Rav Yitzchak Breitowitz: Know the Difference Between An Obligatory War and An Optional War!

You see your tomorrow [Music] Hi everybody. Shalom. Thank you for showing uh for coming and again our dedications are as always uh praying for the victory of our soldiers and all the fronts of the war, the lasting unity of the people of Israel and for all of those whose health has been affected by the war, the safe return uh of all of the hostages and aliat for the memory of Jeremy Bernstein's late father's yard site. Today the 9th of Ellen Pinas, may the Torah have an aliyah at Nishama. And for Moshe Shimon Benoves, whose yard site is the 15th of Elo by his family. Again, may the Nishamos have have an aliyah in the merit of the Torah learning that we're doing tonight. Uh this para kis is actually a very very uh unique para in terms of mitzvot. It has over 70 mitzvotes. Think about it. This is by far the largest number of mitzvotes in a single para. All sorts of mitzvot yeum and gets many many different different things. Uh and uh sits uh many of the laws about you're not allowed to marry a mamzer etc. Someone that's generated from adultery or incest. many many many mitzvah we obviously are not able to cover uh that many of them uh but I want to start I'm going to start a little out of order because I first want to share a vort from the second part of the para then I'm going to go backwards uh to the first part of the para if you remember uh the second part of the para or the second mitzvah in the para discusses a situation if a man has two wives because polygamy used to be permitted a man has two wives and it mentions One wife is beloved and one wife he doesn't like so much [Music] and it mentions that uh each wife has given birth to a child but theor the firstborn child is lassa is to the wife he does not like. So obviously he would prefer that his inheritance should go to the son of the wife that he likes and not to the son of the wife that he doesn't like. And the Torah's rule is that the laws of yusha must be followed. And therefore even though right a bur gets a double portion right a firstborn child of the father gets a double portion in the inheritance of the father. So the Torah is that even if the Bur is from the wife that is nevertheless that child does get the P scham in fact even if he divorced uh the woman the Bur would get the PN right below you now we're not going to discuss uhly how does one because after all there's all sorts of problems a bur gets a double portion uh sons inherit everything when there are daughters I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, in other words, sons inherit even if there are daughters, right? Daughters only inherit if there are no sons at all. Obviously, many people rightfully so in some ways want to create a will, some type of document, some type of taleik, some type of procedure that will allow the distribution of their estate in a manner that is different than the order of Yua. And the question is uhly how do you do that? Because let me just point out if you simply made a will that is a secular will and under the laws of either the United States or Great Britain or England or even the state of Israel, it is a valid will. But if it's taking things away from the shim of the Torah, it would be an act of theft. It would be an act of gazela. So as a result when you do a will which of course one should do one also has to be sure that they have effected conveyances of property in a manner that would bely effective. So we have one of the great experts here ta that's ta's big big field. So if anyone needs to do a will I recommend that you contact her. Uh but that is not our subject for tonight. Uh the Torah basically says in the absence of these mechanisms the bakor does have to get a double portion even though he is from the banhasua. Now it's very very interesting that in the time of the vil nagon uh a very practical shila came up that uh a man uh divorced a wife while she was pregnant. not not the best, not the nicest thing to do, but he divorced his wife while she was pregnant. He then married a second woman and the second woman had a premature baby uh after 7 months of pregnancy. Uh in other words, the second wife had a child before the earlier wife had a child. >> Okay? In other words, uh even though the first wife was pregnant first, it was the second wife that gave birth after 7 months and the first wife gave birth after 9 months. So the question that was brought to the vagon was who is considered to be the bur with respect to inheritance. Is bore defined as first to be conceived or is bor defined as the first to be born? Which one gets it? So the vil nagon actually wants to bring from this para. And if you look at the wording very carefully, you see a certain anomaly. It says a man has two wives. One is beloved, one is hated. And then it says uh the benhabor is to the hated wife so to speak uh and therefore he gets the payim. Now note that it starts off he marries the vah. So in terms of the sequence it seems to say that the yahuva gave birth first. But then it says the is how do you understand it? So the says the Torah is actually talking about this very case. A man has two wives. One he loves, one he hates. He divorces the hated wife while she is pregnant. The Yahuva gives birth first after seven months. Right? So what does the Torah say? that even though yeah I'm I'm sorry the other I'm sorry it's it's the other way around meaning the gave birth first and yet the is because it was the first to be conceived. So the vil nagon says if you read the pukim carefully you actually see that the entitlement of payim is based on conception rather than birth because that's actually the case. He divorced the while she was pregnant. The auva gave birth first but the bore is still called the ben hnua. So the g says we therefore follow conception and not birth. And therefore the uh the the first to be conceived would be the bakar for pichnaim. Now this is a vort that is said in the name of the vil nagon. Uh we don't have the actual