But, RedNaxela, IMHO, in such a situation, they should have done so anyway.
I can violate Shabbos to save a life, even if the chances of the patient surviving are literally one in a trillion. Likewise, IMHO, the refugees should have fought on the off-off-off-hand chance that (a) they could have won or (b) in the confusion of the battle, some may have been able to escape and survive.
Zev Steinhardt
Captain: I should have expressed myself better. What I meant to say was that in that case, “a Jew must give up his or her life rather than violate any commandment or Jewish practice, not just the Big Three.” (The expression in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 74a-b) is that this applies “even regarding shoelaces” - i.e., if in a particular area Jews customarily wear shoelaces of a different color or style than do non-Jews, and the government attempts to force the Jews to wear the non-Jewish style, then one must resist this even at the cost of one’s life.)
Zev: In general, you’re right - but I can think of several cases where the doubt that a life can be saved is of such an order of magnitude that violating Shabbos is not warranted. One example involves a remedy whose efficacy is unproven and which has not been prescribed by an expert (Mishnah Berurah 328:5); another is the case of a baby which may be premature and therefore nonviable* (ibid. 330:29 and Beur Halachah there); and see Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 329:2 for another case.
In the case of the Jews in the caves, what I wrote was actually part of a longer analysis by R’ Isaac Halevi in his work on Jewish history, Dorot HaRishonim (vol. 2, pp. 340ff). He notes that the parallel account in the first book of Maccabees, where this story is told in greater detail, states that the Jews in the cave didn’t throw stones at the Greek soldiers, nor block the mouth of the cave (2:36) - the implication being that this is the most they could have done: they had no hope of beating off the Greeks, even temporarily, with weapons, since they didn’t have any. (And, I would add: the account in 2 Macc. 6:11, which Captain Amazing cited, states that they were burned to death, which would seem to imply that there was only one way out of the cave - and that way was guarded by the Greek soldiers - so escape was apparently not possible either.)
Based on this and on several other passages in 1 Macc., R’ Halevi explains that these Jews hadn’t fled to the wilderness in order to form a guerrilla force - that came later (1 Macc. 2:41ff) - but simply because they figured that the Greeks wouldn’t come after them there, and they’d be free to observe the Torah in hiding; this was why they were unarmed. So when the army finally did come after them, they were caught flat-footed: even had it been a weekday, there was nothing that they could have done to save their lives, except of course to come out and capitulate to Antiochus’ decrees. (The point of the difference between weekday and Shabbos, then, is simply that had it been a weekday, they would have attempted to hamper the Greek soldiers with rocks and barricades, so as to perhaps cost them some lost lives or wasted effort in their grisly task.)
This, he continues, is the meaning of the following passage (ibid. 2:39-41):
The meaning is that Mattathias & Co. decided that they now would have to arm themselves and start actively defending themselves (and perhaps even going on the offensive), in such a way that they would have some chance of preserving their lives by fighting, which in turn would warrant violating the Shabbos by doing so.
Granted, not everyone agrees with this reconstruction of the events. IIRC, a recent Orthodox historian, R’ Chaim Dov Rabinowitz, in his book Daas Soferim, expresses his reservations about these Jews’ inaction, and argues that they may have misunderstood the relevant laws and sacrificed their lives needlessly (although I don’t recall whether he uses the same arguments that you do).
Izzy - What can I say. Like the Vietnam vets say, you weren’t there, man. You don’t know what it was like.
Kahane was not Newt Gingrich. Gingrich may have been hated by half the poulation, but he was respected by the other half, and more importantly - he was considered a legitimate leader. He was part of the national consensus.
Kahane was not part of any consensus. No Prime Minister - or any government member - would be seen with him in public; nobody running for election wanted his endorsement; no legistlator would ally with him. Right wing pundits would prove their “sanity credentials” by dismissing him; he would be booed of the stage in right-wing political rallies in right wing towns (my wife actually saw this happen near her home in Bat-Yam). If 3% of the country supports you, and the other 97% hates you, you’re not a “polarizing figure.” You’re a crackpot.
Listen, maybe he was more moderate in America, or maybe American Jews see him differently. Because watching you defend him… well, it’s like watching a sane person defend Fred Phelps. It’s disconcerting.
Israel may be sensitive to public opinion, but we’re not ruled by it. The fact that, as I said, we elected Arik Sharon - perhaps the most hated Israeli in the world - to lead us, proves that if a leader is worthy, them kibinimaat the world.
And that’s as far as I’m willing to discuss Kahane. Godwin’s Law, you know.
Sure of that?
I lived in Israel during 1986-88. Kahane was, at that time, a member of the Knesset - I once happened to be in the Knesset and see him address the (empty) Knesset. (Midway through his speech he was thrown out by security for insulting the Knesset Speaker).
In sum; I was there, I do know what it was like, and I continue to disagree.
I believe we’ve reached an impasse here. But - this was something of a hijack to begin with.
;j
To bring the Shabbos-violation discussion back from the times of Antichus to this particular Jews-on-Patrol case:
My point was just that there is an inconsistancy in the ruling. Their own rabbi has rule that they can’t patrol on Shabbos, and since there is no case of Chillul Hashem here, and carrying on Shabbos is not one of the big 3 commandments that one is supposed to die for, the rabbi is implicitly ruling that there is no “clear and present danger” of an attack. If there were, they could patrol on shabbos (just as rabbis have ruled that Jews can carry guns, and drive vehicles on patrol on Shabbos in the West Bank).
Since it is public knowledge that they’re not patroling on Shabbos, any attack that does occur will likely occur on Shabbos.
Therefore, by patroling only on weekdays, they have all the disadvantages of a gun patrol (risk of accidents, wasted time and resources patroling), and none of the advantages (deterence of a potential attack, increased posibilitity of beating an attacker).