Jews have had an ambivalent relationship to the nuclear bomb, largely drawing from the experience of WWII and the Holocaust.
R. Shlomo M. Brody
~ Do you agree with R. Brody? Would it be easier not to be ambivalent?
~ What are the positives of having nuclear weapons? What are the negatives?
A little bit of history
(from Jews and the Atom Bomb, https://bje.org.au/course/jewish-people-2/famous-jews/atom-bomb/)
An extraordinary number of 20th century Jewish scientists were drawn into the field of nuclear research. As the Nazi dragnet tightened, dozens of them fled Europe and joined the USA’s Manhattan Project, which built and detonated the first atomic bomb in July 1945.
Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity paved the way for investigation into nuclear fission. In 1939 he urged President Roosevelt to build an atomic bomb before Nazi Germany. In later years he opposed the use of atomic weapons.
Leo Szilard (1898-1964), born in Budapest, helped Enrico Fermi conduct the first controlled nuclear chain reaction. He later demanded curbs on atomic weapons.
Niels Bohr (1885-1962) was the first to apply quantum theory to explain nuclear structure. Born in Denmark to a Christian father and Jewish mother, Bohr worked with Ernest Rutherford in Britain. He won a Nobel Prize in 1922, and narrowly escaped Denmark in 1943, pursued by Nazis. He worked on the Manhattan Project with his son Aage, yet also sought to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.
Lise Meitner (1878-1968) was born in Vienna and became a pioneer of research into nuclear fission. She analysed the results with her nephew, Otto Frisch.
Enrico Fermi (1901-1954) was born in Rome. With Walter Zinn, Fermi directed the first controlled nuclear chain reaction in 1942 at the University of Chicago.
J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967), US-born theoretical physicist, was chosen to direct the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos in 1942. On July 16, 1945, his team exploded the world’s first atomic bomb. Three months later he resigned as project director and opposed development of the H-bomb. Oppenheimer was accused of Communist sympathies by the McCarthyites, but was exonerated.
Hungarian-born Edward Teller led the US team that developed the first hydrogen bomb. Considerably more powerful than the atomic bomb, the H-bomb uses nuclear fusion rather than fission. The first H-bomb was exploded in 1952. Teller later strongly advocated the need for Western nuclear superiority.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s the Labor politician Shimon Peres launched Israel’s nuclear energy (and arms) program near Dimonah in the Negev Desert. In the 1980s, Mordechai Vanunu, a Moroccan immigrant working at Dimonah, told British newspapers about Israel’s secret nuclear arms capability. He was abducted by the Mossad (Israeli intelligence service), convicted of treason and incarcerated in Israel.
Joseph Rotblat (b. 1908), a Polish-born British physicist, won the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for his continuing work with the anti-war Pugwash Conferences group. He had quit the Manhattan Project in 1944, and in 1955 joined Bertrand Russell and Einstein in advocating nuclear disarmament and world peace.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a67df/a67dfa64837d876ec4e93610deb2a48cca9e7806" alt=""
Albert Einstein and Leo Szillard working together
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a62a7/a62a7230e5053969f68f6c49cce206ee5a9bbdd7" alt=""
~ Eric Jette, Charles Critchfield, and J. Robert Oppenheimer, Los Alamos, New Mexico
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/53552/53552564620aa7dae2b340dffaf44dd93b18bf24" alt=""
~ The Trinity test, July 16, 1945
Einstein drafted his famous letter with the help of the Hungarian émigré physicist Leo Szilard, one of a number of European scientists who had fled to the United States in the 1930s to escape Nazi and Fascist repression. Szilard was among the most vocal of those advocating a program to develop bombs based on recent findings in nuclear physics and chemistry. Those like Szilard and fellow Hungarian refugee physicists Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner regarded it as their responsibility to alert Americans to the possibility that German scientists might win the race to build an atomic bomb and to warn that Hitler would be more than willing to resort to such a weapon. But Roosevelt, preoccupied with events in Europe, took over two months to meet with Sachs after receiving Einstein's letter. Szilard and his colleagues interpreted Roosevelt's inaction as unwelcome evidence that the President did not take the threat of nuclear warfare seriously.
Roosevelt wrote Einstein back on October 19, 1939, informing the physicist that he had set up a committee consisting of civilian and military representatives to study uranium. Events proved that the President was a man of considerable action once he had chosen a direction. In fact, Roosevelt's approval of uranium research in October 1939, based on his belief that the United States could not take the risk of allowing Hitler to achieve unilateral possession of "extremely powerful bombs," was merely the first decision among many that ultimately led to the establishment of the Manhattan Project. (from: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1939-1942/einstein_letter.htm )
Share with students:
https://www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-photos-before-after
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki offer a partial view of the effects of a potential future nuclear war. The weapons were very small by present-day standards, the culture and the era were different, and there was neither warning no knowledge of radiation. The Hiroshima bomb, at about the equivalent of 12,500 tons of TNT, would now be regarded as a small battlefield weapon or merely as a detonator of a 1-megaton strategic bomb. The Medical Implications of Nuclear War, Fredric Solomon, Robert Q. Marston, 1986 |
Israel and the Bomb
"The idea that Israel should acquire a nuclear-weapon capability is as old as the state itself. In the early days it took more than a little chuzpa to believe that tiny Israel could launch a nuclear program, but for a state born out of the Holocaust and surrounded by the hostile Arab world, not to do so would have been irresponsible. David Ben Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, entertained the vision early on, but until the mid-1950s it was no more than a hope for the future. In 1955-58, however, following his return to power and the establishment of special relations with France, sufficient resources became available to initiate a national nuclear project.