words of the vagon but as much of the vagon's Torah particularly on kish these were oral teachings that were written down and transmitted by various students. So for example if you look at the vil nagon's collection on kish called the coalo and there's another one called the draio. It is not the actual words of the bilon and the nitiv of who the nitiv married of's granddaughter. So the niv was very connected to the traditions in the uh in the yeshiva of the grow said it is impossible that this could possibly be true. Says it is a darut that the status of bakur does not depend on conception. The status of Bakur depends on birth and the nitiv doesn't offer an interpretation of theim but the nitiv said whoever understood the vil nagon that he would give payim to uh the first to be conceived uh didn't understand it must have make must have made a mistake in what he heard so it's very interesting on one hand we have a direct teaching of the vagon or at least in the name of the vagon on the other hand we have the nitiv who says it's a dash that the teaching is incorrect. Now let me point out that this can exist uh apart from the issue of divorce or polygamy. Right? In the Torah time it was polygamy uh today would be divorce. This can exist in modern fertility technologies when you have frozen embryos, right? Because frozen embryos, uh, you can have frozen embryos that were conceived at different times, meaning the eggs were fertilized at different times, but let's say for whatever reason, an egg that was fertilized later was implanted first and uh was born before the egg that was fertilized earlier, you'd have the identical question uh who would be the bakore for purposes of pnim. According to the teaching of the vil nagon, it would be the the embryo that was first fertilized. According to the nitiv, it would be the embryo that was carried to term and uh was was born first. So again, it's an interesting how this old shila of the vil nagon could actually be a contemporary debate uh in fertility technology. Lisa, it's brought down. I'll just mention that even if you have a hikic will and you're not following the order of yusha, you're following a different order, it does say that a portion of the estate, even a small portion should be distributed in accordance with the laws of yushia. So even if you're not planning on the firstborn son getting a double portion leg, they still should get a double portion in something. For example, uh many post recommend that cifray kodesh know the swarm library uh should be distributed in accordance with the laws of yushia or or some or anything you know even if it's a small amount of money. So theoretically this shila might be relevant uh even uh even today. Yeah it's important to pay double portion of what not that's a very big distinction. In other words, actual let's say someone has in the bank account. >> Yeah. >> As opposed to an investment portfolio that goes up and down. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That is important. I mean the laws of Pishna like all of yusha like all generally uh can be quite complicated and the entitlement of the bakur to a double portion does not refer to all assets that the father had when he died. Uh it only refers to assets which were clearly in his possession like cash uh tangible property uh or even bank accounts which are considered to be accessible and withdrawable. Uh but things like uh after acquired debts debts that come in collection of debts or the like uh even though they can become part of an estate to be divided among the yorim but the bur does not have uh payim. Now it is a little tricky. Again I don't want to get into technicalities. I mean let's say for example that a person dies and uh leaves over a an apartment building for which he collects rent. So uh the question becomes uh the building is physically here. The building is physically here and physically owned. On the other hand the rentals refer to amounts of money that acrue later. Uh is the bakar entitled? Let's assume they're just two brothers, right? If there are two brothers, Pishna is relatively simple. The Bakar simply gets 2/3 and the other brother gets one/3. Uh, does he get 2/3 of the rental? Do I look at the rental as a future asset that occurs or do I say that it is a consequence of ownership of the building that if the Bur gets twothirds of the building ma automatically he's going to get two/irds of the rental? So again, ask your local rabbi uh if you have uh those types of questions. But yeah, that is an important distinction in the laws of penayam uh itself. But the reason I brought it up is because I wanted to highlight the gra the apparent of the gra that payim is based on time of conception with the nits observation that he says that's impossible and the vagon never said never said such a such a thing. So how do we hold? >> Well, we actually hold of the we actually do follow birth rather than rather than conception. Uh even though the vagon had very interesting dukim in the pukim itself. But now I I want to go backwards a little bit to the very first mitzvah of the para which is one of the most most ethically challenging mitzvah in in the Torah. Uh in fact there's actually a re recently published book in English on this written by a professor at um I think at Barilan University. In fact I even gave him a blurb on it. Uh what did he do here? He said in honor of the para he published a bookmark with my husama on it. Anyway I I whatever um but but it's a good book who analyzes uh the theme. Uh it's a little academic. I was a little worried about giving a huska for it. Uh but I as I say in my circles they're not going to see the book anyway. So um so so I think I think I'm I think I'm okay. I'm okay here. Uh but anyway, this is the the woman that's a captive in war, right? The Torah says that when you wage war against your enemy and God will deliver your enemy to you and you see in captivity a non non-Jewish woman obviously uh a non-Jewish beautiful woman and you is speaking to the man and the man the Jewish