Laws of Yesterday’s Wars Symposium – Jewish Ethics of War in the Torah
Editor’s note: The following post highlights a chapter that appears in Samuel White’s fourth edited volume of Laws of Yesterday’s Wars published with Brill. For a general introduction to the series, see Dr Samuel White’s introductory post.
The Torah contains one of the earliest coherent attempts to regulate the use of force within a structured legal and moral framework. As a practicing rabbi and professor of Jewish studies, I found this work both necessary and fundamental to understanding Judaism. Far from presenting war as an unbounded realm of violence, the Hebrew Bible embeds conflict within covenantal obligations, ritual constraints, and normative expectations. In Volume 4 of The Laws of Yesterday’s Wars, I re‑examine these foundations with the depth of a lifetime spent studying Jewish thought, emphasising both the ancient context and the enduring conceptual legacy.
Chapter Highlights
The chapter begins by locating the Torah within its broader Near Eastern landscape. Warfare in the ancient Levant was ubiquitous, shaped by the survival needs of small agrarian polities surrounded by larger imperial powers. Yet, unlike many of its contemporaries, the Torah articulates rules that restrict rather than glorify violence. These rules appear in scattered passages—particularly Deuteronomy 20—and collectively form one of the earliest known humanitarian systems of warfare. My analysis highlights how these texts emerge from a worldview where law, ethics, and communal identity are inseparable.
A central insight of the chapter is that war is never treated as morally neutral. Violence is permissible only within the boundaries of legitimate defence or divine command. This reflects a theological structure in which the covenantal community is responsible to God for its conduct. Even legitimate wars must be fought in a manner consistent with divine expectation, meaning improper violence is not merely undesirable, it is unlawful. Importantly, this framework anticipates later debates about jus ad bellum, including questions of proportionality, necessity, and authority.
The chapter’s core contribution lies in its detailed summary of humanitarian restraints in biblical warfare. This research highlights rules requiring the offering of peace before siege, exemptions from violence for those unable to fight, protection of fruit trees (interpreted as early environmental law), and limits on sexual exploitation. These rules reveal a system concerned not only with victory but also with post‑conflict stability, agricultural continuity, and the dignity of individuals caught up in war. The command to protect fruit trees, for example, reflects a long‑term ethic of stewardship and the belief that destruction must be limited to prevent future harm. Similarly, the requirement to spare certain populations during siege reflects an early understanding that war generates its own moral boundaries.
Yet it is also necessary to confront the deepest tension in the biblical laws of war: the existence of categories such as Amalek, in which total destruction is commanded. Rather than avoiding these uncomfortable texts, the chapter situates them historically and theologically, noting that they reflect extreme circumstances rather than general rules. I emphasise that rabbinic and post‑biblical interpretation substantially narrowed or even neutralised such commands. In practice, Jewish tradition emphasised restraint, negotiation, and righteousness in conflict.
The chapter concludes by situating the Torah’s laws of war within broader comparative traditions, noting that they stand as an early example of a culture articulating legal limits on violence. This is not to claim that the Torah is uniformly humanitarian, but rather that it grapples openly and consciously with the moral dilemmas of war.
So What?
The Torah’s enduring relevance lies not in its replication within modern law, but in its demonstration that the impulse to limit violence is ancient, cross‑cultural, and deeply embedded in human societies. My chapter reinforces the central thesis of The Laws of Yesterday’s Wars: that modern international humanitarian law is not monopolized by any one civilisation. Early Jewish tradition contributed a sophisticated moral vocabulary that continues to inform global humanitarian discourse. In an era where armed conflicts still produce disproportionate harm, these ancient texts remind us that restraints on violence are neither new nor fragile. Rather, such restraints are part of humanity’s oldest legal inheritance.
***
Norman Solomon spent 22 years as an orthodox pulpit rabbi, 11 as an international interfaith consultant, 6 as an Oxford don and now, in retirement, has published his 9th full-length book.
The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
Articles of War is a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Articles of War does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Authorship does not indicate affiliation with Articles of War, the Lieber Institute, or the United States Military Academy West Point.
Photo credit: Tanner Mardis via Unsplash
