Pemikiran Yahudi Mazmur 120:7: Akeidat Yitzchak

During wartime, not only does one concentrate on hating and killing the enemy, but the values that are paramount during times of peace, tend to become perverted. Cruelty and murder occur even amongst brothers in arms, members of the same side. Actions which are unavoidable in war, have a way of developing into independent virtues in wartime, corrupting all normal norms. David already experienced this while he led a band of men (see chapter 30 Samuel I) near Tziklag. Again, when David instructed Yoav his commander- in- chief concerning the positioning of Uriah in an exposed part of the battlefield, (Samuel II chapter 11) he experienced the tendency of warriors to see moral values as somewhat blurred. It says "va-yitchazek David be-elokav,” i.e. David had to muster all his moral strength to prevent the degeneration by his comrades, whose trade had only recently been the killing and plundering around Tziklag. When David proclaimed (Psalms 120,7) "I am peace, and I speak out about it; yet they are only interested in war," he refers to this problem. We find therefore, that Israel, when offering peace to Sichon king of Emori, acted according to the principle "refrain from evil, seek peace," only to be rebuffed for its efforts. It is not enough to prepare for war and resolve that in the event a peace offer is forthcoming one will accept it; one has to make the first move in this direction. War is acceptable only because of the peace and justice that follow it. Midrash Rabbah Deut 5, reports that this was an instance in which Moses had acted on his own, and G'd agreed with him, seeing that G'd had only instructed him to make war. So we find that the precedent Moses set by his unilateral action was elevated to become halachic norm. Whenever a war outside the boundaries of Eretz Yisrael is contemplated, "you will have to call out "peace" to her." (Deut. 20,10-11) Since the Torah couples this legislation with the prohibition of cutting down fruit bearing trees of a city under siege, it is easy to understand that the Torah places even greater emphasis on the need to spare human life. Sifri, item 123, even states that the seven nations residing in Canaan at the time the Jewish people were about to invade them, had a chance to save their lives either by converting to Judaism or by emigrating. The instructions to wipe them out, women and children included, applied only if they failed to avail themselves of the choices mentioned.

In order to emphasize the Torah's desire for a peaceful resolution of all our problems, including even those with the Canaanites, the Torah's opening gambit is a diplomatic offensive offering a peaceful solution. (Deut. 20, 10-11) When G'd had commanded Moses to go to war against Sichon and Og, Moses, -unbidden-, had sent "messengers of peace," asking permission to traverse their lands. When G'd had noted this, He agreed with Moses' procedure and decreed that henceforth no battle be joined without a prior attempt at a peaceful resolution of the arguments causing war. (Midrash Rabbah Parshat Shoftim) According to the Sifri, even the seven Canaanite tribes were offered their lives if they repented their ways and changed their lifestyles. The reference about not cutting down fruit trees during a siege, (20,19) includes a rhetorical question concerning the comparison drawn between man and tree. The letter heh, preceding the word adam, turns the phrase into a question. The meaning then is: "Is then the tree a human being that it has to become part of warfare?" Why should the tree be punished for giving us its bounty? The language employed by the Torah for describing what ma עy and what may not be a fruitbearing tree seems extraordinarily clumsy. Perhaps it wishes to teach us that even though our eyes tell us that the tree produces fruit, the determining factor in halachah, Jewish law, is whether that fruit is ma-achal, food fit for human consumption, or whether it constitutes merely animal fodder. If the latter, permission is granted to chop down such a tree. The Torah depicts warfare as a possible series of sieges, to emphasize that the eventual frontal attack with its resultant bloody battles and subsequent looting are viewed as character debilitating. Even if a long siege is necessary to attain one's objective, this is preferable to unlimited bloodshed and violence. Surrender due to starvation is better than obtaining a quick victory on the battlefield.