soldier desires her and he takes her. So the Torah gives a whole procedure. uh it does allow the way Rashi understands the suga it does allow so to speak one bite of the apple meaning he can actually have intercourse with her but if he then wants to keep her as a wife after he has his initial intercourse uh there's a whole ceremony which essentially is designed to make her unattractive to him she uh cuts her well she either lets her fingernails grow uh she shaves her head she wears rags and she stays stays in his house for 30 days as she cries and mourns her father and mother. And if after that time the man wants to marry her, she becomes his wife. Uh but uh if not, he is not allowed to keep her as a slave. Meaning at uh because he abused her in that way, she must be set free. She must be allowed to go back to her people. Uh unlike regular prisoners of war that can indeed be slaves, uh this woman that uh for which there had been intercourse, the only choice is to marry her or set her free. She cannot remain in a condition of servitude. Now this is filled with all sorts of difficulties. First of all, are is the Torah legitimating rape during time of war? I mean, is the Torah saying at least the first time you can rape her as long as you're committed to either marrying her or setting her free, but the first time is a freebie. Well, as you know, uh, wartime rape, rape during time of war is actually a war crime under modern international law. And we normally consider that to be I mean, unfortunately, it's relatively common. Brashem, not in the Jewish armies, but in in many other armies, uh, it has happened. Uh, is that what the Torah is legitimating? That's very very difficult uh to understand. And number two, she's a non-Jewish woman. Number three, even if you go through the protocol of marriage, did she consent? Are we talking about I mean, let's let's assume the best case scenario. Yes, I'm committed to marrying her and giving her a good life, what does she say about it? And does she remain a guy? Is the Torah allowing you to live with the guy or or is the Torah talking about a conversion? And is the conversion uh volitional that she agrees or is this a a forced conversion? So there's a gazillion different types of problems that this uh raises. Uh let me just mention one thing about the marital about not the mar the wartime rape that is very very important and this is a comment of the toos ridge. uh the rid raaya datani was an Italian rishon uh who was actually a very creative and independent thinker who wrote many uh suare and even antan and the r actually says that even though as jafas to is a kdish because she's non-Jewish and hasn't been converted yet any intercourse between them must be volal she must agree to it so we're not talking about rape. He takes rape out of the out of the para here and we're dealing with consent. Uh even though it's still aish that the Torah mir certain things in time of war because of the passion but nevertheless it has to be a consensual relationship and similarly her conversion uh must be consensual. The marriage must be consensual. So if she does not agree to any of these conditions, she essentially will be freed, will be sent home, cannot be kept as a as a slave. Now still still even if we factor out coercion, we take out coercion from the equation, which I think ethically makes it much easier, you still understand what an extraordinary set of rules this is. Uh the first intercourse, she's a [ __ ] etc. uh and normally uh you know we don't allow that type of relationship but as Rashi explains based on GRA Torah Yates the Torah is giving a concession to the Yates Harah that is the passions in time of war are so powerful that if God were not to allow this it might be done in coercive abusive ways. The Torah created kind of an avenue where you can do it. On the other hand, the Torah discourages the marriage by making her look unattractive. But at the end of the day, by giving a permissible route for this type of relationship, it is an outlet for passions in time of war. Still, that's very very extraordinary because our normal response is if a person has a Yates or Harah, they should fight it. And yet here the Torah is essentially accommodating the har within limits within guidelines. Be it as it may, I'm not going to say that the toos is unanimously agreed to but at least it is a very useful helpful way of putting the para into perspective. But I you know it's interesting that I think a few years ago uh there was an IDF chaplain a RAV in the uh in the army who was just giving a devarta or something. So he wrote about it happened to be this week's para so he wrote about the the captive woman in time of war. Uh but that's not a good choice for a military chaplain uh to write about uh because some of his higherups thought he was advocating certain types of behaviors. So I believe he may have either he was with e either he was removed from his position or he was given some severe discipline and chastisement because you know you don't write about this as if it's a lisa uh that you're supposed to you're supposed to practice but what I want to share with you is a very very fascinating allegorical metaphorical interpretation of the orim hakadosh which is actually based on the Zohar. And uh again, obviously the Torah is talking about a specific context of a beautiful woman in time of war. That's what it's talking about. But here is what he says. Let's go back to the reading of the P allegorically. When you go to wage war against your enemy, Hashem will deliver the enemy into your hands and you will capture your captives. And then it says, "And you will see in captivity a beautiful woman." So says the orim, this is a remeser har, the battle against our inclination to do sins and rebel against God. So what is the puss saying? When you decide to wage war against your enemy, when you decide that you're going to fight the har, God will deliver your enemy into your hands. Never think the enemy is so powerful that you cannot defeat it. Hashem promises that