[Avodah] Why is Milchemes Reshus allowed?

[Richard Wolpoe]

Jsut a few thoughts:
Consider the case of Ma'ariv [or arvis] as a reshus.  Is it REALLY just a
reshus? [see Tosafos]

Maybe a milchmes mitzva is one that is required immediately while a
milchemes reshus is simply one that is like a pre-emptive siirke - iow if
you don't fight NOW sooner or later you may have to anyway.

EG the time for taking on Amaleik followed the appointment/anointment of
Sh'aul as king.
Certainly if Israel/Judea wa attacked it had to defend itself - no reshus
there
But at times it made sense to attack hostile nieghbors pre-emptively.
Perhaps that  is how the wars of David  brought the peace of Shlomoh, by
eliminating POTENTIAL enemies.

It is a Reshus NOW becasue the enemies are dormant, but it is not simply an
exercise in wasting human life

Consider Presidents Bush's motivation for his Middle East Expeditions.  They
were pre-emptive.   They  were  therfore a form of Reshus. No imminet
threat, but a  rising one nevertheless.

Consider this proposition: that attacking Nazi Gemrany in 1936 would have
been deemd a Reshus; and then think of how  that might have SAVED lives and
not how it COST lives.
-- 
Kol Tuv- Best Regards,
Rabbi Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com



On 7/28/07, kennethgmiller at juno.com <kennethgmiller at juno.com> wrote:
>
> In the thread "Charedim and the army", R' Josh Backon wrote:
> > War is required in what's termed a "Milchemet Mitzva"
> > and is permitted in what's termed a "Milchemet Reshut".
>
> This is totally accurate, of course, and I really can't argue with
> it. But I reminds me of a question which I've had for a long time,
> and might even have asked on these pages, but with little or no
> response, so I'd like to ask it again.
>
> What is the rationale behind a milchemes reshus?
>
> In the past, this chevra has discussed various ways in which the
> Torah permits activities which modern sensitivities consider wrong
> and sinful. Most notably, slavery, but I think we've talked about
> others too.
>
> It seems to me that a Milchemes Reshus is not only in this category,
> but may be even far worse than slavery. After all, even in a worst-
> case scenario, one cannot kill his eved. In contrast, in a milchemes
> reshus, we are killing members of the other nation, and we are
> putting our own selves in deadly danger.
>
> And for what purpose? To increase our territory? If our melech wants
> the extra territory because he feels threatened and needs more secure
> borders (as in 1967) one could argue that it is a milchemes *mitzva*.
> The milchemes *reshus* situation sounds like he wants extra territory
> merely for reasons of prestige. Why are we not offended by this
> concept?
>
> Akiva Miller
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070816/f9456fb2/attachment.htm>