The Jewish Commandments of War
Judaism's teachings still guide the rules and ethics of modern warfare.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
In 1982, during the first Israel-Lebanon War, Israel strategically bombarded a besieged Beirut to uproot the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had terrorized the Jewish state on its northern border for decades.
During the siege, Shlomo Goren, Israel’s chief rabbi, made a significant ethical declaration: Jewish law, he stated, required Israel to allow both combatants and noncombatants to flee Beirut.
According to the great medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides, a Talmudic opinion held that the “fourth side” of a besieged city must remain open as an evacuation corridor. This, he argued, incentivizes combatants to flee rather than fight to the end, which would be costly for both sides. Additionally, showing mercy during war is crucial, even to the enemy, as all humans are created in the image of God.
Goren’s public ruling sparked controversy in Israel; why let genocidal, antisemitic terrorists escape from the clutches of a siege? However, the Israeli army agreed with Goren’s declaration and kept two major escape routes from Beirut open. Approximately 100,000 people fled the city.
Goren viewed this gesture as a prime example of how Judaism can teach the world to ethically conduct wars. The philosopher Michael Walzer even cited adherence to the Maimonidean principle as a key factor in mitigating an attacker’s culpability for noncombatant casualties in urban warfare.
Accordingly, Judaism is deeply rooted in the notions of justice, peace, and the sanctity of human life. The Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature frequently emphasize the importance of ethical conduct in all areas of life, including warfare.
The concept of “just war” is present in Jewish law, particularly in the Talmud. While not explicitly labeled as such, it revolves around a set of principles that govern when and how war should be conducted, all of which Israel has adhered to since Hamas sparked war one year ago.
These principles include:
Just Cause – The Talmud discusses scenarios where war is justified, such as self-defense and the defense of others. Wars of conquest or aggression are generally not condoned unless commanded by divine instruction.
Declaration of War – War must be declared openly, and enemies must be given a chance to make peace before hostilities commence. This principle is based on Deuteronomy 20:10, which instructs offering peace before besieging a city.
Proportionality and Necessity – The Talmud emphasizes minimizing harm and destruction. Only necessary force should be used to achieve the military objective, and excessive harm to combatants and noncombatants alike should be avoided.
Distinction between Combatants and Noncombatants – While the Talmud does not use modern terminology, it makes a clear distinction between those directly involved in fighting and those who are not. Harm to noncombatants should be minimized.
Mercy and Humane Treatment – Even in war, mercy and humane treatment are important. This is reflected in the ruling that a besieged city must have one side open for those who wish to flee, as discussed in the context of Maimonides' interpretation of Talmudic law.
Pursuit of Peace – The ultimate goal should always be peace. The Talmud and later rabbinic writings often stress the importance of pursuing peace and reconciliation whenever possible.
Divine Command and Religious Authority – Certain wars, particularly those commanded by God in the Hebrew Bible (such as wars against the Amalekites), have specific religious justifications and are viewed differently from secular conflicts.
For most of Jewish history after the biblical era, the laws of combat were merely theoretical. There were no Jewish armies and no Jewish wars. Therefore, practical ethics of war are not often discussed in Talmudic and medieval Jewish literature.
Yet, Judaism also grapples with the tension between the pursuit of peace and the need for self-defense. In Pirkei Avot (“Ethics of the Fathers”), a tractate in the Mishnah (the Oral Torah), there is a famous phrase: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me?” — which speaks to the necessity of self-preservation, a theme that resonates deeply within Jewish thought and Israeli national security policy.
Ultimately, in the Jewish tradition, warfare is never glorified; rather, it is considered a tragic necessity when peace and justice are under threat.
The modern state of Israel was born out of war — its War of Independence in 1948, the 1967 Six-Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1982 First Lebanon War, the 1991 Gulf War, the first and second intifadas (violent Palestinian uprisings), the 2006 Second Lebanon War, and ongoing skirmishes with neighboring states and non-state actors.
This history has embedded a sense of existential vulnerability within the Israeli psyche, making the country acutely aware of the pressing need for strong defense.
For Israelis, the connection between their historical and religious identity and the land is foundational. The land of Israel holds a unique place in Jewish religious thought; it is seen as a divine promise, central to the covenant between God and the Jewish people. This religious connection to the land has often intensified the political and military conflicts surrounding Israel’s borders.
In many ways, the ongoing struggle to maintain Israel’s existence in the hostile and often aggressive Middle East has been framed not just as a political necessity but as a continuation of Jewish survival rooted in millennia of persecution and exile.