if you sincerely commit to the battle, you will be given victory. Right? So that's the first meaning of the puzz. When you go out to wage war against the enemy that seeks your destruction and that's the sahara. Hashem promises that he will deliver the sahara into your hands. Now it then goes on and says and you see in captivity meaning captured by the enemy a beautiful woman says the orim says the zor the beautiful woman is a remis to your own nish your own nishama your godly soul is described as a beautiful woman it is pure it is pristine it is filled with holiness and goodness and sometimes It seems as if the evil inclination has captured my goodness. It's hijacked my nishama. I'm not able to exercise the goodness and the beauty of my nishama because it's hijacked. And you want to reclaim that nishama. You want to reclaim it. You want to get back to a place of goodness, a place of kaduca. So what do you do? So it's giving you again allegorically it's giving you the steps that you take. So the first thing is you shave off her hair and you let her fingernails grow long. So says the orim based on the zor that this is referring to the process of chuva. I want to reclaim the beautiful nishama from the clutches of thehara and bring it back into the realm of kaduca. So what do I do? So he says the following. He says, "A hair coming out of your head represents ideologies, ideas that are foreign to Torah." So shaving the hair means disabuse yourself of the false ideals and the incorrect ideologies that can lead a person astray. Right? So that's the first step. Shave the hair. get rid of the you know although I I wouldn't put it this way but the founding of men used to say again I wouldn't say it this way but but it's it's an interesting way of saying it he says you know people say people accuse uh the yeshivas of brainwashing their students he says what's wrong with a little brainwashing if the brain is filthy you know if the brain is dirty he got a dirty garment You got to wash it. The brain is dirty. You got to wash it. Says says brainwashing isn't so bad. Again, I I I wouldn't quite say it that way. And but you hear the point. The point basically is that a lot of learning involves kind of knowing what not to accept, what is invalid, what is wrong, what is erroneous. So gila shaving off the hair meaning get rid of the false ideologies that corrupt us. You know it's a tough situation. I I don't want to get into politics obviously uh we're in a politically explosive time in Israel but you know you may have come across I think I may have mentioned it last week as well that recently there was a letter uh that was signed by 80 so-called Orthodox rabbis. Some of them were very very left-wing. Uh some of them were actually respected Orthodox rabbis uh condemning uh Israel's treatment of the civilians in Gaza basically siding with the leftist narrative uh that Israel was creating humanitarian crisis uh in terms of not allowing supplies into Gaza and uh this is very awful. when they were saying Jewish values are compassion and the like. Well, once again, if you look at the whole situation, it is very true that obviously Judaism values, compassion, mercy, not inflicting suffering on people, and that includes towards non-Jewish people as well. But when you're in a war for survival and you're not targeting civilians, you're targeting military targets, you're targeting terrorists and they happen to use unfortunately civilians as human shields, then you got to do what you have to do simply because in the long run you will be saving more lives than etc. So this would be an example where sometimes a person adopts maybe the values of a secular liberal western society which are not really the values of the Torah in a given situation coming from a good heart coming from good motives but essentially is a distorted view of reality based on a lack of moral moral clarity. Again I I don't want to get too political about this because you know people could very much differ with what I said as well. Uh but nevertheless, the idea of shaving the hair is correct your thinking. Get rid of the false thoughts that sometimes can pervert a person's judgment. Okay. Now, what about letting the fingernails grow very long? So, this refers to another aspect of spiritual improvement. Our hands are what we grasp things with, right? We grasp things with our hands. When you have very long fingernails, it is difficult to grasp things. So this refers to the attachment to materialism and hedonistic pleasures. One of the things that can throw us off course in life are not just false ideologies but an overattachment to materialism and comfort. Now our connection to materialism and comfort which is referred to as gashmot right is spirituality. Gashmiot is physicality and materialism. Our connection to gashmiot is actually a fairly complicated connection because we are not aesthetic. We do not preach poverty as a virtue. We do not tell people be poor, wear a hair shirt, uh lie down on a bed of nails. uh we recognize that a person needs and deserves a certain degree of comfort and material prosperity. But once again, do you own your possessions or do your possessions own you? Uh when a person becomes overly attached to money, to success, to material possessions, they can also ruin a person spiritually. This, by the way, at least in the United States, less so in Israel, is indeed a major spiritual crisis in specifically Orthodox communities. As the Orthodox communities in many areas of the United States have become affluent, uh you will see a tremendous connection to materialism, gargantuan houses and you know $100,000 weddings and different types of luxuries uh and uh glad kosher gourmet steakous uh which you pay $200 uh per meal etc. And people say, "What's the problem?" After all, it's glad kosher and under the best tashkah. Again, I don't mean to be fanatic here. I I you know, I understand material pleasure, too. Uh but once again, it can distort a person's priorities. In fact, this is why people often say that it is better