"Three men set the nuclear project in motion: the nation's political leader, his chief scientist, and his chief executive officer. Ben Gurion believed that Israeli scientists could provide the ultimate answer to Israel's security problem. Ernst David Bergmann, an organic chemist, tutored Ben Gurion in nuclear matters for many years. Shimon Peres exploited the international opportunity to make the dream into a reality. Without these men the Israeli program would likely not have been launched.
...
"From 1935 until 1948, as chairman of the Jewish Agency Executive, the governing body of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine), he led the campaign which ended in the creation of Israel. The backdrop for his tireless campaign was the rise of Nazism, the Second World War, and the Holocaust.
Israel's nuclear project was conceived in the shadow of the Holocaust, and the lessons of the Holocaust provided the justification and motivation for the project. Without the Holocaust we cannot understand either the depth of Ben Gurion's commitment to acquiring nuclear weapons or his inhibitions about nuclear-weapon policy. Over the years Ben Gurion's fears and anxieties became national policy.
"The story of the Yishuv leaders during the Holocaust was essentially one of helplessness," writes Tom Segev. The determination not to be helpless again, a commitment to the idea that Jews should control their own fate, characterized Ben Gurion's determined campaign for Jewish statehood after the Second World War. It also inspired his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
(Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 1998)
"We are inferior to other peoples in our numbers, dispersion, and the characteristics of our political life, but no other people is superior to us in its intellectual prowess. Until now we have disseminated our intellectual capital in foreign lands, and helped many nations in the great scientific achievements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ... There is no reason why the genius of science would not blossom and flourish in this native land." David Ben-Gurion, With What Will We Face the Future (1948)
"I do not know of any other nation whose neighbors declare that they wish to terminate it, and not only declare, but prepare for it by all means available to them. We must have no illusions that what is declared every day in Cairo, Damascus, Iraq are just words. This is the thought that guides the Arab leaders. ...
Our numbers are small, and there is no chance that we could compare ourselves with America's 180 million, or with any Arab neighboring state. There is one thing, however, in which we are not inferior to any other people in the world--this is the Jewish brain. And science, if a lay person like myself could say, starts from the brain. And the Jewish brain does not disappoint; Jewish science does not disappoint. ...
I am confident, based not only on what I heard today, that our science can provide us with the weapons that are needed to deter our enemies from waging war against us. I am confident that science is able to provide us with the weapon that will secure the peace, and deter our enemies."
David Ben-Gurion, Farewell address to the Armaments Development Authority, June 27, 1963
~ What are the fears expressed by Ben Gurion in these excerpts? How does having nuclear weapons address those fears?
Masada
Josephus, War of the Jews, Book 7, chapters 8-9, excerpts (available at: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-7.html)
When Bassus was dead in Judea, Flavius Silva succeeded him, as procurator there [about A.D. 73]. Who when he saw that all the rest of the country was subdued in this war, and that there was but one only strong hold that was still in rebellion, he got all his army together, that lay in different places, and made an expedition against it. This fortress was called Masada. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii that had seized upon it. ... [T]he Sicarii got together against those that were willing to submit to the Romans, and treated them, in all respects, as if they had been their enemies: both by plundering them of what they had; by driving away their cattle; and by setting fire to their houses. For they said, that they differed not at all from foreigners, by betraying, in so cowardly a manner, that freedom which Jews thought worthy to be contended for to the utmost: and by owning that they preferred slavery under the Romans, before such a contention. ... For those that were partners with them in their rebellion, joined also with them in the war against the Romans: and went farther lengths with them in their impudent undertakings against them. ... And indeed that was a time most fertile in all manner of wicked practices: insomuch that no kind of evil deeds were then left undone. Nor could any one so much as devise any bad thing that was new: so deeply were they all infected, and strove with one another in their single capacity, and in their communities, who should run the greatest lengths in impiety towards God, and in unjust actions towards their neighbours. The men of power oppressing the multitude: and the multitude earnestly labouring to destroy the men of power. The one part were desirous of tyrannizing over others; and the rest of offering violence to others; and of plundering such as were richer than themselves. ... that sort of people that were called zealots grew up: and who indeed corresponded to the name. For they imitated every wicked work. Nor if their memory suggested any evil thing that had formerly been done, did they avoid zealously to pursue the same. And although they gave themselves that name from their zeal for what was good, yet did it agree to them only by way of irony: on account of those they had unjustly treated by their wild and brutish disposition; or as thinking the greatest mischiefs to be the greatest good. ...
