A Project Genesis website

Laws of war

Question

The book of Deuteronomy says that when we go to war with the faraway nations we are to give its people a chance to surrender. If they do, then they are to become our slaves and do forced labor for us.

If they surrender should’nt they be given equal rights and oppurtunities rather then making them slaves? How should these foreign slaves be treated? If these nations don’t surrender then we are to kill all the men – does this include the civilians also or just the soldiers? It is said that we may however keep for ourselves the women and children – does this mean it is up to the soldiers whether to keep the women and children or to kill them? The Torah teaches the importance of human life and we are not allowed to shed innocent blood. Didn’t G-D tell Avraham that He would spare the entire city of Sodom if He finds even 10 people who are innocent? Shouldn’t we do the same thing and spare the entire city if there are innocent people living in it?

Answer

Hi,

This is actually a complex subject and I will certainly not do it justice in this short reply.

A Jewish king’s right to wage war (and it should be stressed that the rules that relate to a Jewish government without a king could be quite different) depends on the context. Your question seems to focus on offensive wars against distant enemies. This type of war would normally be prohibited as long as the king had not consulted with some combination of a prophet, the Sanhedrin and the “urim v’tumim” (a type of prophecy transmitted through the high priest). The king did not have the power to simply
decide to initiate such a war.

You are correct that enemies who choose to avoid war by entering a peace agreement with a Jewish king are subject to a tax in treasure and labor, but that’s not the same as permanent slavery. Rather, the king could demand that a specified number of the subdued nation’s workers could be sent to national service for a specified length of time. You should remember, though, that this was a right given a king over his own subjects as well (see I Samuel 8:11).

Maimonides, interestingly, teaches (Laws of Kings 6; 3) that a Jewish king (or government) may not deceive or mislead their subjected nations.

Maimonides (ibid, 4) also rules that women and children from these foreign nations may not be killed, but do come under the rule of the conquering Jews.

Your comparison to Sodom is interesting, but, I feel, inaccurate because that episode was the result of the general corrupting immorality of the cities which, had there been sufficient numbers of righteous individuals, would never have reached such proportions, thus, never triggering the destruction. You will note that it G-d doesn’t say he wouldn’t kill the innocent, but that the righteous would have, by their presence, rescued the entire city!

I’m not sure, however, what conditions prompted the Jewish king’s rights and obligations regarding these foreign enemies, so I can’t comment on the justice of their treatment. That doesn’t mean that the knowledge doesn’t exist, but that I can’t give a firm answer at this point.

These are interesting questions that you’re asking and I hope I’ve helped somewhat to answer them.

With my best regards,
Rabbi Boruch Clinton
Ottawa, Canada

Thank you Rabbi you have helped in clearing most of the doubts but still I have one little doubt which is that whether non combatants are to be killed among the men or only the soldiers are to be put to death? Obviously G-D would not allow killing all the men without showing them mercy.

Follow-up question

First of all, when it comes to anticipating G-d’s sense of morality and “forcing” upon Him our narrow cultural values, it’s probably safer to be cautious (see Isaiah 55; 8). You might also like to see this essay I’ve written on the subject of relativism.

Having said that, I can certainly appreciate your resistance to the idea that non-combatants might be killed in a Jewish war. It would seem to me (although this isn’t the last word) that, in fact, there might have been times when that occurred and that, “on the books” at least, there was room for such behavior. Why should it be that way? I can guess that one scenario might have involved the fear of trying to assimilate a rebellious, violent and morally corrupted population within Torah society.

However, I am confident that this law (if it even existed) was not binding, but was to be used only at the discretion of a well-advised king. I am even convinced that, in the real world of Jewish monarchy, the law was virtually never put into practice. What’s my evidence? See I Kings 20; 31 for an amazing observation made by some of Israel’s most hateful enemies. See also the last verses in that chapter where the prophet (in G-d’s name) criticizes the king Achav not because he allowed enemy soldiers to escape unharmed (and, on the contrary, he’d actually entertained and shown them great kindness), but because he’d failed to kill their dangerous kind while he had him in his hands (and, indeed, two chapters later, that kink proved to be Achav’s downfall).

Once again, with my best wishes,
BC