Halakhah zu Schemuel I 25:78

The question of whether a preemptive war is included in the category of milḥemet mizvah or milḥemet reshut is crucial with regard to yet another aspect of Halakhah. The Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2a, stipulates that a discretionary war may be undertaken only upon the acquiescence of the Great Sanhedrin composed of seventy-one members. A subsequent Mishnah, Sanhedrin 20a, implies that a discretionary war may be undertaken only by a monarch. Thus, a discretionary war cannot be justified unless undertaken by the king⁴Ramban, addenda to Rambam’s Sefer ha-Miẓvot, miẓvot aseh, no. 4, states that the requirement that war be undertaken only by a king must be understood as including not only a monarch but any sovereign authority. Thus he states that war may be undertaken by “a king, a judge or whosoever exercises jurisdiction over the people.” For sources discussing Rambam’s possible disagreement regarding this point, see Contemporary Halakhic Problems, II, 207, note 27. with the permission of the Great Sanhedrin.⁵Rabbi Judah Gershuni, Torah she-be-‘al Peh, XIII (5731), 150f., advances the thesis that approval of the Sanhedrin is required only if the monarch finds it necessary to compel the populace to go to war and to conscript soldiers against their will, but that when the nation voluntarily agrees to go to battle approval of the Sanhedrin is not required. A similar view is advanced by Einayim la-Mishpat, Sanhedrin 16a. This view is supported by the comments of Me’iri, Sanhedrin 16a, who remarks that approval of the Sanhedrin is required in order to compel the populace to go out to battle. See also R. Abraham I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, no. 145, and R. Saul Israeli, Amud ha-Yemini, no. 14 and no. 16, chap. 5, secs. 6-7. Cf., Amud ha-Yemini, no. 16, chap. 5, sec. 24. Moreover, in the context of a discussion of discretionary war, the Gemara, Berakhot 3b and Sanhedrin 16a, declares that the king may not undertake military action other than upon the approval of the urim ve-tumim.⁶Upon the twelve precious stones of the urim ve-tumim were engraved the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. In response to a specific query, various letters became illuminated. By means of the Divine Spirit the High Priest was enabled to combine the letters in order to discern the intended response.
Since no discretionary war could be undertaken other than upon approval of the urim ve-tumim, even discretionary war must be deemed to be undertaken with explicit divine approval and, conversely, no war could be undertaken other than with such divine sanction. Thus Abigail addresses King David and declares, “… for the Lord will certainly make a sure house for my lord because my lord fights the battles of the Lord” (I Samuel 25:28). Rambam, Hilkhot Melakhim 7:15, cites this verse and applies it to discretionary wars in stating:
Moreover, many ritual prohibitions are suspended even when discretionary wars are fought. Thus, once a discretionary war has been undertaken, it is permissible to wage such war on the Sabbath and combatants are permitted to partake of forbidden foods. The woman of “beautiful countenance” described in Deuteronomy 20:11 is permitted only to combatants engaged in discretionary wars but not to those engaged in commanded wars. It is thus clearly evident that even discretionary wars, when undertaken in accordance with the prescriptions of Halakhah, must be understood as undertaken by virtue of divine mandate. See Hilkhot Medinah, II, sha’ar 4, chapter 1, sec. 6. Indeed, Mekom Shmu’el, no. 8, suggests that the term “reshut” should be understood not as “permitted” or “discretionary” but as “licensed” or “sanctioned” in the sense that such war requires reshut Bet Din, i.e., sanction of the Sanhedrin, as distinct from wars that are obligatory by reason of explicit scriptural mandate. Although in Hilkhot Melakhim Rambam fails to mention consultation of the urim ve-tumim as a necessary precondition,⁷Cf., R. Yechiel Michael Epstein, Arukh ha-Shulḥan he-Atid, Hilkhot Mela-khim 74:7, who suggests that, even with regard to discretionary wars, consultation of the urim ve-tumim, although biblically mandated, is “perhaps” not a necessary condition of war. Although consultation of the urim ve-tumim constitutes a miẓvah and is required by virtue of biblical command, failure to engage in prior consultation, contends Arukh ha-Shulḥan he-Atid, does not affect the legitimacy of the war itself. See also, Le-Or ha-Halakhah, p. 12, and cf., Einayim la-Mishpat, Sanhedrin 16a. nevertheless, in the introduction to his Sefer ha-Mizvot, shoresh 14, Rambam does state that a High Priest is required for the undertaking of war; i.e., the king and the Sanhedrin may not undertake military action other than upon acquiescence of the urim ve-tumim which is attached to the breast-plate worn by the High Priest. Hence, absent a High Priest⁸See, however, Rambam’s reference to the function of the urim ve-tumim in Hilkhot Klei ha-Mikdash 10:11. who can consult the urim ve-tumim, offensive war in conformity with the stipulations of Jewish law is impossible. Ramban, in his addenda to Rambam's Sefer ha-Mizvot, mizvot lo ta'aseh, no. 17, declares that the requirement for consultation and approval of the urim ve-tumim is not limited to discretionary wars but applies with equal force to obligatory wars as well.