[Avodah] border issues.....pikauch nefesh??

[Micha Berger]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:12:37PM -0600, Daniel Israel wrote:
:> When non-Jews demand that we surrender land, particularly borderlands,
:> that's considered a case of milchemet mitzvah. I don't know what the
:> excuse is nowadays for permitting it.

: Those poskim who permit turning over portions of E"Y only do so in
: the case when the consensus of military and political leaders is that
: it will make Jews safer...

Getting back to the opening question, R Harvey Benton asked:
> there is a difference in kedusha and halachic status between areas of eyisrael
> conquered by yehoshua, later by David ... and those
> promised to Avraham as a yerusha....
> do any of these distinctions make a difference nowadays to possibly giving up
> land for peace...

First, as Lisa noted:
: As I understand it, the territories that were conquered by war have
: kedusha only so long as we're living there.  But the territories that were
: granted to us by the goyim have permanent kedusha...

This is the basis of kibush sheini qidsha leshaata veqidsha le'asid lavo.
Although R' Chaim explains the qedushah of bayis sheini being permanent
not in terms of their being granted to us, but because they became Jewish
through settlement, not war. That which was acquired in war can be lost
in war; but that which became holy by us living there as Jews is eternal.

In any case, the holiness of the land in question doesn't appear to be
a milkemes mitzvah issue. David acquiring Suria was just as much a MM.

I /think/ the primary issue dividing Lisa's post and RDI's reply is
whether defending borders is a MM issue bizman hazeh, or if today a MM is
only if it will make Jews safer. Lisa seems to assume is does, unless her
point is that one can take it for granted that retaining current border
lands saves lives. RDI explicitly limits contemporary MM to safety.
As did RYBS, when he wrote in Qol Dodi Dofeiq that if the generals and
politicians would conclude that giving away the Kotel Plaza would save
more Jewish lives than it would cost, we would be obligated to do so.
IIRC, ROY holds similarly.

One would need to be a specific type of Religious Zionist, the messianic
sort found among followers of R's Kook and Gush Emunim, to take it for
granted that there is a chiyuv to acquire and retain territory as part
of aschalta dege'ulasa. If today is still a full-fledged part of Galud
Edom, I fail to see how a milkhemes mitzvah is possible (aside from
that derived from piquach nefesh) without a king -- and perhaps even
confirmation by both Sanhedrin and urim vetumim is required.

The Rambam is even more limiting. To him (Melakhim 5:1) a MM is only
against the 7 amim, Amaleiq -- specific chiyuvim whose "cheftzah shel
mitzvah" is irretrievaly lost -- or defensive. OTOH, he holds the king
only needs confirmation for milkhemes reshus.

I think the position that retaining territory even when the experts
believe it will cost lives -- even a life -- net-net overall is far more
defensible from the sources.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?