For now it was that the Roman general came, and led his army against Eleazar, and those Sicarii who held the fortress Masada together with him. And for the whole country adjoining he presently gained it, and put garrisons into the most proper places of it. He also built a wall quite round the intire fortress; that none of the besieged might easily escape. He also set his men to guard the several parts of it. He also pitched his camp in such an agreeable place as he had chosen for the siege; and at which place the rock belonging to the fortress did make the nearest approach to the neighbouring mountain: which yet was a place of difficulty for getting plenty of provisions. For it was not only food that was to be brought from a great distance [to the army], and this with a great deal of pain to those Jews who were appointed for that purpose; but water was also to be brought to the camp: because the place afforded no fountain that was near it. When therefore Silva had ordered these affairs beforehand, he fell to besieging the place. Which siege was likely to stand in need of a great deal of skill and pains; by reason of the strength of the fortress: the nature of which I will now describe.... When Silva saw [the several defenses], he thought it best to endeavour the taking of this wall by setting fire to it. So he gave order that the soldiers should throw a great number of burning torches upon it. Accordingly, as it was chiefly made of wood, it soon took fire: and when it was once set on fire, its hollowness made that fire spread to a mighty flame. Now at the very beginning of this fire, a north wind that then blew proved terrible to the Romans. For by bringing the flame downward, it drove it upon them: and they were almost in despair of success: as fearing their machines would be burnt. But after this, on a sudden, the wind changed into the south: as if it were done by divine providence: and blew strongly the contrary way, and carried the flame, and drove it against the wall: which was now on fire through its intire thickness. So the Romans, having now assistance from God, returned to their camp with joy; and resolved to attack their enemies the very next day. On which occasion they set their watch more carefully that night, lest any of the Jews should run away from them, without being discovered.
However, neither did Eleazar once think of flying away; nor would he permit any one else to do so. But when he saw their wall burned down by the fire; and could devise no other way of escaping, or room for their farther courage; and setting before their eyes what the Romans would do to them, their children, and their wives, if they got them into their power; he consulted about having them all slain. Now as he judged this to be the best thing they could do in their present circumstances, he gathered the most courageous of his companions together, and encouraged them to take that course: by a speech which he made to them, in the manner following:
“Since we long ago, my generous friends, resolved never to be servants to the Romans, nor to any other than to God himself, who alone is the true and just lord of mankind; the time is now come that obliges us to make that resolution true in practice. And let us not at this time bring a reproach upon our selves for self contradiction; while we formerly would not undergo slavery, though it were then without danger; but must now, together with slavery, [accept] such punishments [that] are intolerable. I mean this upon the supposition that the Romans once reduce us under their power while we are alive. We were the very first that revolted from them; and we are the last that fight against them. And I cannot but esteem it as a favour that God hath granted us, that ’tis still in our power to die bravely, and in a state of freedom. Which has not been the case of others, who were conquered unexpectedly. ’Tis very plain that we shall be taken within a days time: but ’tis still an eligible thing to die, after a glorious manner, together with our dearest friends. This is what our enemies themselves cannot by any means hinder: although they be very desirous to take us alive. Nor can we propose to our selves any more to fight them, and beat them. It had been proper indeed for us to have conjectured at the purpose of God much sooner; and at the very first; when we were so desirous of defending our liberty; and when we received such sore treatment from one another, and worse treatment from our enemies: and to have been sensible that the same God, who had of old took the Jewish nation into his favour, had now condemned them to destruction. For had he either continued favourable, or been but in a lesser degree displeased with us, he had not overlooked the destruction of so many men, or delivered his most holy city to be burnt; and demolished by our enemies. To be sure we weakly hoped to have preserved our selves, and our selves alone still in a state of freedom; as if we had been guilty of no sins our selves against God; nor been partners with those of others. We also taught other men to preserve their liberty. Wherefore consider how God hath convinced us, that our hopes were in vain, by bringing such distress upon us, in the desperate state we are now in, and which is beyond all our expectations. For the nature of this fortress, which was in it self unconquerable, has not proved a means of our deliverance. And even while we have still great abundance of food, and a great quantity of arms, and other necessaries, more than we want, we are openly deprived by God himself of all hope of deliverance. For that fire which was driven upon our enemies, did not, of its own accord, turn back upon the wall which we had built. This was the effect of God’s anger against us, for our manifold sins, which we have been guilty of in a most insolent and extravagant manner, with regard to our own countrymen. The punishments of which let us not receive from the Romans, but from God himself, as executed by our own hands. For these will be more moderate than the other. Let our wives die before they are abused; and our children before they have tasted of slavery. And after we have slain them, let us bestow that glorious benefit upon one another mutually; and preserve our selves in freedom, as an excellent funeral monument for us. But first let us destroy our money, and the fortress by fire. For I am well assured that this will be a great grief to the Romans; that they shall not be able to seize upon our bodies, and shall fall of our wealth also. And let us spare nothing but our provisions. For they will be a testimonial, when we are dead, that we were not subdued for want of necessaries: but that, according to our original resolution, we have preferred death before slavery.” [there is more but we stop here with the speech]
... Now as Eleazar was proceeding on in his exhortation, they all cut him off short, and made haste to do the work, as full of an unconquerable ardor of mind, and moved with a demoniacal fury. So they went their ways, as one still endeavouring to be before another; and as thinking that this eagerness would be a demonstration of their courage, and good conduct; if they could avoid appearing in the last class. So great was the zeal they were in to slay their wives, and children, and themselves also. Nor indeed, when they came to the work itself, did their courage fail them, as one might imagine it would have done: but they then held fast the same resolution, without wavering, which they had upon the hearing of Eleazar’s speech, while yet every one of them still retained the natural passion of love to themselves, and their families: because the reasoning they went upon appeared to them to be very just, even with regard to those that were dearest to them. For the husbands tenderly embraced their wives, and took their children into their arms, and gave the longest parting kisses to them, with tears in their eyes. Yet at the same time did they complete what they had resolved on; as if they had been executed by the hands of strangers. And they had nothing else for their comfort, but the necessity they were in of doing this execution, to avoid that prospect they had of the miseries they were to suffer from their enemies. .... They then chose ten men by lot, out of them; to slay all the rest. Every one of whom laid himself down by his wife, and children, on the ground, and threw his arms about them, and they offered their necks to the stroke of those who by lot executed that melancholy office. And when these ten had, without fear, slain them all, they made the same rule for casting lots for themselves; that he whose lot it was should first kill the other nine; and after all should kill himself. Accordingly all these had courage sufficient to be no way behind one another in doing or suffering. So, for a conclusion, the nine offered their necks to the executioner; and he who was the last of all took a view of all the other bodies; lest perchance some or other among so many that were slain should want his assistance to be quite dispatched: and when he perceived that they were all slain, he set fire to the palace, and with the great force of his hand ran his sword entirely through himself, and fell down dead near to his own relations. So these people died with this intention, that they would not leave so much as one soul among them all alive to be subject to the Romans. Yet was there an ancient woman, and another who was of kin to Eleazar, and superior to most women in prudence and learning, with five children: who had concealed themselves in caverns under ground; and had carried water thither for their drink; and were hidden there when the rest were intent upon the slaughter of one another. Those others were nine hundred and sixty in number: the women, and children being withal included in that computation. This calamitous slaughter was made on the fifteenth day of the month Xanthicus [Nisan] [A.D. 73].
