and not for holy wars (mitzvah). In the last case bridegrooms may be taken from their wedding ceremony. So I would not talk about "impractical idealism". It might be just discouraging waging wars for fun.

I respond:

Somehow I feel that 'a war for fun' is an oxymoron. Wars are not healthy for humans and other animals. The moment nations start fighting people get killed. That's not fun.