to grow up in the United States, grow up in out of town communities than in town communities. Like out of town, small towns, etc. smaller Jewish communities and there are a lot of re there are a lot of reasons a lot of reasons this is not the only reason but one reason that's commonly given is that in the smaller communities there is less emphasis on materialism and less emphasis on economic success which can often be enimical not necessarily to mitzvah observance I'm not I'm not saying oh uh the guy with the big house is not going to keep shabas you know he'll keep shabas but it impairs spirit spiritual sensitivity. It's more of an internal type of problem. So going back to the therefore he says you want to reclaim your nama. So bring her home. Bring her back to you. Shave the hair. Correct the incorrect ideologies. Let the fingernails grow so you become less grasping in terms of a material world. And then let her cry for her father and her mother. So says the zohar, her father is boru, when a person sins, they are bringing so much pain to Hashem who loves us and is concerned with us. When Hashem sees his children wandering away from him, it's a source of great pain to akadesh. So part of the chuva is to cry over the pain that you brought to your father Hashem and your mother, the Jewish people as a whole. Remember we spoke uh two weeks ago about the principle Israel aren every Jew is responsible for another Jew. what one Jew does affects everybody. So when I don't live in accordance with the Torah, I'm not just hurting myself. I'm hurting the Jewish people as a whole. And that's the mother, right? So Hashem is our father. CLA Israel is our mother. Crying over the father and mother is part of the cha process is to understand that you betrayed we betrayed our father Hashem. We betrayed our mother. And finally it says, "And she does this for a month of days, says the Zohar. These are the 29 days of El which are set aside for this crying, for this chuva, for this tikun, this rectification." And then the Torah says at that point you can take her for a wife i.e. you become reunited to your nisha. So it's a very fascinating point although obviously this is not the pett this is not the simple meaning of the narrative the narrative is referring to what it's referring to but allegorically it's a reference to reclaiming my soul through a process of introspective chuva during the month of yerim the word yer meaning a month is actually not 30 days is not 30 days is only 29 days but a yer is a lunar month which can refer to 29. It doesn't have to be uh 30 30 full days. So this is again a fascinating allegory. So now though I want to raise I think an interesting question about how to combine the allegory and thehat. We know that there are different types of wars right there. There is in Judaism in the hakic system a law of mil a law of war. Among other things war is a legitimation of homicide when it becomes necessary. Now there are two types of wars that the Torah recognizes. One is called mitzvah. A war that is a mitzvah or an obligation to wage. Milham mitzvah. The Rambam says there are three categories of Milham mitzvah. Two of which don't apply today, but I'll mention all three. Category one is a war against the seven indigenous nations that inhabited Cananan in the days of Yoshua Bin. The other is the war against the nation of Amalik. Now those two really don't apply today in a literal sense because the seven nations are extinct and Amalik as a nation cannot be identified. But then there's category three which unfortunately is very much with us and that is a war of defense to defend the Jewish people against an enemy that tries to destroy us. Um really every war that Israel has fought since 1948 falls under the parameters of Muhammed mitzvah because our wars have always been defensive even when they have been preemptive. It was to disable an enemy that was planning uh to destroy us. Uh the war of October 7, the war against kamas that we are still engaged in. Again, there is discussion about this, but this at least in its inception was 100% a Muhammed mitzvah. It was a war for the defense of the Jewish people against an enemy that wants to destroy us in an instant. Uh this characterization is again I keep on swerving into politics which I don't want to get into. uh but this is a primary text in the very very controversial issue of the drafting of or the drafting of yeshiva students in the following way that although there are military exemptions in time of war the Talmud indicates that those exemptions only apply in optional wars which I I haven't defined that yet but when it comes to mitzvah there is no such thing as an exemption everyone can be obligated to fight in what is called a mitzvah. So you see where that leads you. That leads you to this contention that if indeed the struggle that we are engaged in qualifies as Muhammed mitzvah at that point there's no automatic exemption. Now that doesn't mean you have to have 100% conscription. No army ever conscripts 100% of the uh even the eligible population. But it does mean that there's no entitlement to an exemption if there's a military need for a larger base of conscription. This would actually be the argument that would argue in favor of conscription of and yeshiva students etc. simply because once it's a muhammed mitzvah there are no exemptions. Uh the counterargument is some say that even a defensive war may not be a mit mitzvah unless there's a duly constituted mel and uh natano is not yet a mel although he's kind of moving in that direction. Uh others want to argue that the exemption for people who study Torah is a super exemption that even applies in mit mitzvah based on a strange reading of the of the Rambam. I I do not want to get into this issue. Um and I also want to point out that even if you accept that students of Torah should be exempt, that doesn't automatically translate to a exemption if someone is not learning in yeshiva. people are combining two different issues. The issue of Torah students and the issue