With the rise of asymmetric conflict against non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel faces profound ethical challenges. The IDF prides itself on a moral code called Tohar HaNeshek (Hebrew for “the purity of arms”), which obliges soldiers to avoid harming civilians whenever possible. However, the nature of the ongoing conflict with terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which purposefully operate within civilian areas and use human shields, makes this aspiration effectively impossible to achieve.
The struggle to maintain moral integrity while fighting against an enemy that operates within the bounds of civilians has sparked significant debate both within Israel and globally. How does a Jewish state founded on principles of justice and the sanctity of life reconcile its need for self-defense with the inevitable consequences of modern warfare?
This question touches at the heart of Jewish ethical teachings and poses a moral dilemma for the Jewish People and the State of Israel in the 21st century.
Despite the harsh realities of conflict, Judaism continually emphasizes the pursuit of peace. The Hebrew word “Shalom” (peace) is central to Jewish prayer and thought, encapsulating the ultimate goal of human society. The prophet Isaiah’s vision of turning swords into plowshares remains one of the most profound expressions of this hope; a utopian vision of a world free from war.
In the Israeli context, peace remains elusive but never absent from the discourse. Various Israeli leaders, both secular and religious, have sought peace with their neighbors, though efforts have often been derailed by geopolitics that have little to do with Israel.
More specifically, the Palestinians have been a pawn in other countries’ geopolitical games since at least the 1960s, starting with the communist Soviets who embraced the Palestine Liberation Organization to fight a proxy war against the United States, which backed democratic Israel.
More recently, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the chief sponsor of Palestinian leadership (particularly Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups in the Palestinian West Bank) amid the Iranian regime’s quest to establish regional hegemony across the Middle East.
The tension between the religious imperative to seek peace and the practical need for security has created a complex narrative within Israel — a narrative in which the dream of peace coexists with the necessity of constant vigilance and military preparedness.
The phrase “rise and kill first” is derived from a Talmudic principle found in Sanhedrin 72a, which articulates the idea: “If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first.”
This concept is known as the law of rodef (Hebrew for “pursuer”) and it refers to a situation where someone is actively seeking to kill another person. According to Jewish law, if it is clear that a person’s life is in imminent danger from an attacker, it is both morally permissible and necessary to act in self-defense — even if that means preemptively killing the attacker to protect oneself or others.
The underlying principle of “rise and kill first” is rooted in the preservation of life, which is one of the highest values in Judaism. The Torah places great emphasis on pikuach nefesh (Hebrew for “the preservation of human life”) as overriding almost all other religious commandments. In this context, the Talmudic principle does not promote violence or aggression but underscores the right and responsibility to defend one’s life when faced with an immediate threat.
This concept has profound ethical implications. While Judaism emphasizes peace, justice, and the sanctity of life, it also acknowledges the reality that life is sometimes threatened and, in such cases, taking action to prevent harm becomes a moral imperative. This philosophy reflects the tension between the ideal of nonviolence and the necessity of self-defense in the face of danger.
The principle of “rise and kill first” has taken on significant relevance in the context of modern Israel’s national security policy, particularly in dealing with existential threats. Israel, surrounded by hostile neighbors and facing numerous attacks from non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah, often invokes the right of preemptive self-defense. The Jewish state has justifiably interpreted the rodef principle as not merely a right to respond to an attack but also a duty to prevent future attacks if they are imminent.
In Israeli military and intelligence strategy, this has translated into policies like targeted assassinations of terrorists, preemptive strikes, and other proactive security measures designed to neutralize threats before they materialize.
Since World War Two, Israel has probably assassinated more people than any other country in the Western world. Executing these individuals identified as direct threats to Israel’s national security, as Israeli journalist and author Ronen Bergman put it, sends a clear message that “if you are an enemy of Israel, we will find you.”1 During the last few months, Israel has eliminated more terrorists on the U.S. most-wanted lists than the U.S. has managed to neutralize in the last two decades.
The logic behind these actions is that waiting for an attack can result in unnecessary loss of life, and it is better to act first to protect the nation’s citizens — reflecting the principle that, if someone is preparing to kill, the moral duty is to stop them before they succeed.
While the “rise and kill first” philosophy is a deeply embedded principle of self-defense, its application in modern times has raised complex ethical questions. Critics argue that preemptive actions can blur the line between self-defense and aggression, particularly when they result in civilian casualties or when the threat is not immediate or certain.