⁹Rashi, in his commentary on the verse “and he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the decree of the Urim before the Lord” (Numbers 27:21), remarks that “even Joshua” was required to consult the urim ve-tumim “when he had need to go out to battle.” Since the wars of Joshua were all commanded wars, i.e., for the conquest of the territory inhabited by the Seven Nations, it must be inferred that Rashi agrees with Rambam in maintaining that consultation of the urim ve-tumim was necessary even in conjunction with commanded wars. See R. Judah Gershuni, Mishpat ha-Melukhah, Hilkhot Melak-him 5:2.
For a discussion of whether war against Amalek requires consultation of the urim ve-tumim, see R. Judah Gershuni, Torah she-be-‘al Peh, XIII (5731); cf., Contemporary Halakhic Problems, I, 16-18.

(Yod) “The dust returns to the ground as it was; and the spirit returns to God Who bestowed it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7). And our teacher Rabbi Yitschak Arama (Spain, 15th century) wrote in Akeidat Yitschak:
[This] teaches us that the goal of man and his perfection is that that at the time of his end, his two components will completely split one from the other – each one for itself, without the one having any remnant of its companion, etc. However this which the wise one (Shlomo/Kohelet) said about their complete separation – to here and to there – is only accomplished in a [person] if he [has reached] the fullest good while he is alive, such that there not be any admixture in his soul and it not connect to physical traits and their lowliness to identify with them at all; and that he inclines to this, such that he makes efforts that they should be separated. Until, in the end, “the dust returns to the dust as it was,” without any soulful admixture; “and the spirit returns to God Who bestowed it,” without any dusty admixture. This is as they say (Shabbat 152b), “Give it to Him like He gave it to you.” However this matter of separation in this way is difficult for people, as behold, their souls have a great inclination towards their physicality because of their constantly dealing with the physical, etc., to the point where they love it with a powerful love during their lives. And [so] they do not separate in their deaths, etc. and there remains with [the soul] bad and destructive matters, etc.”
And hence he says:
It is as difficult for the soul of the evil to leave [the body], as it is for wool stuck in one of the thorns, etc. – since “the dust returns to the ground as it was,” is not fulfilled with them. [See there.]
And in Maggid Mesharim of [R. Yosef Karo, he] also writes that it is [like the] the ‘hollow of a sling.’⁴¹See I Sam. 25:29. As the bodily powers with their desires that have become connected to the soul – sometimes with this sin, and sometimes with that sin; and each sin has its designated power to punish him – is ‘the hollow of a sling.’ And [so] all the designated powers fling him one to the other. See there. And it appears that with this we can resolve that which is written in the Midrash (Sifrei Bamidbar 86)⁴²The standard text of the midrash is slightly different, but different enough to make the explanation given here less compelling. “‘And He called the name of that place Kivrot-Hataavah [because the people who desired were buried there.]’ (Num. 11:34). I might think that that was because of the name of an event; it is therefore written, ‘for there they buried (kavru) the people who desired (hamitavim).’” To here [is the midrash]. And see what is written in Akeidat Yitschak – that it should have stated, “the people who had desired.” See there. And this is the explanation: “I might think that it was because of the name of an event” that happened once – this story that they desired meat – and then it stopped; however the name of the place remained from that time. And the explanation of, “it is therefore written, ‘for there they buried the people who desired,’” is that they are still desiring and it is not [just a one-time] event; rather it is happening all the time. And [it] is as he wrote – that anyone who desires [the physical] in his lifetime is [still] connected to it after the separation of the soul; and [so] they are still desiring.