of in the army are two separate issues and one has nothing to do with the other. Again, I don't want to talk about that. Uh there's a lot to talk about. Um and whatever I say um uh will be attacked. Uh I I will just mention just as an aside, forgive me for being too political, that just uh within the past few weeks uh there were three leading very very rabbis who actually supported the drafting of who are not actively involved in full-time yeshiva learning reb very oft Ysef the chief rabbi uh and a third person also is on the other hand somewhat astoundingly I just saw a letter from Rab Var Neansal who was the Rav of the old city theatika uh very eminent who I believe because he actually comes from a religious scionist family that he actually served in the army at some point in his life but he signed a letter saying that even a not in yeshiva is not allowed to enlist in the IDF. Who knows? That's very inexplicable. But this is the letter. It may be forged. This is the other thing. This is the other thing that unfortunately we live in a culture where people's signatures are forged all the time. And even signed letters cannot necessarily be trusted. Again, um I'm not going to talk about this other than what I said. Uh but that's mitzvah, a mitzvah war. Now there is a second category of war, a second category of war that in a way is somewhat enigmatic and that is optional wars. There are wars that the Jewish people are allowed to wage, but they're not mitzvah wars. Now, one second here. What type of war would you be allowed to wage that wouldn't be a mitzvah war? It could only be an aggressive war of offense. Because if it's a war of defense, that's the third example of muhammed mitzvah. So what's a war of aggression? Huh? Are you telling me that permits the state of Israel to simply wage a a non-defensive war of aggression to get territory? That sounds barbaric. That sounds like Saddam Hussein, you know, taking over Kuwait because he wanted wanted the oil. So rest assured that although the word Muhammed mitzvah I'm sorry Muhammed Rashut does mean optional war and it includes wars of aggression but there are certain requirements for Muhammed Rashut that make it impossible today. Number one you need a Sanhedrin to authorize it and number two you need prophetic authorization through the Umbum the Cohen Guttles breastplate. In other words, God has to give you permission uh for whatever reason. Uh which means without specific divine authorization rishut is impossible. Uh to put it another way, the only legitimate war that a Jewish state is allowed to fight is a war of defense. And indeed the state of Israel every every single war of the state of Israel has can very easily be characterized as a war of defense. Now obviously a war of defense I mean you understand this is also going to be offensive. Meaning a war of defense is not just using the Iron Dome to repel missiles. It also involves going after the enemy aggressively. So obviously uh a defensive war involves a certain degree of offensive operation. But if the goal of the war is not territory or self- aggradisement, the goal of the war is to disable an enemy that is trying to destroy us. That is a muhammed mitzvah that does not require prophetic authorization. In other words, cannot be fought today. Today there is no legitimate fort because you need Sanhedrin and you need or okay that's a little bit of an introduction in terms of terminology and I alluded to the impact of these distinctions on the modern conflicts that we are still going going through but now let's go back to asa when the Torah describes the asa jafata and the beautiful woman in time of war. What type of war is the Torah talking about? Is the Torah describing mitzvah or is the Torah describing rash? What is the war that this narrative is talking about? So Rashi says based on the Torah is talking about rish which we couldn't do today not mitzvah because since the Torah says you have captives of war at least when you're waging war against Malik of the seven nations there are no captives they have to be obliterated so therefore by definition we're talking about now the truth of the matter is again there are technicalities here. It's hard to know the proof here because I understand that your fat cannot be talking about the Amalik war or the seven nations because there you have to obliterate. But why do you then say it has to be talking about rash? Maybe it's talking about a muhammed mitzvah like we're waging now, a defensive war in which you are allowed to take prisoners of war and your fat tower might apply there. Meaning, why do you rule that out? It's a good question. In other words, the proof that Rashi brings to rule out Muhammed Mitzvah is only a good proof for two out of the three categories. It rules out Amalecch and it rules out the seven nations because there are no casualties. I'm sorry. There are no uh prisoners that you take, but it doesn't rule out defensive wars. Nevertheless, um although the proof that Rashi and Khazal bring is a problematic proof, the bottom line is nonetheless the case that yat toar only applies to optional wars. It does not apply to mitzvah wars. In truth, I'm not sure why the military chaplain didn't use that at his defense when he wrote about yafatar and he was criticized by his supervisors for legitimating that practice today. His answer could have been very pashot. No, no, no. This practice is only permitted for optional wars and the state of Israel is engaged in mitzvah wars. So I was not advocating however because it doesn't apply to the wars that we're engaged in. If I would have been his lawyer, his military lawyer, I would have raised that as proof that he was not advocating anything that was improper. Okay. Now given that reality, given that reality that the war of the ef is optional war and not mitzvah war, the question is how do you merge that with the allegory of the process of chuva? For example, if I were to ask you using the vocabulary of war, would I describe the war against the Yates as a mitzvah war or an