Misconception: Due to the lack of a properly anointed king and the absence of the urim v’tumim, the defensive wars fought by the modern State of Israel, including the current war, are not halachically classified as milchemet mitzvah—a war that is a mitzvah, and thus the unique halachot pertaining to a milchemet mitzvah are not applicable.1
Fact: A king is not necessary for a defensive war to be defined as a milchemet mitzvah. Some of the greatest rabbis of the last century have classified Israel’s wars as milchemet mitzvah.
Background: Tanach is replete with stories regarding wars fought by the Jewish nation, both defensive and offensive, and Chazal discuss the halachot of war. For millennia, as the Jewish nation languished in exile, these laws were relegated to discussions in the back pages of theoretical tomes, assumed to be dormant until the arrival of Mashiach. Today we blessedly find ourselves back as a sovereign people in our own Land in this pre-Messianic period. Unfortunately, in Israel’s short history it has fought far too many wars, and thus the halachot of war have again become practical.
The alternative to milchemet mitzvah is that the current war is “merely” a fulfillment of the Biblical mitzvah of “. . . lo ta’amod al dam rei’echa—you shall not stand idly by [when] the blood (life) of your fellow [is in danger] . . .” (Vayikra 19:16), which is understood (Sanhedrin 73a) as an imperative to save the life of an endangered Jew. While this is a significant mitzvah, there are major practical differences between lo ta’amod and milchemet mitzvah. For example, for lo ta’amod one is not required to risk one’s life, while war, by definition, involves risking one’s life (Ha’amek Davar, Bereishit 9:5; Shu”t Mishpat Kohen 143 [pp. 315–16]). In war, it might be that one may eat non-kosher even if not for pikuach nefesh (Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg, Hilchot Medinah 2:8:1; and Tzitz Eliezer 18:70). And in a war, the ruling authority may compel people to participate.
Many war-related Biblical mitzvot are found among the 613 mitzvot. Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin2 enumerates seventeen. Some examples include: A kohen should be appointed to accompany and inspire the troops; an overture of peace should be sent before declaring war; fruit trees should not be destroyed during a siege; a makeshift lavatory should be set up; and a shovel should be brought along for use in the lavatory, et cetera.
The Torah grants draft exemptions to certain individuals (Devarim 20:5–8): “. . . ‘Is there any man who has built a new house and has not begun to live in it? . . . Who has planted a vineyard, and has not redeemed its first crop? . . . Who has betrothed a woman, and not married her? Let him go home. . . . Is there any man who is afraid or faint-hearted? Let him go home. . . . ’”3
The Mishnah (Sotah 8:4–5 [44b]) explains: “When do these exemptions apply? In a milchemet reshut [a discretionary war]; however, in a milchemet mitzvah, [a war that is a mitzvah], everyone must participate, even a chatan from his chamber and a kallah from her chuppah.” Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 7:4) codifies these exemptions for a milchemet reshut, and says that in a milchemet mitzvah there is universal conscription.4 The Chazon Ish (Moed 114:3 [p. 167]) asserts that in a milchemet mitzvah all are obligated to participate, even if the war effort does not require them; and in a milchemet reshut, everyone who is needed is required to join.
What defines a milchemet mitzvah? The Gemara (Sotah 44b) gives only one example: the war Yehoshua waged to conquer the Land of Israel. Rambam adds two other examples (Hilchot Melachim 5:1): “What is considered milchemet mitzvah? This is the war against the Seven Nations [to conquer the Land], the war against Amalek, and saving Israel from an enemy who attacks them.”5
The Ramban expands the category of milchemet mitzvah. Based on his understanding that Bamidbar 33:53 (“And you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the Land, and dwell therein . . .”) is an imperative and not a promise, the Ramban includes in his list of mitzvot that he believes Rambam omitted a commandment to conquer and settle the Land of Israel (positive mitzvah 4). Because of this, he understands the Gemara’s example of Yehoshua’s war to conquer the Land not as specific, but as paradigmatic, and thus any war to liberate the Land of Israel is a milchemet mitzvah.6 The Ramban explicitly says that this applies in every generation, implying that there is no requirement for a king, Beit Hamikdash, Sanhedrin, et cetera.
Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Waldenberg (d. 2006; Tzitz Eliezer 3:9:2:10 and 3:9:2: summary:16) says that based on this Ramban, the wars of the State of Israel to liberate and maintain control of the Land are milchemet mitzvah and (7:48: Kuntrus Orchot Hamishpatim:12) that because Israel is under constant attack, Rambam would agree that Israel’s wars are milchemet mitzvah. Rabbi Waldenberg sees the ability to help in the mitzvah of the war effort as an additional reason, among many, why Diaspora Jews should make aliyah.
Rabbi Zevin, in his 1957 revision of his 1946 L’Ohr HaHalachah, added a paragraph (p. 64 in the 2004 reprint) in which he asserted that the 1948 War of Independence was a milchemet mitzvah because it was both saving the Jews from an attacking enemy (Rambam) and conquering the Land of Israel (Ramban).
In a responsum addressed to then-soldier, now rosh yeshivah Rabbi Yitzchak Grinshpan (now Sheilat) a month after the start of the Yom Kippur War, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv explicitly describes that war as a milchemet mitzvah, with all of the associated halachot.7
Despite there apparently being no source that a king is required and that Rabbis Zevin, Waldenberg, and Elyashiv explicitly say that the defensive wars of the State of Israel are milchemet mitzvah, others assert otherwise. Rambam’s inclusion of the laws of war in the section Hilchot Melachim (the Laws of Kings) has been cited as proof that a king is necessary for war. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Rambam’s method of categorization. For example, Rambam also includes the Seven Noachide Laws in Hilchot Melachim (chap. 9). This obviously does not imply that they are only applicable when there is a Jewish king. Famously, the laws of Hallel are not included in the laws of prayer, but within the laws of Chanukah (chap. 3). Rambam incorporated Hallel in Hilchot Chanukah because a central attribute of Chanukah is Hallel, not because Hallel is only recited on Chanukah. Similarly, a central component of the king’s responsibilities relates to war, but Rambam’s decision to place the halachot of war in Hilchot Melachim does not imply that a milchemet mitzvah requires a king.
Another argument has been brought from the Ramban at the end of his glosses to Rambam’s Sefer HaMitzvot. The Ramban suggests an additional possible mitzvah that Rambam omitted, the mitzvah for the king or the judge (shofet),8 or the one who leads the people out to war (either mitzvah or reshut), to inquire of the urim v’tumim and act accordingly. As noted above, the Ramban declares that milchemet mitzvah applies in all generations, whether there is a king or not and whether or not the urim v’tumim exists. The Ramban was merely stating that when the conditions exist (see Tzitz Eliezer 20:43), consulting the urim v’tumim is a positive mitzvah on the leader. Arguing that the lack of performance of this mitzvah modifies the status of the armed conflict would be like saying that if the soldiers neglected the mitzvah to bring a shovel along, that modifies the halachic status of the war. This is obviously not the case.
There are those who claim that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein held that milchemet mitzvah requires a king. This is incorrect. In a brief letter dated 25 Tishrei 5739 (Oct. 26, 1978), Rav Moshe wrote (Iggerot Moshe, CM 2:78) that some cases of milchemet mitzvah, such as the war against Amalek, should not be initiated without consulting the urim v’tumim and the Sanhedrin (he does not mention a king). He then says that the third type of milchemet mitzvah, saving Jews from an enemy who attacked them, is categorically different. That kind of milchemet mitzvah was fought by the Jews during Bayit Sheini by the Maccabees against the Greeks, at a time when there was neither urim v’tumim nor Sanhedrin (nor a king).9 According to Rav Moshe, such a war is a milchemet mitzvah and may be initiated without the urim v’tumim. And to this day we celebrate the victory of that war on Chanukah.
