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

[Lisa Liel]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 22:12:37 -0600, Daniel Israel <dmi1 at cornell.edu> wrote:
>On May 25, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> According to the Minchat Chinuch, milchemet mitzvah, an 
>> obligatory war, which includes wars of self-defense, takes 
>> precedence over pikuach nefesh.  We talk about there being only 
>> three exceptions, but really there are five.  Murder, avodah zarah, 
>> gilui arayot, chilul Hashem, and milchemet mitzvah.  As the Minchat 
>> Chinuch points out, we don't rely on miracles, so if milchemet 
>> mitzvah didn't override pikuach nefesh, the entire mitzvah of 
>> milchemet mitzvah would be torn out of the Torah.  Because people 
>> inevitably die in wars.

>Not disagreeing with your basic point, but does the M"Ch refer to 
>three really being five, or is that your comment?  Because the case 
>of milchemet mitzvah is not exactly parallel: one is you have to let 
>yourself be killed rather than violate.  The other is one has to put 
>oneself at risk of death in order to perform.

That's my comment.


[Email #2 -micha]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 06:25:23 -0400, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
>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.

Are you sure? I was under the impression that it was a milchemet reshut.
What qualified it as a milchemet mitzvah?

>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.

I disagree. And I don't think anyone conflates acquiring and retaining
territory. Atchalta d'geula, in my opinion, is irrelevant halakhically.
The halakha doesn't change just because someone labels the period in
that way. Arei sfar are arei sfar, and the halakha regarding them is
hardly dependent on messianic or pre-messianic eras. Absent a source
that brings down the halakhot relating to arei sfar (border towns) with
exceptions for overall well being of the public, I don't see how such
a claim can be made.

>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.

With all due respect, R' Micha, I think you may be confusing milchemet
mitzvah and milchemet reshut. Milchemet mitzvah is operative at all
times, and does not require any decision by a Sanhedrin or king or urim
v'tumim. No war of self-defense requires such a thing. A milchemet
reshut, at least according to the Rambam, is a war we launch in order
to conquer additional territory or property/wealth. That sort of war
does require authorization from "a higher authority".

And just as atchalta d'geula is irrelevant halakhically, so too is Galut
Edom. There is nothing in all of the Mishneh Torah or Shulchan Aruch
that defines even a single halakha as being dependent on such definitions.

>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.

Correct. And fighting to retain arei sfar is unquestionably a milchemet
mitzvah, and not a milchemet reshut. Unless you know a source that
says otherwise. Do you?

PS: Can I ask what the meaning of your "Tir'u b'tov" is? How would you
translate that into English?


[Email #3]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 09:24:31 -0400,  Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:
>On 26/05/2011 6:25 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> 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.

>Indeed, this is the issue, which ultimately boils down to a machlokes
>of the Rambam and the Ramban, whether kibbush ha'aretz is one of the
>613 mitzvos, and therefore applies at all times, or was a specific
>mitzvah once, and will be again, but isn't right now.

How so? How do the issues connect at all? Defending borders is
halakhically an issue of self-defense. Expanding borders is kibush
ha-aretz, but I don't know of any source that says defending border
towns is anything but an unqualified obligation.

>IOW the above all paskened like the Rambam, that mitzvas kibbush
>ha'aretz does not apply bizman hazeh.

But the subject here is border issues. I don't see how that relates to
kibush ha-aretz in any way.

Lisa