Now for the Romans, they expected that they should be fought in the morning: when accordingly they put on their armour, and laid bridges of planks upon their ladders from their banks, to make an assault upon the fortress. Which they did. But saw nobody as an enemy, but a terrible solitude on every side, with a fire within the place, as well as a perfect silence. So they were at a loss to guess at what had happened. At length they made a shout, as if it had been at a blow given by the battering ram, to try whether they could bring any one out that was within. The women heard this noise, and came out of their under ground cavern; and informed the Romans what had been done, as it was done: and the second of them clearly described all both what was said, and what was done; and the manner of it. Yet did they not easily give their attention to such a desperate undertaking, and did not believe it could be as they said. They also attempted to put the fire out, and quickly cutting themselves a way through it, they came within the palace, and so met with the multitude of the slain: but could take no pleasure in the fact, though it were done to their enemies. Nor could they do other than wonder at the courage of their resolution, and the immoveable contempt of death which so great a number of them had shewn, when they went through with such an action as that was.
(א) כָּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצֻוִּין עַל קִדּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב לב) "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל". וּמֻזְהָרִין שֶׁלֹּא לְחַלְּלוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב לב) "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי". כֵּיצַד. כְּשֶׁיַּעֲמֹד עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וְיֶאֱנֹס אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲבֹר עַל אַחַת מִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה אוֹ יַהַרְגֶּנּוּ יַעֲבֹר וְאַל יֵהָרֵג שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּמִּצְוֹת (ויקרא יח ה) "אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אוֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם". וָחַי בָּהֶם וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם. וְאִם מֵת וְלֹא עָבַר הֲרֵי זֶה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ:
(ב) בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת חוּץ מֵעֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכַת דָּמִים. אֲבָל שָׁלֹשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת אֵלּוּ אִם יֹאמַר לוֹ עֲבֹר עַל אַחַת מֵהֶן אוֹ תֵּהָרֵג. יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבֹר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים מִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲנָאַת עַצְמוֹ. כְּגוֹן שֶׁאֲנָסוֹ לִבְנוֹת לוֹ בֵּיתוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ לְבַשֵּׁל לוֹ תַּבְשִׁילוֹ. אוֹ אָנַס אִשָּׁה לְבָעֳלָהּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. אֲבָל אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַעֲבִירוֹ עַל הַמִּצְוֹת בִּלְבַד. אִם הָיָה בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ וְאֵין שָׁם עֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יַעֲבֹר וְאַל יֵהָרֵג. וְאִם אֲנָסוֹ לְהַעֲבִירוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבֹר. וַאֲפִלּוּ לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַעֲבִירוֹ אֶלָּא עַל מִצְוָה מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת בִּלְבַד:
(ג) וְכָל הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵרָה אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַגְּזֵרָה וְהוּא שֶׁיַּעֲמֹד מֶלֶךְ רָשָׁע כִּנְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר וַחֲבֵרָיו וְיִגְזֹר גְּזֵרָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבַטֵּל דָּתָם אוֹ מִצְוָה מִן הַמִּצְוֹת. יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבֹר אֲפִלּוּ עַל אַחַת מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת בֵּין נֶאֱנָס בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה בֵּין נֶאֱנָס בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים:
