The gemara says that a milchama li-motay acum is not a milchamas mitzvah (although its a michlokes if we say osek bimitzvah it seems everyone holds its not a milchamas mitzvah and a chasan will be patur).
This gemara is mashma that if the goyim actually attack it will be a milchamas mitzvah and only a prememptive attack is not. This works well with shitas Harambam that a milchama misar shiba alav is a milchams mitzvah.
1. However, it seems to be a kasha on Rashi who says only a milchamas for kivush eretz Yisroel is a milchamas mitzvah. Lifi Rashi it seems a defensive war is not a milchamas mityzvah, but the mashmaos of the gemara in Sotah is that it is a milchamas mitzah?
How can we answer for Rashi?
2. What are the gedarim of a pre-emptive war versus a defensive war? Is it only sar shi-ba alav (which is a milchamas mitzvah according to the Ramabam) if the goyim acually fire the first shot?
Ari
Shalom Ari,
Thank you very much for your good and relevant questions for our times. I will try to put some order in the Sugya.
According to the simplicity of the Gemara according to the Chachamim, a preventive war to prevent a future enemy from attacking is not a Mitzvah and it does not even exempt the one fighting it from another Mitzvah. The Halachah is like the Chachamim. According to Rebbi Yehudah, there is a certain Mitzvah, but it should be said that we are not talking about the same parameters as what he calls a "Milchemes Chovah," in which even a groom and bride are recruited. In any case, we will focus on the Chachamim's opinion since the Halachah was ruled like them,(although it should be noted that according to the Me'iri the Gemara is reversed; while this is a singular Shitah, it is worth looking into).
According to Rashi, only a war in which there is a conquest of Eretz Yisrael is called a Mitzvah war. One can indeed ask according to Rashi why the Gemara speaks of a defensive war, and if, according to Rashi, a war with enemies actually attacking is not called a Milchemes Mitzvah, but in any case, Rashi believes that as long as the war does not involve Kibush Eretz Yisrael, it is not considered a "Milchemes Mitzvah." In our time, when wars are on the land of Israel, this polemic has resurfaced even according to Rashi, since some say that any war in Eretz Yisrael that preserves the land in the hands of Yisrael constitutes a conquest of Eretz Yisrael.
The Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 5:1) seems to come up with his own innovative approach, and includes in a Milchemes Mitzvah any case in which an enemy comes to besiege Jews wherever they are. The commentators have difficulty with this. If he rules like the Chachamim that there is not even a Mitzvah in the case of a preventive war, then how can he say that a defensive war is a Milchemes Mitzvah? The Or Zaru'a (Hilchos Shabbas 84) says that according to the Rambam, there is no distinction between a preventive war and a defensive war, since a preventive war is also intended to prevent the enemy from attacking.
Here it is important to emphasize: The Rambam's Chidush is that in such a case, there are all the definitions of a Milchemes Mitzvah, including all sorts of exceptions such as Eshes Yefas To'ar according to certain opinions and more, but there is no dispute at all that if the enemy comes and there is a situation of Piku'ach Nefesh, certainly everyone is obligated to recruit to it, even a groom, from the rule of "Lo Ta'amod Al Dam Rei'echa." The only issue is not from where the Rambam finds that there is a "Mitzvah" in this war, since it is certain that saving Jews is a great Mitzvah, but that he includes it within the category of "Milchemes Mitzvah," which is the subject of our Sugya here in Sotah. I will give one very important difference between a "Milchemes Mitzvah" and a war which is a "Milchamah she'Yesh Bah Mitzvah" of saving Jewish lives because of Piku'ach Nefesh: A "Milchemes Mitzvah" is one in which a person must enlist even if he will thereby be putting himself in a situation of a danger of losing his life. He knows that he may not return from the war, but he is still obligated to join it. In the event that the purpose of the war is to save Yisrael from the enemy, a person is not obligated to put himself in a position of Piku'ach Nefesh in order to save his friend. The Rambam's view that this is also considered a "Milchemes Mitzvah" and not just a "Milchamah she'Yesh Bah Mitzvah" is an important and novel distinction.
Regarding your second question, there indeed is a great debate about when a war is considered a war in which the enemy is already present, and a war that is only a preventive war. Opinions differ because the distinction varies greatly. Sometimes there is a real and known threat, and sometimes one wants to prevent such a threat. As mentioned, the Or Zaru'a has difficulty distinguishing between a preventive war and a defensive war and says there is no real difference, but the boundaries are really very difficult to discern. The Rema (OC 329:6) also rules that even if the enemy has not yet come but wants to come, it is permissible to desecrate the Shabbos and go to war, as the Or Zaru'a says.