optional war? How how would I describe that war? It's a draut that the war against the is certainly a mitzvah war. It's not an optional war. In fact, that is the mitzvah of my life. The mitzvah of my life is to wage war against the So the question would be why would the Tory give us an allegory of waging war against the har in a para that is talking about optional wars. If the war against the har is a mitzvah or it's in the wrong place maybe you should have put it with amalik when we talk about killing amalik be mamez to killing the har fighting the sahara put it in that there why are you putting the war of the hor in a para that's muhammed rish and not muhammed mitzvah meaning there seems to be a disconnect between the shot of the puk book and the allegory because they don't match. One is optional war, one is mitzvah war. So the answer must be that what the Torah is teaching us is something very profound that the even though the war of the Yates is a mitzvah war but you don't fight it like a mitzvah war you fight it like an optional war meaning the techniques of the battle of the battle are to mirror the optional war and not the m war. How? So what do I mean by that? As I indicated, one of the major differences between the mitzvah war and the optional war is that in the mitzvah war, now not not defensive wars, I'm not referring to our mitzvah war, but in the war of Amalecch and the seven nations, there are no captives. The enemy must be wiped out entirely. Amalecch must be destroyed. The seven nations must be destroyed. Meaning there are no captives. In optional wars, obviously we do take captives. we don't kill unnecessarily. So the suggestion basically is that in the process of chuva there are two ways a person might correct their life and might change their life. Rafichek talks about this. He talks about the chuva of amputation versus the chuva of transformation. Let's imagine a person lived many years of a life without Torah. no shabas, no kash, maybe not even belief in God. And now at the age of 20, 25, 30 or older, they decide to change their lives. They decide to become a new person. And God accepts that chuva and they're now a good, fine, religious, spiritual, holy Jew. But what do you do with the 20 or 30 years in which you were not living that way. And let's say it was worse than simply not being religious. Let's assume there were years of drug abuse, alcoholism, real real sins, gileots. What do you do with the 30 years? So there are two ways psychologically that a person approaches that situation. One is to simply try to amputate that past. I forget about that past. That's not me anymore. I'm a new person. I forget about that. I sever my contacts. I am born today. My birthday is the day that I turned over a new leaf. Sometimes that is necessary. Sometimes they pasted may be so toxic >> and so degenerate and the relationships were so destructive that the only thing you can do is amputate. But you have to understand that amputation just as in medical amputation is a last resort not a first resort. Amputation sometimes may be necessary but it always has a very very significant cost. You lose an arm. There is phantom pain which can be excruciating. You're not whole. Those years and spiritually those years become a waste. You've lost 30 years. There is however a deeper way that you can deal with those 30 years. It's not that you kill them or you amputate them, but the very struggles of the past become the key to your identity in serving God. You don't forget where you came from. You draw on those experiences in forming the uniqueness of your identity. I mean let me give you let me give you a simple example. Uh let's say a person was a drug addict for 20 years and finally they went through the extreme difficult job of kicking the habit. Now one way of going on in life is I simply forget that part of my life. I disconnect myself from that part of my life. I kill it off. You're left with amputation and you're left with empty time. But what if a person becomes, let's say, a drug or alcohol counselor and is able to help people precisely because of the negative experiences that they had that give them give them empathy >> and insight. That's a very different type of process. You're not cutting off the past. You're reclaiming the past and using it as your source of strength to be able to serve God in such a way that you would not have been able to serve God had you not gone through that negative experience. That is not the chuva of amputation. That is the chuva of reclamation. So in a mitzvah the enemy is obliterated and destroyed. Initut the enemy is captured and subjugated. What the Torah is teaching you is there's one type of milit mitzvah where the enemy is to be subjugated rather than destroyed. And that is the war of the atara. Take your past and let it be the source of your strength and your insight. Now this is a very very important idea you know I mean obviously most of our students in Osame are machuva they come from non-religious environments and they come to Yiddishes whatever in their 20s or even older and it's very easy to have a certain inferiority complex because they go to these houses of people that are 10th generation you shall uh the kids I mean I I mean I I have that inferiority complex as well. And uh you know on a good day I can speak Hebrew as good as the the sixth grader in the house you know and you wonder when will I catch up? When will I mean they have such a head start on me. It's not even fair. God put me because remember uh God put us in these different environments. God put us in South Dakota or what wherever it would be. It's not fair. Why was I put in an environment in which I can never really catch up to the people that were born in a religious environment? But the answer is this is the secret. It's true that the 10th generation may has gifts and experiences and backgrounds that I will never have. But it's also true that the person that grew up on a farm in South Dakota has experiences and insights that the 10th generation Mayor person