(ד) כָּל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ יַעֲבֹר וְאַל יֵהָרֵג וְנֶהֱרַג וְלֹא עָבַר הֲרֵי זֶה מִתְחַיֵּב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. וְכָל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבֹר וְנֶהֱרַג וְלֹא עָבַר הֲרֵי זֶה קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם. וְאִם הָיָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה קִדֵּשׁ אֶת הַשֵּׁם בָּרַבִּים כְּדָנִיֵּאל חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵרָיו. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת שֶׁאֵין מַעֲלָה עַל מַעֲלָתָן. וַעֲלֵיהֶן נֶאֱמַר (תהילים מד כג) "כִּי עָלֶיךָ הֹרַגְנוּ כָל הַיּוֹם נֶחְשַׁבְנוּ כְּצֹאן טִבְחָה". וַעֲלֵיהֶם נֶאֱמַר (תהילים נ ה) "אִסְפוּ לִי חֲסִידָי כֹּרְתֵי בְרִיתִי עֲלֵי זָבַח". וְכָל מִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבֹר וְעָבַר וְלֹא נֶהֱרַג הֲרֵי זֶה מְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם. וְאִם הָיָה בַּעֲשָׂרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הֲרֵי זֶה חִלֵּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם בָּרַבִּים וּבִטֵּל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהִיא קִדּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם וְעָבַר עַל מִצְוַת לֹא תַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהִיא חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן מִפְּנֵי שֶׁעָבַר בְּאֹנֶס אֵין מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ בֵּית דִּין אֲפִלּוּ הָרַג בְּאֹנֶס. שֶׁאֵין מַלְקִין וּמְמִיתִין אֶלָּא לְעוֹבֵר בִּרְצוֹנוֹ וּבְעֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּנוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמּלֶךְ (ויקרא כ ה) "(וְנָתַתִּי) [וְשַׂמְתִּי] אֲנִי אֶת פָּנַי בָּאִישׁ הַהוּא". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ הַהוּא לֹא אָנוּס וְלֹא שׁוֹגֵג וְלֹא מֻטְעֶה. וּמָה אִם עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁהִיא חֲמוּרָה מִן הַכּל הָעוֹבֵד אוֹתָהּ בְּאֹנֶס אֵינוֹ חַיָּב כָּרֵת וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר מִיתַת בֵּית דִּין. קַל וָחֹמֶר לִשְׁאָר מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וּבַעֲרָיוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים כב כו) "וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר". אֲבָל אִם יָכוֹל לְמַלֵּט נַפְשׁוֹ וְלִבְרֹחַ מִתַּחַת יַד הַמֶּלֶךְ הָרָשָׁע וְאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה הִנֵּה הוּא כְּכֶלֶב שָׁב עַל קֵאוֹ. וְהוּא נִקְרָא עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים בְּמֵזִיד וְהוּא נִטְרָד מִן הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא וְיוֹרֵד לַמַּדְרֵגָה הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה שֶׁל גֵּיהִנֹּם:
(ה) נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ לָהֶם עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים תְּנוּ לָנוּ אַחַת מִכֶּן וּנְטַמֵּא אוֹתָהּ וְאִם לָאו נְטַמֵּא אֶת כֻּלְּכֶן יִטָּמְאוּ כֻּלָּן וְאַל יִמְסְרוּ לָהֶם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. וְכֵן אִם אָמְרוּ לָהֶם עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים תְּנוּ לָנוּ אֶחָד מִכֶּם וְנַהַרְגֶּנּוּ וְאִם לָאו נַהֲרֹג כֻּלְּכֶם. יֵהָרְגוּ כֻּלָּם וְאַל יִמְסְרוּ לָהֶם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. וְאִם יִחֲדוּהוּ לָהֶם וְאָמְרוּ תְּנוּ לָנוּ פְּלוֹנִי אוֹ נַהֲרֹג אֶת כֻּלְּכֶם. אִם הָיָה מְחֻיָּב מִיתָה כְּשֶׁבַע בֶּן בִּכְרִי יִתְּנוּ אוֹתוֹ לָהֶם. וְאֵין מוֹרִין לָהֶם כֵּן לְכַתְּחִלָּה. וְאִם אֵינוֹ חַיָּב מִיתָה יֵהָרְגוּ כֻּלָּן וְאַל יִמְסְרוּ לָהֶם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:
(1) It is mandatory upon the whole house of Israel to sanctify this Great Name, for it is said: "And I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel" (Lev. 22.32). They are also charged not to blaspheme Him, for it is said: "And ye shall not profane My holy Name" (Ibid.). How are these commandments to be observed? If an idolater will force an Israelite to transgress one of the commandments of the Torah and threaten him with death for disobedience, it is mandatory that he transgress the commandment and be not put to death, for it is said concerning the commandments: "That which a man may do and live by it" (Ibid. 18.5)—"live by it, but not die for it". 1Sanhedrin, 74a; Yoma 85a; Abodah Zarah, 26b. C. G.Thus, if he chose death and did not transgress, his blood be upon his own head.
(2) Whereat are these words directed? Concerning all other commandments, save idolatry, adultery and blood-shed. For respecting these three commandments, if one will say to him: "Transgress one of the three, or die," he shall die, and not transgress. Whereat are these words directed? When the idolater intends to have a personal enjoyment, as when he forces an Israelite to build his house, or cook his meals on a Sabbath, or when he forces a Jewish woman, and in like matters; but if he merely intended to make him violate commandments, then, if it happen between themselves, and there be no ten Israelites present, it is mandatory to transgress and not die; but if he forces him to go astray from one of the commandments in the presence of ten Israelites, he must suffer death and not transgress, even though the idolater did not intend to lead him astray save from one of the rest of the commandments.
