by Rav Yosef Carmel, yeshiva.org.il, translated by Hillel Fendel.
May one save himself at the expense of others? Does the same law apply during both times of peace and times of war?
[Written in 2008, but could have been written today]
One of the axes around which the Purim story revolves is the manner in which the Jews saved themselves from the horrific empire-wide decree of destruction initiated by Haman: "The Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and with slaying and destruction, and they did to their enemies as they wished." (Esther 9,5)
Every year on Purim, this question is placed upon the table of the sages: What are the limitations of warfare? And in our situation, in which the State of Israel is essentially in a constant state of war, what are our responsibilities, to ourselves and to others?
Our enemies take advantage of the sensitivity of the Jewish People in general, and of Israeli society in particular, to the sanctity of human life – while at the same time, they seek with all their might to specifically target non-combatant citizens, including women and children. They do this primarily via steep-trajectory weapons that conceal their source and protect them from return fire.
One of the uglier and more revolting phenomena that we have seen of late was the use of women and children as "human shields" for these war criminals. They fire rockets as us indiscriminately, seeking to "destroy, kill and annihilate" as many Jews as possible, "from youth to elderly, children and women," every day and not just "on one day" (see Esther 3,13).
Let us note, too, that during the Purim story, as today, the objective of our enemies was, as stated, total destruction of our nation, Heaven forbid. But after executing Haman, King Ahasuerus issued a new decree – not revoking the original decree, but giving permission to the Jews to "destroy, kill, and annihilate the entire host of every people and province that oppress them, small children and women, and to take their spoils for plunder" (8,11).
However, in the event, when the Jews went to defend themselves, they smote only "those who hated them" (9,1) and "those who sought to cause them evil" (verse 2), and "all their enemies" (verse 5). There is no mention that they hurt the women and children; on the contrary, the emphasis there is specifically on "man" (verse 6).
Let us clarify whether it is permitted for a person to save his life whilst hurting another or his property? And is there a difference between times of peace and times of war?
The Talmud discusses this question in Tractate Bava Kama (61b, 117b). According to Rashi and the Raavad, one is not permitted, for instance, to burn someone else's field in order to kill his enemy hiding there. However, the Shulhan Arukh (Hoshen Mishpat 359,4) rules like Tosafot, that one is permitted to do so – but only with intent to compensate the owner for his losses.
What is the reasoning? The Rashba explains that the owner, if he would have been present at the time, would have been obligated to save the man's life even at the expense of his own property. Therefore, even if the owner is not present, the same law applies – but the beneficiary must pay him back.
This then brings us to the next question: May a person save his life by killing someone else? The answer is that this is forbidden, whether the "someone else" is a Jew or not. This is because one has no obligation to give up his life in order to save someone else. So explains Rav Shaul Yisraeli (d. 1995, Jerusalem) in his work Amud HaYemini.
All of the above pertains to relations between individuals. To this let us add a heart-filled plea, even to those whose heart burns with a holy desire to avenge Jews, to refrain from all acts of private vengeance, such as that which occurred of late in the village of the wretched Arab murderer; it must be the army's decision if and when to take such action.
What is the law in war-time? When Israel's army – the military arm of the king/government – goes out to "save Israel from the hand of its enemies" (the Sages' description of the classic 'obligatory war'), what limitations does it face?
Rav Yisraeli, in his long treatise cited above, clarified and formulated several clear principles on this topic:
1. Women and children should not be targeted (as per the Rambam, Laws of Kings, 6,4).
2. Those who are not involved in the warfare must be warned beforehand to leave the area, unless the warning will prevent the mission from being carried out. See Samuel II 15,6.
3. If "innocent civilians" are killed in a government-declared war or battle, this is not considered murder, given that international law recognizes the nature of war as such that sometimes those who are not involved are killed. This is true as long as the battle is carried out according to international law.
4. All the more so is it not considered murder when the enemy himself is responsible for purposely placing the citizens in harm's way. Once they do so, the situation becomes their responsibility and liability, and we have no obligation to refrain from military operations to "save Israel from the hand of its enemies." It continues to be incumbent upon the government to protect its own citizens' lives, even in the face of the fear that innocents will be harmed – as Rav Yisraeli concludes: "because they, not we, brought about this situation, and we are free of sin."
Let us conclude with a call to honest and upright jurists, who do not employ a "double ethical standard," to formulate their stance on the following question:
"Who is considered an innocent civilian in a society in which the majority voted for war criminals to stand at their helm and whose every action is taken for the stated goal of wiping out a neighboring country, quite in contrast with international law?"
[Note: Today, in 2024, we may also ask these experts whether non-combatant civilians are considered "innocent" when it is known that in every home are weapons, maps of "Palestine" with no trace of Israel, and other materials of incitement, and that the actual fighters are encouraged and cheered on not only by their families, but also by the general populace.]
No comments:
Post a Comment