And the fourth is because the perfect table “which is before the Lord” is the upper level where the soul is nourished. There are four upper levels which, like the four animals of “the chariot” among the upper beings, correspond to the four winds of the world, and to the four elements in the beings below in the lower world. These levels are the intellectual banquet which is called “the life of the world to come.” And our rabbis before us called it “the table of three legs,” as it is said in the Talmud, Massekhet Ta’anit.⁴⁰B. Ta’anit 25a: “In the future the righteous will eat at a table of gold which has three legs.” And why didn’t they call it “the table of four legs”? It was their way of referring to the three patriarchs, and that’s why they said “of three legs;” and they were concealing the fourth. LikewiseEzekiel concealed the place of the eagle, as it is written, “Each of the four had the face of an eagle;” he did not specify what its position was.⁴¹Ez. 1:10. In his prophetic vision of the four heavenly creatures, the prophet specifies that each had four faces: a human face, a face of a lion on the right, the face of an ox on the left, and the face of an eagle. But unlike the other faces, Ezekiel does not state specifically where on the creatures’ bodies the eagle’s face was. And from his example our sages z”l learned to conceal an implied fourth when they just said, “The patriarchs are indeed the chariot”⁴²Ber. R. 47:8. and “one refers to the patriarchs only as three.”⁴³B. Berakhot 16b. But it is well known that no chariot has less than four wheels. For this reason one saint used to say while reciting the Amidah, “the God of David and Builder of Jerusalem,” to mention in his prayer the whole chariot in all its completeness.⁴⁴In other words, he added the Messiah, the descendent of King David and rebuilder of Jerusalem, who has yet to come and complete the four. And therefore I call this book “Table of Four” for that level where our souls are attached: where they are nourished and take pleasure to the degree appropriate to their level. This is the perfect table for the righteous one.Completing the chariot makes it a table of four, for there the souls of the patriarchs are hidden away. And accordingly, having achieved this status, the place where the vessels [of their souls, i.e., their bodies] are buried is called Kiryat Arba’ (“The City of Four”), that is, Hebron.⁴⁵R. Bahya is probably also suggesting that the name of the patriarchs’ burial place not only alludes to the number four as a symbol of perfection and completion, but also to the re-union of the soul with her source implied in the word “Hebron.” Hebron sounds like the root of the Hebrew word for “to unite” or “to attach” that R. Bahya just used to refer to the place “where the soul is attached,” “sham hithabrut ha-nefesh.” So when a person is eating and drinking at his table to sate his soul to sustain his body with its four elements, his mind should ramble about upward onto the pure “table which is before the Lord,” that is, the four levels which hover over the refined soul who merits each and every one according to her level. There is no doubt that by this, all of his bodily activities are accounted to a person as if they were intellectual ones, that he himself be counted among the elite, and his soul “be bound up in the bundle of life”⁴⁶I Sam 25:29: tzurah be-tzror ha-hayyim, an expression which has come to mean “eternal life” as in the prayer for the dead El Male Rahamim.even while he is still alive; fit for the whole world to be created for his sake. As our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash: “’For this applies to all mankind,’⁴⁷Eccl. 12:13. that is, all the world in its entirety was created only in conjunction with this man.”⁴⁸B. Shabbat 30b.

Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Book 1, chap 42, describes the occurrence of such a phenomenon in support of his contention that the term mavet is a homonym and that in biblical usage this term in certain places means "severe illness" rather than "death." In the narrative concerning Nabal's demise Scripture reports, "…and his heart died within him and he became hard as stone" (I Sam. 25:37), and then goes on to state, "And it came to pass after ten days and the Lord smote Nabal and he died" (I Sam. 25:38). Maimonides cites Andalusian authors who interpret the phrase "and his heart died within him" of the earlier passage as meaning "that his breath was suspended, so that no breathing could be perceived at all, as sometimes an invalid is seized with a fainting fit and attacks of asphyxia, and it cannot be discovered whether he is alive or dead, and in this condition the patient may remain one day or two."¹⁹This exposition of Maimonides’ position follows the interpretation advanced by Abarbanel in the latter’s commentary on the text of the Guide and appears to be the most facile analysis of Maimonides’ comments. Cf., however, Shem Tov, who sees the Andalusians as denying the miraculous resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath (I Kings 17:17) and claims that Maimonides himself accepted the position of the Andalusians. Narboni and Ibn Caspi also ascribe such views to Maimonides. Ibn Caspi attempts to show that Maimonides was herein following the talmudic interpretation of this narrative. According to Ibn Caspi, the talmudic exposition does not consider the described phenomenon to be a case of resurrection. Maimonides was severely (and, according to Abarbanel, erroneously) attacked by others for denying that the son of the woman of Zarephath was resurrected since these authorities view Maimonides’ position as being contradictory to the rabbinic interpretation of the relevant passages. Cf. the letter of R. Judah ibn Alfacha to R. David Kimchi in Koveẓ Teshuvot ha-Rambam (Lichtenberg, Leipzig, 1859), p. 29, and Teshuvot Rivash, no. 45. Cf. also Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 338, who interprets Maimonides as accepting the resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath literally but denying Elisha’s resurrection of the son of the Shunamite. (II Kings 4:34–35).

Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Book 1, chap 42, describes the occurrence of such a phenomenon in support of his contention that the term mavet is a homonym and that in biblical usage this term in certain places means "severe illness" rather than "death." In the narrative concerning Nabal's demise Scripture reports, "…and his heart died within him and he became hard as stone" (I Sam. 25:37), and then goes on to state, "And it came to pass after ten days and the Lord smote Nabal and he died" (I Sam. 25:38). Maimonides cites Andalusian authors who interpret the phrase "and his heart died within him" of the earlier passage as meaning "that his breath was suspended, so that no breathing could be perceived at all, as sometimes an invalid is seized with a fainting fit and attacks of asphyxia, and it cannot be discovered whether he is alive or dead, and in this condition the patient may remain one day or two."¹⁹This exposition of Maimonides’ position follows the interpretation advanced by Abarbanel in the latter’s commentary on the text of the Guide and appears to be the most facile analysis of Maimonides’ comments. Cf., however, Shem Tov, who sees the Andalusians as denying the miraculous resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath (I Kings 17:17) and claims that Maimonides himself accepted the position of the Andalusians. Narboni and Ibn Caspi also ascribe such views to Maimonides. Ibn Caspi attempts to show that Maimonides was herein following the talmudic interpretation of this narrative. According to Ibn Caspi, the talmudic exposition does not consider the described phenomenon to be a case of resurrection. Maimonides was severely (and, according to Abarbanel, erroneously) attacked by others for denying that the son of the woman of Zarephath was resurrected since these authorities view Maimonides’ position as being contradictory to the rabbinic interpretation of the relevant passages. Cf. the letter of R. Judah ibn Alfacha to R. David Kimchi in Koveẓ Teshuvot ha-Rambam (Lichtenberg, Leipzig, 1859), p. 29, and Teshuvot Rivash, no. 45. Cf. also Teshuvot Ḥatam Sofer, Yoreh De‘ah, no. 338, who interprets Maimonides as accepting the resurrection of the son of the woman of Zarephath literally but denying Elisha’s resurrection of the son of the Shunamite. (II Kings 4:34–35).

The laws of the commandment - for example, that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 7:15) that a man not think at the time of war about his wife, nor his children nor his money, but rather he clear his [mind] from everything, to [focus on] the war. And he should further think that all the blood of Israel is dependent upon him, and [so] if he is afraid and 'he pulls back his right [hand],' it is as if he spilled the blood of all of them - and like the matter that is written (Deuteronomy 20:8), "and that the heart of his brothers not melt like his heart." And it is explicit in the words of the tradition, "Cursed be he who makes the Lord’s work a fraud; cursed be he who withholds his sword from blood" (Jeremiah 48:10). And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 7:15) that anyone who fights with all of his heart and intention to sanctify God is assured that he will not find injury; and it will be a merit for him and his children, that his house will be established in Israel, and he will merit life in the world to come. And [it is] like the matter that is written (I Samuel 25:28), "for the Lord will surely make a faithful house for my master, since my master fights the wars of the Lord, etc." And the rest of the details of the commandment are in the eighth chapter of Sotah (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars 6).