(3) And all these words are directed at a time which is not under pressure of arbitrary edicts, but at a time of arbitrary edicts such as when a wicked king, like Nebuchadnezzar and his associates arise and issue an edict against Israel to violate their religion, or one of the commandments, then he should die and not transgress even one of the other commandments, whether he is forced to do the transgression in the presence of ten, or whether the compulsion will be between himself and the idolater.
(4) Whosoever, of whom it is said that he shall transgress and not die, if he die and did not transgress, the guilt thereof be upon his soul;2Ibid. 27. Tosfot commends such act. C. G. and whosoever, concerning whom it is said that he shall die and not transgress, and he did die and did not transgress, he sanctified the Name of God; and if this happened in the presence of ten Israelites, he sanctified the Name of God among many, even like unto Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah and Rabbi Akiba and his associates, who have been slain by decree of a tyrannical government to which degree of martyrdom there is no parallel, concerning whom it is said: "But for Thy sake we are killed all the day; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter" (Ps. 44.23); and concerning whom it is moreover said: "Gather my saints together unto me, those that have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice" (Ibid. 50.5). And whosoever, concerning whom it is said that he shall die and not transgress, did transgress and did not die, blasphemed the Name of God, and if he did this in the presence of ten Israelites, he blasphemed the Name of God in the presence of many, violated the mandatory commandment of the sanctification of God, and transgressed the prohibitive commandment of blasphemy. Nevertheless, because he committed the transgression in duress, he is not lashed, needless to say that no punishment of death is inflicted upon him by a tribunal, even though he commit murder in duress; for no punishment of either lashes or death is inflicted unless one commits the crime willfully in the presence of witnesses, and received a warning not to do it, even as it is said of one who sacrifices his children to Mollech: "And I will set my face against that man" (Lev. 20.3), which is traditionally understood to mean that that man was not under duress, nor in error, nor in ignorance. Now, if idolatry, which is the capital offense of them all, yet whosoever worships it in duress, is not guilty to be cut off from among his people, not to say of being put to death by a tribunal, a minori ad majus that an offense against the other commandments enumerated in the Torah should remain as the major premise. Furthermore, concerning adultery it is said: "But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing" (Deut. 22. 26).3She was under duress. G. But if he can save his life and flee from the jurisdiction of such a wicked king, and he does it not, he is likened unto a dog that returneth to his vomit, and is called a willful worshipper of idolatry, and is deprived of the world to come, for he will descend into the nethermost level of the Gehenna.
(5) If idolaters will demand one of a group of women, saying: "Yield us one of among you and we will defile her, if not we will defile you all", let all be defiled, rather than surrender to them one soul in Israel.4Terumot, 8.12. C. G. Likewise, if idolaters will say to a group of men: "Yield us one of you and we will kill him, if not we will kill you all", let all of them be killed rather than surrender to them one soul in Israel. If, however, they single out the one, saying: "Give us that man, if not we will kill you all", if he be guilty of a capital crime, as, for example, Sheba son of Bichri5See Second Samuel; 20. 1. G., they may surrender him to them, but it is not commendable to advise them to do so; if he be not guilty of a capital crime, they all must submit rather than surrender them one soul in Israel.
The RED or DEAD debate, introduction
In the 60's Bertrand Russell asserted that in the event of a Soviet attack, a nuclear counter-response would only lead to mass annihilation. It was far better, he asserted, to live under Communist domination (“red”) than to suffer the annihilation of the human race (“dead”). He further advocated unilateral disarmament as a method of reducing the prospects of such destruction.
In response, philosophers like Sidney Hook contended that unilateral actions would only encourage Soviet aggression. He further passionately argued that some societal lifestyles constitute lives not worth living. “As I read the history of Western culture it seems to me that survival at all costs is not among the values of the West. … The man who declares that survival at all costs is the end of existence is morally dead, because he’s prepared to sacrifice all other values which give life its meaning.” Yet Hook also believed that a strong nuclear deterrent and the willingness to use nuclear weapons in response would indeed prevent a nuclear war.
~ What side do you take? Red or Dead?
~ Is there a distinction to be made between an individual decision and a collective decision?
Lamm's position
As Jewish tradition urged peace, but was not pacifist, so it sanctioned military action but was never militarist. Although war was regarded as evil, there were wars that were considered just, because they were, unfortunately, the only means for removing the evil. The existence of categories of authorized war that fulfilled commandments of God (milchamot mitzvah) indicate the rejection of pacifism as a policy of state, and the approval of certain military actions. There is ample proof from history and from Halakhah that war, as such, is not immoral, but that only an unjust war is immoral.
The Prophets denounce those who cry "'Peace' when there is no peace." The greatest desire for peace cannot, by itself, avert war. "The watchman," Ezekiel cries, "who sees the sword come, and blows not the horn" so that the people may be forewarned for battle, and someone thereby dies in the vain hope of peace, "his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."
But Israel could never be accused of militarism. Rarely was prominence given to military training, nor was the art of war glorified, as in almost all of the histories of ancient and modem peoples. Unlike their neighbors, the Jews never had very much of a standing army. The fact that aggressive wars required the specific permission of a religious court, the Sanhedrin, indicates the rejection of militarism as a policy of state.