Not only is a king not necessary for a war to be a milchemet mitzvah, but the war need not even involve danger to the entire Jewish nation. The Bach (OC 249) says that if Jews and non-Jews of a city are taken captive, Jews can fight together with non-Jews on Shabbat to rescue the Jews because it is a milchemet mitzvah to save their brethren.10 The Chazon Ish (Eruvin, Lekutim, 112:6:1) similarly says that if a city of Jews fights to defend itself from an attack, it is a milchemet mitzvah, although possibly the leniency exempting a military camp from four rabbinic enactments (Eruvin 17a; Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 6:13) might only apply to a war involving all Jews (reshut or mitzvah). Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer 10, CM 6:23) defined Operation Yonatan to rescue the Entebbe hostages a milchemet mitzvah.
There does not seem to be any source that requires a king for a war to be defined as a milchemet mitzvah11 or that precludes the wars of modern Israel from being defined as milchemet mitzvah.12 On the other hand, to launch an expansionary war, milchemet reshut, requires permission from the central beit din (Sanhedrin, mishnah 1:5[2a]; Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 5:2) and urim v’tumim (Rambam, Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 10:12, Hilchot Melachim 5:2). When the Noda B’Yehudah (Tinyana, EH:129) explains that the lack of a beit din precludes war, he says explicitly that he is referring to milchemet reshut. Similarly, when the Chatam Sofer (EH:155) says there are no halachic wars today, he was discussing exemptions and thus milchemet reshut.
The Torah ideal is a world of peace as envisioned by our prophets (Yeshayahu 2:4): “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” But when required, halachah demands that we defend the Jewish people with the knowledge (Devarim 20:4) that “the L-rd, your G-d, goes with you to fight against your enemies and save you.”13 Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein wrote about hesder soldiers, but it can apply to many IDF soldiers: “. . . No less than every Jew, the typical hesdernik yearns for peace, longs for the day on which he can divest himself of uniform and Uzi and devote his energies to Torah. In the interim, however, he harbors no illusions and he keeps his powder dry and his musket ready. . . . yeshivot hesder are a conspectus of our collective anomaly: a nation with outstretched palm and mailed fist, striving for peace and yet training for war.”14
Notes
1. This article is in memory of the far too many holy soldiers who have been killed in this horrible war, dying as they lived, al kiddush Hashem, in particular our good friends Eli Moshe Zimbalist, Hy”d, and Amichai Oster, Hy”d, and in honor of the heroes, including my two sons, who are still fighting our barbaric enemies. We are proud of you. May G-d watch over them all.
2. Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, L’Ohr HaHalachah (Jerusalem, 2004), 40.
3. Keren Orah (Sotah 44b) explicitly says that in a milchemet mitzvah, even a talmid chacham must participate.
4. Nowhere does Rambam list any other exemptions, the implication being that there are none, and that neither tribal affiliation nor lifestyle play a role in who is drafted. Despite this, the suggestion is sometimes made that based on Rambam’s philosophical statement at the conclusion of Hilchot Shemitah V’Yovel (13:13), anyone can “self-identify” as a Levite, make themselves kodesh kodashim and be exempt even from milchemet mitzvah. Note that Rashi (Bamidbar 31:4) says that the actual Tribe of Levi fought in the war against Midian, a war that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein terms a milchemet reshut (Dibberot Moshe, Shabbat 132, p. 380). See Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein’s seminal essay on “The Ideology of Hesder,” Tradition, 19:3 (fall 1981): 199-217; reprinted in Leaves of Faith, vol. 1, chap. 7 for a discussion of this topic.
5. The Meiri (Sotah 42a) gives examples of milchemet mitzvah nearly identical to Rambam and says they can be led by a Jewish king or another leader.
6. Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog argues that Rashi and likely Rambam actually agree with the Ramban that this is also a milchemet mitzvah (Tchumin 4 [5743]: 13–24).
7. See Be’urin D’esha (Jerusalem, 5734 [1974]), 90–92. Note that when reprinted in Kovetz Teshuvot, 5760, siman 243, the date and addressee were omitted, making it appear to be a theoretical question and concealing the fact that it related to an actual milchemet mitzvah, the Yom Kippur War.
8. Obviously not referring to the “shoftim” from the Biblical Book of Judges, but to any leader or future judge who is leading the people.
9. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook similarly used the example of the Hasmonean war to support this point (Mishpat Kohen 144). The last Lubavitcher Rebbe (Likutei Sichot, vol. 24, p. 452) felt that the post-Churban Bar Kochba war was also a milchemet mitzvah.
10. The Tzitz Eliezer (3:9:2) seems to agree; Rabbi Sholom Mordechai Schwadron (d. 1911; Da’at Torah, YD 2:67) may disagree, as he says milchemet mitzvah is only when the Jews are in their Land.
11. Rabbi Herzog believed that Israel’s War of Independence had the status of milchemet mitzvah and explained (Pesakim U’Ktavim 1, OC 48:3 and Heichal Yitzchak, OC 37:3; Tchumin 4 [5743]:13–24) that even were one to claim that a king is necessary, Rav Kook (Mishpat Kohen 144:15:1) demonstrated that in the absence of a monarch, the authority reverts to the Jewish nation. Rav Kook elaborated (Ikvei HaTzon 32:13) that mitzvot like writing a second Torah or the prohibition of too many wives obviously relate to an actual king, but other laws of a monarch apply to a democratically elected government as well. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (Tzitz Eliezer 13:100, Hilchot Medinah 2:3:11) (based on the Maharatz Chajes) says that not only the monarch but any other ruling authority charged with national security is authorized to wage war, which, by nature, endangers the population.
12. The only source I can find that might preclude there being a milchemet mitzvah nowadays is Rambam at the very end of his introduction to his Sefer HaMitzvot, where he explains that in the interest of brevity he will omit the obvious. For example, women are exempt from mitzvot related to the judicial system and from milchemet reshut, and since everyone knows this, when discussing any mitzvah related to the judicial system or milchemet reshut he will omit “women are not obligated.” Similarly, he says, for all commandments related to sacrifices, kings, milchemet reshut or milchemet mitzvah, et cetera he will not say “applicable only when there is a Beit Hamikdash.” This seems to imply that milchemet mitzvah applies only when there is a Temple. This is problematic, as nowhere else is this connection made. The simple answer is that in many versions, the words “milchemet mitzvah” are absent (see e.g., Sefer Hamitzvot Hashalem [Lakewood, 2018], 165). Alternatively, it is worth noting that much of this statement is problematic: the halachot of kings applied to King David although there was no Beit Hamikdash. Yehoshua’s wars (and according to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Bar Kochba war) were milchemet mitzvah, yet there was no Beit Hamikdash. Furthermore, regarding sacrifices, Rambam himself wrote (Hilchot Beit Habechirah 6:14) that sacrifices can be brought even in the absence of a Beit Hamikdash. Thus, there is no reason to assume Rambam in his introduction to Sefer HaMitzvot was differing from what he wrote in the Yad HaChazakah, and neither sacrifices nor milchemet mitzvah require a Beit Hamikdash and there is some other interpretation of this statement.
13. In 1971, Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik said, “When the Jew fights a war it is not only for himself but for the Name of the Almighty . . . in my opinion, two wars that Israel fought [1948 and 1967] enhanced the Name of the Almighty” (Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, The Rav: The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, vol. 2 [New Jersey, 1999], 129–130).
14. Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, “The Ideology of Hesder,” Tradition 19:3 (fall 1981): 199-217.
Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky is a professor of neuroscience at Bar-Ilan University in Israel.