doesn't have. And God did not give you these experiences so you should ignore them and try to be somebody else. God gave you these experiences. So you draw upon them and they become the source of your strength. It is not the chuva of amputation. It is the chuva of reclamation. I take that past. I convert it from a negative to a positive. It forms who I am. That's why a person who is new to Judaism should not necessarily be discouraged from discarding their past friendships, their past talents, their past interests. That can often result in a phantom pain and at least a low level, sometimes a high level of depression. Rather you take what you have and that becomes the foundation of your life because once again that was part of Hashem's plan. Part of Hashem's plan was to put you in the environments you were in. You see? So that's the the wisdom the amazing wisdom that you fight the mitzvah of the way you fight a muhammed not the way you fight a muhammed mitzvah. Many of you might remember the great Roshiva of Mir of Nasfinkla. It's been a number has it been 10 years already? It's been been a while since he would nifer and u a man of tremendous courage. A man who suffered uh disease for many many years shaking uncontrollably but didn't even want to take medication because he felt it clouded his thinking. and he managed uh not only to teach Torah but to really keep the mere yeshiva open with with thousands and thousands and thousands of students traveling all over the world always with uh simka simafos loving his students so his story is very interesting uh he's not he's not a balshua he grew up in a very religious family in fact a family that was very connected to the mir yeshiva but he grew up in a bit of a more modern enir environments. He grew up in Chicago. He went to co-ed high schools. He was on the basketball team. He was on the debating team. Uh all sorts of things that we would not associate with Karedi Roshiva of the great Mirisha. Uh so here's the thing. I remember when he was nifter and I went to the Leva. So all of the eulogies were making the same theme about you see that even if a person comes from the worst type of negative environment an environment that's totally without holiness and totally without value they are able to escape their environment and they can become holy and kadosh and noble. And the whole point was he came from nothing. He came from garbage. He came from filth but he escaped it and that's the greatness of Nelson Fininkle that he escaped a degenerate worthless environment. Now since I grew up in somewhat of a similar environment so you know so I was a little insulted you know I don't remember I I went to a coet I don't remember it as like such a bad evil worthless place I thought there was a lot of good in it uh aas is and akus and unity and we got okay yeah okay wasn't no as maybe ultraorththodox as we would like and the truth of the matter is the greatness of the roshiva rovenas and sufinkle was not that he escaped his environment. He used his environment all the time precisely because he went to a co-ed school and he played on the basketball team and he watched television and he knew uh whatever Beverly Hill what whatever I don't know whatever it was he was able to relate to American kids in a way that few Russia Shivas were able to. So kids would come to the United States from co-ed modern Orthodox high schools and they would go to Mir which was a totally different world and they would see this Roshiva dressed all in black and Ml was hard to talk to him. It was a little scary because he was shaking and then he would start talking about jump shots and debate teams and television. >> Huh? My fing old show was a man when he died he was like uh 80 something. I mean he's our generation. >> Yeah. >> Most of us went myself included to co. >> That that's correct. That that is correct. Yeah. >> I mean I was invited to the boys mitzvah parties when I was a >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> But I was not allowed to dance with boys. So I was one of the only girls there that just >> But we were allowed to go and that didn't mean we went we came from terrible backgrounds. >> Yeah. I understand that. But the point I'm making is that things get redefined and reccharacterized today. Right. >> Redefined. >> Oh yeah. Yeah. I agree. I agree. So my point was that Ravin did not escape his background. He took his background and that became the key to his success in connecting to people of all different backgrounds. Now, I know another rush. I'm not going to mention names, obviously. Well, I actually don't know the rush. I know his sister. And his sister calls me up every once in a while to complain about her brother. Her brother is a very eminent person who, as the sister describes it, came from a very modern orthodox place where co-ed and everything else, but now, well, the way she describes it pretends that that never existed. Uh she complains that when their mother came to make aliyah, her name was Zahava, he changed it to Gula because Zahava is too Zionistic, whatever it would be. Uh and uh whatever. So she says, you know, he is denying his heritage. He is making believe that he didn't have this life when in fact he had this life. Okay? You know, there are reasons for that too. I I don't want to get into I'm getting into too many controversial issues. Uh but the point I want to make is that Rafinkle never ever ever denied where he came from and he never disparaged where he came from. >> He recognized its strengths. He recognized its mileas and what he did was he took the good parts of that environment. Chicago in particular if you know the Midwest I lived in Chicago for four years. Friendly place, open place. He took those qualities. He brought it to his and that is the chuva of reclamation. That's the chuva of rash not the chuva mitzvah. So uh that's what we have to do as well to kind of celebrate our lives and use all of our experiences in building our unique relationship with with hakadesh. So thank you [Music] Monday. [Music] Oh my n