... [This is what is] at stake with a decision for "Red." It is not only Judaism that is threatened but the entire religious structure of the West that stands in jeopardy. Communism's militant atheism is of considerable power and is a warfare, there is one overriding consideration - ìs there something that is even more immoral? Our answer is that being reduced to mere physical existence, being denied the Basic Moral character of our people and deprived of that faith which alone has insured the survival of the Jews, is not living. It is worth running the risk of war by providing an effective deterrent to dying internally. It is, indeed, a travesty of martyrdom to use it as an appeal for mass slaughter. But no one desires to do this. Martyrdom is being used as an appeal for the safeguarding of values and morals, and if martyrdom is ultimately required for this purpose, we must walk in the paths of our fathers who did not shrink from the prospect.
(Maurice Lamm, Red or Dead? in Tradition, Spring 1962 Issue 4.2)
[I]n the words of the rabbis, "if a man comes to slay you, forestall by slaying him!" (Rashi; Sanhedrin 72a). Now this law confers the right of self-defense only if the victim will thereby forestall the anticipated attack and save his own life at the expense of the aggressor's. But the defender would certainly not be entitled to frustrate the attack if this could be done only at the cost of both lives; for instance, by blowing up the house in which he and the robber encounter each other. Presumably the victim would then have to submit to the robbery and even to death by violence at the hands of the . attacker rather than take "preventive" action which would be sure to cause two deaths. In view of this vital limitation of the law of self-defense, it would appear that a defensive war likely to endanger the survival of the attacking and the defending nations alike, if not indeed of the entire human race, can never be justified. On the assumption, then, that the choice posed by a threatened nuclear attack would be either complete mutual destruction or surrender, only the second alternative may be morally vindicated. ...
Surely we are not asked or meant to express an opinion on whether Jews or Israel should choose "Red or Dead," but on what we, as Jewish citizens, would urge the free world to decide on the basis of our religious teachings. We could scarcely determine such a choice by the obligation which we, as Jews, owe to our own faith or to the national interest of Israel. Nor are the principles governing Obligatory Wars necessarily applicable to the nations of the world. The religious duty to defend Israel's borders and Judaism, imposed on us by Divine law, is obviously limited to the people of Israel. Moreover, even for Jews I doubt if the laws relating to the Obligatory Wars, or to collective martyrdom, can be applied in the present circumstances. According to Maimonides, the duty to surrender to death rather than to the cardinal sins of idolatry, incest, and bloodshed (i.e., the three supreme offenses against God, oneself and one's neighbor) stems itself from the concept of the "sanctification of the Name" (Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah. 5:1-2) on the basis of the verse "And I shall be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel" (ib., and Lev. 22:32). This implies that martyrs will be survived by other Jews who will be inspired to similar heroism by such a test of faith, or who will at least continue to uphold the sanctity of the Name.
But if the alternative to surrender is the destruction of the whole Jewish people, the sacrifice lacks all meaning, since God can no longer "be sanctified in the midst of the children of Israel." This explain, no doubt, why - the regulations on Obligatory Wars notwithstanding - Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai and his party opposed the Zealots' plan to fight the Roman aggressors to the death, choosing instead to surrender to their godless conquerors rather than to risk the extinction of the Jewish people. And the Romans, after all, were at least as "Red" - in terms of the enslavement and moral degradation inflicted by their conquest - as the Communists are ever likely to be. Yet Rabbinic Judaism never censured Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakai for his fateful decision against "Dead." It is absurd to defend Judaism by risking the liquidation of the last Jew to uphold it. History has triumphantly vindicated the profound wisdom and justice of this historic decision. It would likewise be utter folly to fight for the preservation of our Western ideas at the expense of the human element able to transmit them to future generations. No human group has been confronted more often by the tragic choice between the loss of freedom and the loss of existence than the Jewish people. Its attitude, in broad principle, has always been exemplified by the Psalmist jubilant cry of thanksgiving: "The Lord has chastened me sore; but He has not given me over to death" (Ps. 118:18). The Jew has ever preferred lie with indignity and servitude to death with glory. With every fiber of his being he clung to lie even under the most miserable conditions, holding out, in patient submission to suffering, for the dawn of freedom to break, if not on himself, then at least on his descendants.
We believe that, in the final analysis, the only really effective protection of mankind, as of the Jewish people, from the calamitous peri of both "Red" and "Dead" lies in strengthening our moral and religious defenses.
(Chief Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, Rejoinders, Tradition 4:2 (1962) pg. 202-204, emphasis in the original)
1. ... by applying the categories of obligatory and optional wars to the State of Israel, implies that the State of Israel has the halakhic status of the biblically ordained state with all the rights and privileges that go with that status. All this is far from self-evident to me. The State of Israel is a democratic state which vests all sovereignty in the people and its duly elected representatives. It is the will of the people, as expressed, by the Knesset, that is the source of all law in Israel. It is quite clear that this is a diametrically opposed view to that of the Torah for which the source of all law is the will of God, with the people having the choice of obeying or disobeying the law but never making it. If this is so, then the State of Israel is no more a biblically ordained state than any other modern democracy, which would in turn imply that categories such as obligatory and optional war would no more apply to it than they do to the United States or France. This, of course, leaves open the question as to what halakhic criteria, if any, apply to secular states in the matter of making war, a question which I, for one, am not prepared to answer at short notice.
