[Avodah] What was AA Hetter to Engage in War thereby Endangering his People?

[Meir Rabi]

R Zev S suggests that the Halacha permits Milchemet Reshut and that this is
legitimate even where it annihilates up to one sixth of the world’s
population.

But these observations do not address our issue, which is: Under what
circumstances is the army permitted to engage in life threatening
activities? Does R Zev think that Milchemet Reshut is a war that is
prompted by any whim of the king, the BD or the people?



Further, R Zev asserts that a Milchemes Reshus may be fought just for
financial advantage. And I think he means, irrespective of the magnitude of
the risk to the lives of Yidden. I don’t think he has established proof for
this though. He suggests that since "Milchemes horeshus is a war that is
waged with other nations to expand Israel's border and to increase its
greatness and
fame" this satisfactorily proves that any risk is acceptable in order to
pursue whatever ambitions justify war. I don’t think this is a sound
argument.



Clearly the army must train and there is no argument that even training
sustains a greater than civilian average for injury and death. However, may
the army engage for example, in life threatening manoeuvres in order to
trial a new method for paratroopers where it is estimated that for minimal
strategic gains there is an 80% projected risk to life and limb?  I would
imagine not.

So, the original question was and remains: What Hetter did AA employ to
undertake the mission of saving Lot, when it appears that the risk was
unacceptably high, excessive?



R Micha observes that David haMelekh attacks and conquers Suria, and that
was not simply about money. R Zev rejects this with a remarkably thin
counter-argument: “Then what was it about?”

As R Zev says, "Milchemes horeshus is a war that he wages with other nations
to expand Israel's border and to increase his greatness and fame."

It is obvious that expanding borders and increasing greatness and fame are
strategies of reinforcing and guaranteeing the safety of EY. Of course
there is also a financial gain but I don’t believe we can prove that
financial gain alone is a Halachically sound Hetter to go to war and
endanger Yiddishe lives.



As far as the sixth of the world’s population; I wonder if that refers to
the entire world population or the population of that vicinity which has
reach and influence over EY?

Theses days of course the world is a tiny village and every superpower has
reach to every corner of the globe. Would anyone suggest that it is
Halachically permitted to attack France, China or Russia? I think they are
within one sixth of the world’s population and are exercising negative
influences over EY.

This of course is nonsense. EY stands to be, within the course of the
natural order, irreparably harmed by such foolish attacks, even if it
believes it could destroy the entire France (or even just Sarcozy, MHSRIG
or obama MHSRIG) via ICBMs, even if we could make tremendous financial
gains. May a Posek ignore such considerations? I do not think that R Zev’s
contention that "Lechu pishtu yedchem bigdud"; justifies a Pesak entitling
us to make war exclusively for financially beneficial reasons, even though
soldiers will inevitably be lost. The Gemara is correctly understood as I
explained earlier, these were nations or clans that were already worthy of
being the objects of attack due to safety concerns, but were not urgently
so and thus were on the back burner so to speak.



-- 

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111109/1a19b7e1/attachment.htm>