Introduction 3 RABBINIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSIONS
The subsequent halakhic and philosophical literature made only the most limited effort to provide a theoretical framework for war. Talmudic scholars, far removed from the realities of war, did not elaborate on it. No tractate of the Talmud nor any major section of this vast work dealt with this topic or with the effect of war on noncombatants who have always been the main sufferers. The basis of all subsequent discussion is found in the Mishnah and Talmud (Sotah 44b) as well as parallel statements in the Sifre . The discussion there distinguished between“commanded wars”(Milhemet mitzvah) which are obligatory(hovah) and“permitted wars”(milhemet reshut) which are not obligatory. All of this really centered around the divine command to conquer the land of Israel which had been promised to Abraham and his descendants. Conquering the land of Israel was a commanded war and therefore obligatory while the wars of David and later kings which expanded the territory were not obligatory even though they dealt with lands which could be included in the vague original divine promise and its later interpretations.” A section in Talmud Hor 12 a and b further described the role of the high priest in making the declaration of Deut 20:3-5.°
The exemptions from military service mentioned in Deuteronomy were understood to apply only to the latter kind of warfare. A further discussion of“discretionary war” appeared in Sanhedrin(M. San 2:4; 20a) which demanded that such wars needed the permission of the Great Sanhedrin composed of seventy-one members or perhaps could be simply undertaken by the king. The matter became further complicated by the discussion in Sanhedrin 16a and Berakhot 3b which stated that the king must also seek the advice of the urim vetumin— in other words divine approval given through the priests. These conditions made a“discretionary war” not even theoretically possible.