That said, it seems to be well-understood that the “rise and kill first” philosophy in Judaism is not about promoting violence, but a reflection of the deep value placed on life and the moral imperative to protect oneself and others from harm.
As Israel navigates its path in an increasingly volatile Middle East, the broader Jewish world faces the challenge of defining what it means to uphold Jewish values in an era marked by persistent conflict. Can Judaism, with its ancient teachings on justice, compassion, and peace, offer a framework for ethical warfare in the modern world? How can Israel, as a Jewish state, balance its survival with its religious and ethical obligations?
The philosophical challenge is not unique to Judaism, but resonates with all religious traditions that must reconcile their ideals with the realities of human conflict. In the age of war Judaism offers a lens through which to view the struggle between survival and ethics, justice, and mercy. In Israel, these questions are not merely academic; they are lived realities that shape the lives of millions.
As the Jewish state continues to confront existential threats, it must also grapple with the enduring question of how to live out its religious values in a world that often forces difficult choices. This tension — between the ideal and the real — defines both the Jewish People’s experience of unsubstantiated persecution and our ongoing hope for peace and coexistence.
Bergman, Ronen. “Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations.” Random House, 2018.
Let's get real!! Israel did not start this war, or, let's go back to 1948. While the residents of the new state of Israel were dancing the hora in the streets, and singing songs of peace and hope for the future, The entire mideast area surrounding this tiny little country attacked with the wish to eliminate the only Jewish State off the face of the earth. That, of course, would have encouraged antisemites from every nations to repeat the action until there no Jews left. Think for a minute what the world would have been like. But that is a comment for another time. Israel hates war, hates killing and hates hate. But put yourselves in their place. Your comfortable town or city or village is suddenly overrun by sick minded, evil men with knives, gun, grenades, etc., suddenly coming down the streets shooting, stabbing, raping your women, killing babies, burning home filled with people, and taking some for hostages. Now what would you expect would happen when the army or police of both arrive and finally kill or capture most of those inhumane alien. Would you run to the UN and complain, and if you did, do you think they would do a thing? Would your hold up your Bible and say, no,you can't do that to us, the Bible says so. Of course now, you would fight back and hit the backers of the intruders tons of rockets, gunfire, etc., In turn, they will fight against you, and governments all of the world will suddenly blame the victims for all the warfare. No author of war stories could imagine this scenario. No one would believe it and the book would never sell. Well it has happened and all our news outlets tell of the "horrors" of devastion in Gaza, and Beirut, etc. We all know that Hamas, Hezbollal hold their secret meetings in residential areas. They even brag about. We see mothers crying over the bodies of the children, while we know that their home was also inhabited by Hamas, or Hezbollah or other terrorist groups. Chances are that mother knew that, and yet she and family were prevented from leaving the home for a safe place. Hamas loves big casualty numbers. Getting back to the rules, let's get to the big problems: What are the Biblical Rules of PEACE? Where are the Peace talks? If Hamas wants an end to this, let them bring all the remain hostages, the bodies of those who have been killed while in captivity to front. Put up white flags, and israel will take their own. And I am certain Gaza will be quiet. IN the North, the internatiolal community has to raise Hell against Iran, destroying their nuclear capability, removing,, preferably in coffins, the leaders of the Iranian government, an give the country back to the real Iranians. As to Yemen, Qatar, that would be an easy sweep, as they have never stopped using slaves and that is against international law. Peace is possible, but it takes at least two parties. Israel would be so happy to be one of those parties.
" the Palestinian West Bank"
Politically correct as the 146 of the 193 countries in the UN General Assembly's vote demonstrates. However, Jordan gave the so-called West Bank this name in 1950 to erase any connection of the Jews to the area. And what precisely is that area? For millennia called Judea Samaria, it is the heart of the Jewish homeland. The very word "Jew" derives from Judea. Adding insult to injury, it is now common practice to hive off the heart of Jerusalem and call it East Jerusalem.
Bad enough that world politicians and the international media happily adopt these politically driven revisions, it is even worse when Jews use them to describe their ancestral territory.
If Jews accept that the ancient city of Jerusalem and their traditional, ancestral heartland belongs to the Arabs, by what moral, religious, historical or legal right do they have to claim Israel belongs to the Jews. No it would not! Having ceded Judea, Samaria, and "East Jerusalem," Jews would be no more than occupier, settler, trespassers needing to be driven out.
We should all be aware that the day wherein we describe out enemy the way he describes himself, we lose the battle. And the day we describe ourselves the way our enemy describes us, we lose the war.