As far as I know, in our generation, those who want to claim that the wars of Israel in the Land of Israel are wars of Mitzvah are based on these two points: the first, that it is about preventing the conquest of the land by the enemy, and this is a Milchemes Mitzvah according to Rashi as well, and the second, that any act of aggression or terrorism is considered an enemy that we have already come to fight, because they are ready to attack at any moment that is possible.
I hope this helps,
Aharon Steiner
Thank you for your response, I had a few follow up questions.
1. Where is the Meiri you mentioned that the shitas are reversed?
2. Who says that Rashi would hold a defensive war is also called kivush eretz yisroel?
3. Although I hear the sevara of these shitas, I still find it difficult to accept. These opinions turned Rashi into the Ramabam. Rambam lists defensive wars a kivush as 2 different milchamas mitzvas and according to these opinions Rashi put these 2 things together (2 for the price of 1). According to these opinions would there be a nafka mina between the Rambam and Rashi? (other then milchamas amalek)
Thanks for all your help
Shalom again,
The Me'iri I mentioned can be found here: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14734&st=&pgnum=133
I think I wasn't clear enough. I don't think the Poskim and Mefarshim who are applying today's situations are referring to Rashi's opinion. I don't think the Poskim usually consider Rashi's commentary as a Halachic opinion. They start with the Rambam of course, and have different opinions as to whether a preventive war is a Milchemes Mitzvah (like the Or Zaru'a's opinion) or only if the enemy is at the door is it considered a Milchemes Mitzvah.
The only thing I can assume (but again, I didn't see anyone say so) is that when Rashi says "Kibush," one can say that this includes more instances than just Yehoshua's times. Our times might have a status of "Kibush," because Yisrael are back to their land and that might qualify as "Kibush." I'm not sure I agree, but I can't say that if someone would say such a thing that it would be unreasonable. There are other aspects like who has the authority to call a war, and what percentage of the nation do you need in Eretz Yisrael to consider this as a "Kibush."
Best Regards,
Aharon Steiner
Thank you for your reply. It's much clearer to me but I still have some follow up questions.
1. How can the Or Zarua call a preventive war a milchamas mitzvah when the gemara says befarish it's not a milchamas mitzvah? I tried to look up the Or Zarua and couldnt find it. Siman in hilchos shabbos is very long. Can you specify where it is in siman 84 or give me a few key word so I can find it using otzar hachama? Thanks
2. In the end you spoke about whether or not its kivush lifi Rashi bezman hazeh. I think you are alluding to a point I didnt think of and I would like to clarify what you meant. Are you suggesting (or maybe it's pashet) that its only a mitzvah of kivush eretz yisroel in the case of kivush rabim? And If theoretically you don't have the conditions for kivush rabim it wouldn't be a milchamas mitzvah of kivush eretz yisroel? (maybe milchamas mitzvah of protecting from a attack but not kivush eretz yisroel)
thanks for all your help
Shalom again,
1) The Or Zaru'a is in Siman 84, and the words (transliterated) are: "Ein l'Chalek Bein Heicha she'Tzaru Kvar l'Omrim she'Rotzim Lavo Lishlol, Ela k'Shehakol Yotzei she'Rotzim Lavo Lishlol, Af Al Pi she'Lo Ba'u Adayin, Mutar Lilbosh Klei Zayin Lishmor v'La'asos Kol ba'Ir Kedei she'Lo Yavo'u, d'Ein Medakdekin b'Piku'ach Nefesh.
The Rema (Orach Chayim 329:6) cites the Or Zaru'a as well.
2) The problem with Rashi here is that he writes briefly and does not elaborate. It is difficult to know what Rashi would have said regarding your question, and all the options are hypotheses, and we have to learn them from other places and understand them one by one. We know from the Gemara that a Kibush Yachid, like that of David ha'Melech, is not considered a Milchemes Mitzvah. There are different opinions among the Rishonim as to what was the problem with David's Kibush, which is why it is considered a single conquest. Was it because he did not consult with the Sanhedrin, or because he moved on to conquer additional places before the entire Eretz Yisrael was conquered? In any case, the definition of a "Kibush Yachid" does not depend on Rashi's words but on the explanation of the Gemara's words.
Best Regards,
Aharon Steiner