[Avodah] What was AA's Hetter to endanger his people

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 09:37:05AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The king's greatness and fame scares off attackers (and scufflaws, but
>> none of the rishonim I mentioned discuss that). That's the preemptive
>> attack where the threat is not immediate.

> That's your speculation; it's not in the text.

Again, it's not my speculation; it's in the Minchas Chinukh. It fits
the examples of milchemes reshus in Tanakh. It fits the Rambam. It is
therefore the more logical conclusion.

>> You're assuming an association that isn't explicitly made, and in doing
>> so arguing with halakhah pesuqah.

> What halacha pesuqah?  What have you quoted to support your claim that
> he can't make war merely to get booty?  The gemara in Brachos seems
> pretty clear that he can.

The gemara in Berakhos 3b you're referencing isn't a sugya about war
in itself. It's a detour explaining how David knew when midnight was,
something they darshen from Shemuel I 30:17. The story also references
the gedud of 30:8. If you look in Shemuel, you'll see the context was
a milkhemes mitzvah against Amaleqim who had already captured two of
David's wives.

So what's the thing about parnasah? Quite likely that was the trigger for
choosing one day over another. The war was going to happen either way.
Then the chakhamim told him the people had no money to support each other
-- neither tzedaqah nor healthy economy -- and people were starving. So
David tells them that this is the day to do the attack.

According to the Ritva, admittedly the financial angle does factor in --
but it's still about survival, as the chakhamim talk about starvation and
thirst. To quote RMYG's transliteration from our Aug 2007 iteration
on this topic <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n171.shtml#01>:
    V'zeh she'hayu omrim she'tzrichin parnassah, k'she'hayu aniyim
    dechukim hayu omrim kach v'lo b'chol sha'ah...

So, the kn

> In any case, the original question doesn't begin.  There can be no
> question that it is permitted to go to war to rescue one person, even
> if it's certain that more than one person will be killed in the effort.

There is also the general intimidation factor; Avraham was dealing with
barbaric tribes who would only leave him alone if afraid of him. If they
saw weakness in his not recovering his nephew, things would only get more
deadly later.

BTW, I think I have of a good example of a milchemes reshus according to
both the Rambam and Rashi: If we had a melekh who decided to attack Iran
before the bomb was complete, that would be a milkhemes reshus lekhol
hadei'os. The need to attack today isn't "haba lehargekha" levels, so
it's an honest political decision, not chiyuv. (If you disagree with
that assessment of the metzi'us, then go back a few years. That's not
the point here.) And Iran is outside the gevul, so Rashi would call it
a milchemes reshus as well.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha at aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie