The Siege of Beirut

In the summer of 1982, the Israeli army placed a siege on Beirut in a successful attempt to force the PLO out of Lebanon. On August 6th, then Chief Rabbi of Israel R. Shlomo Goren published an article in the newspaper Hatzofeh in which he argued that, according to Jewish law, the siege must allow terrorists to escape the city. Understandably, this caused a bit of a furor and R. Shaul Yisraeli wrote a letter* in response. R. Goren responded in turn and the exchange was published in Hatzofeh on Sep. 17th. R. Yisraeli published an article on the subject the next year in the journal Techumin (vol. 4). [* The letter was intended to be private but due to a confusion at the newspaper was printed without R. Yisraeli's permission. This led to an exchange over whether one may publish Torah insights without permission from the author. See the above issue of Techumin.]

R. Goren's argument is as follows (as published in Toras Ha-Medinah, ch. 28):
Click here to read more
I. The Sifrei (on Numbers 31:7) extrapolates from the war on Midian that when laying siege, a Jewish army may only block off three sides but must leave a fourth side open for those under siege to escape. This is quoted as law by the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Melakhim 6:7), Ramban (Sefer Ha-Mitzvos, addenda to positive commandments no. 5) and Sefer Ha-Chinukh (527). The siege on Beirut, therefore must allow those under siege to escape.

II. The Ramban and the Chinukh state that this mitzvah only applies to a optional war (milchemes reshus), such as a war to conquer new land. But a mandatory war (milchemes mitzvah), such as war against Amalek, the 7 nations or to defend Jews, does not have such a requirement and a full siege may be placed. The Lebanon War was a defensive war and thus obligatory (see R. J. David Bleich, "Preemptive War in Jewish Law" in Tradition 21:1 [Spring 1983], sec. VII [reprinted in Contemporary Halakhic Problems vol. 3]). If so, then according to the Ramban and the Chinukh the siege on Beirut could be complete. However, R. Goren argues that the Ramban and the Chinukh were only referring to the first two types of mandatory wars -- wars against Amalek and the 7 nation -- when we are obligated to kill every single person. That is why we may not allow people to escape a siege. But a defensive war is similar to a milchemes reshus and the siege must allow people to escape.

III. The Minchas Chinukh asks how anyone can say that this rule does not apply to a mandatory war when its entire source is from the war against Midian, a mandatory war! R. Goren suggests that wars outside the land of Israel automatically gain the status of an optional war. Therefore, the war against Midian was technically an optional war. If so, the war in Lebanon is also an optional war and the rule regarding sieges should still apply.

IV. R. Goren compared this rule to that requiring that before we attack anyone we attempt to establish peace first. That is clearly a humanitarian commandment, attempting to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Similarly, the obligation to allow an escape route in a siege is also a humanitarian commandment to avoid war, i.e. let them escape and allow us to win. This comparison between the two commandments is evident in the Rambam's including both in the same chapter of Mishneh Torah and the Chinukh including them in the same commandment.

R. Shaul Yisraeli responded:

I. The Rambam, in formulating this rule in Mishneh Torah, writes that it applies when one sieges a city in order to conquer it. This implies that it only applies to an optional war, when the war is to conquer new land, and not a defensive/mandatory war. Thus, all three rishonim only apply this rule to an optional war, which the war in Lebanon was not.

II. This rule was extrapolated from the war against Midian -- a mandatory war -- because that war was historically unique and comparable to a contemporary optional war in that there was no command to directly kill the enemy. Thus, an escape route was required.

III. The Meshech Chokhmah (Numbers 31:7) points out that the Rambam does not list this commandment in Sefer Ha-Mitzvos while Ramban does. He explains that according to the Rambam this rule is a military tactic, i.e. the best way to create a siege is to leave a side open so the fighters have an escape route and do not need to fight to the end. Therefore, it is part of the laws of making war and not a mitzvah unto itself. According to the Ramban, though, this is a humanitarian law. Therefore, according to the Rambam this rule only applies when the tactic is appropriate but according to the Ramban it always applies (albeit, only to a permitted war). While R. Goren adduces problems for this explanation (e.g. the Rambam still includes the commandment in Mishneh Torah and we do not dismiss a commandment simply because its rationale does not apply), R. Yisraeli defends it. However, R. Yisraeli also suggests that according to the Rambam this rule is part of the law prohibiting killing an idolator who does not want to fight us, which is why the Rambam did not list it in Sefer Ha-Mitzvos.

IV. R. Yisraeli vigorously objects to R. Goren's connecting the commandments to request peace (before launching a war) and leaving an escape route in a siege as similar humanitarian laws. They are entirely unconnected. The former is to afford the enemy the chance to be surrender and be subjugated under Jewish rule while only the latter is a humanitarian law.

Three notes:

1. R. Goren concludes by noting that the Israeli army fulfilled this commandment in the siege of Beirut. I saw that R. Yehudah Gershuni, in his article in Arakhim Be-Mivchan Milchamah, implicitly agrees with R. Goren and notes that the siege in Beirut complied with this halakhah.

2. Everyone agrees that civilians must be allowed to leave a siege and the enemies may be prevented from entering a siege (or bringing in supplies). The only discussion is regarding soldiers that are under siege.

3. For what little it's worth, in this debate I generally found R. Goren to be more convincing, although R. Yisraeli does have some strong arguments on certain points.

Dr. Arye Edrei discusses this debate in part VI of his article "Divine Spirit and Physical Power: Rabbi Shlomo Goren and the Military Ethic of the Israel Defense Forces", available online here (PDF -- thanks to Menachem Butler for directing me to this article). I did not see his understanding of R. Yisraeli's position in R. Yisraeli's writings on this subject.

In the most recent issue of Tradition, R. Yitzchak Blau discusses this subject briefly in his article "Biblical Narratives and the Status of Enemy Civilians in Wartime" (link), pp. 17-18. However, his analysis does not take note of the debate between R. Goren and R. Yisraeli, although he apparently sides with R. Goren.