2. While at the outset of his article he emphasizes his realization that nuclear war is something new because it raises the distinct possibility of eliminating human lie on this planet, he seems to lose sight of this as he gets into the boy of the article. Both optional and obligatory wars are predicated on the chance of winning and thereby of achieving the ends sought. Whether the goal is to destroy the Amalekites or to defend the Jewish people against an aggressor, all of this makes sense only if the Jewish people, or at least a segment of it, can be conceived of as surviving the war and enjoying its fruits. Should it be the case that modern warfare demands, as the price for the total destruction of the enemy the total destruction of the Jewish people, then clearly a new situation has arisen to which the old principles of warfare no longer apply.
Rabbi Lamm is perfectly right in his observation that classical Judaism does not teach the desirability of buying life at all costs. There are certain circumstances when, faced with the choice of death or the transgression of specific commandments, the choice must be death. But I must hasten to add two observations. In prescribing "death rather than transgression" the Halakhah is operating on the level of individual morality. This is a commandment that binds every individual Jew every minute of the day or night, wherever he may be. Even where whole communities have made this choice, they have done so as individuals. Nowhere does the Halakhah speak of the desirability of conducting a war, which is an act of state, with the knowledge of certain defeat. On the individual level the Halakhah does ask the Jew to embark on a course of conduct that will lead to his certain death, if the alternative transgression is serious enough. But it never asks the nation to embark on a course of conduct that will certainly lead to its destruction. The reason for this leads me to my second point. The choice of "death rather than transgression" demands one necessary condition: that the danger of transgression be immediate and specific. This is the reason that it cannot apply to the state as such. Should a Jewish state ever be defeated by a foe bent on exterminating the faith of Israel, there is always time for martyrdom when this or that individual Jew is placed before the choice. It is, of course, otherwise when fighting a war might serve to obviate the necessity for many individual Jews to be placed before such a choice. But that in turn presupposes the possibility of victory, which is precisely the issue at stake here. Where war will lead to the certain annihilation of all mankind, it seems, much more reasonable to wait and let the choice of martyrdom come up on the individual level, keeping in mind that no matter, how efficient a totalitarian system may be, there is always the hope that many individuals will save themselves without transgressing these crucial commandments and thereby insure the survival of the Jewish people.
(Michael Wyschogrod, Rejoinders, Tradition 4:2, 1962, pg. 207-209)
The price [of war] is also paid by the enemy, who is also graced with the Divine image, and one should grieve whenever Gd's creations drown in the sea. On this point, the issue of quantity is meaningful, and one certainly must weigh the justifications for harming many in order to save an individual.
(Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, War and Ethics, Techumin 4 (1983), pg. 185)
When there is no substantive risk to our soldiers, there is no permission to strike lives or property. However, when there is a discernible risk, one must remember that it is not only a matter of weighing one unit opposite a civilian population on the scale. The loss of one unit, or part of it, can affect the entire battle…
(Rabbi Avraham Shapira, War and Ethics, Techumin 4 (1983), pg. 182)
Deuteronomy 20:19... by comparing trees (etz) and humans (adam), it indicates that destruction of environment and destruction of human society go hand in hand. Ultimately, even self-interest requires a transcendent frame of reference.
If, on the other hand, we follow Maimonides opinion that wanton destruction is rabbinic, then... we can simply see this general prohibition as being based on the scriptural affirmation ... "He did not create it to be a wasteland , but He formed it to be a dwelling" (Isaiah 45:18) ... even if the commandment [against wanton destruction] now only applies to a defensive war, the requirement of offering peace terms (Deut. 20:10) to combatants (even to Caananite combatants for whom Deuteronomy 20:16 mandates unconditional massacre), which seems to only apply in an authorized offensive war, was extended by the rabbis to also apply in a defensive war, which is the only authorized war today. Now, if we are not to unconditionally destroy our enemies, then we are not unconditionally to destroy our environment ... this is certainly the case in a situation like the nuclear threat today, where our own destruction entails the destruction of our own environment which would inevitably follow in its wake.
...
1. The evil of nuclear war, which cannot be justified by any usual criteria of temporary destruction for the sake of ultimate victory, is to be emphasized continually. Those who advocate otherwise are like the fools who the Talmud said love their property (symbols of their technological power) more than their own lives (Brachot 61b). Such fools, especially when they occupy positions of political, military or economical power, are not only foolish, they are dangerous. Therefore, it seems to me, normative Jews, who live by the Torah's ideas and precepts, should participate with those who work to publically expose these dangerous delusions of nuclear victory.
2. It seems that bilateral, not unilateral, disarmament is what is required. ... For Americans, especially, this means working to elliminate the bellicose rhetoric too often used by our leaders, rhetoric that exacerbates international tensions and makes disarmament even more remote.
3. Since war and aggression begin with the stubborn and arrogant pride of human beings, which the prophets and sages saw as the source of all sin (Avot 3:1), normative Jews should endeavor in their individual lives and in their various societies to banish from their hearts all arrogance and hatred among themselves and toward others, and pray that God will purify our hearts and enable us to be a light to the nations who in our day are groping in the darkness of the nuclear threat which hangs over all the earth like a terrible sword.
(David Novak, "Nuclear War and Wanton Destruction", in: Confronting Omnicide, ed. Daniel Landes p. 114-116, Jason Aronson 1991)