Talmudic Rabbis’ Quietism, Downplaying Militarism, As Opposed to Torah Study
R' Slifkin recently wrote a post (on which I commented): “Who is Providing Zechusim for Whom?: Do the soldiers need your mitzvot, or do you need theirs?” (December 19, 2023). Part of the post is an attempt to downplay a talmudic source (Makkot 10a) that “is widely quoted to argue that yeshiva students are providing crucial support to the war effort”.
While I'm very much sympathetic with R’ Slifkin’s ideology, the objective reality is that the talmudic sages consistently downplay the value of militarism, and emphasize the value of torah study.
As to why the Talmudic rabbis do this, there are two major explanations.
Reason # 1: The numerous failed rebellions against Rome.
Compare Josephus, who had a similar attitude, for this reason, see my recent discussion of this: “Notes on Some Historical Aspects Relating to Chanukah and the Hasmoneans in the Second Temple Period” > "Quietism in Josephus and the Talmud". See especially the Three Oaths, which is the most explicit manifestation of this, which I discussed in that earlier piece.
Reuven Firestone in the abstract of an article on this topic summarizes it well (“War Policies In Judaism As Responses To Power And Powerlessness”, Journal of Religion and Violence, Vol. 3, No. 3, Symposium on Religion, War, and Ethics: A Sourcebook of Textual Traditions [2015], pp. 343-56):
The premise underlying this article is that religions, like all institutions, do what is necessary to endure. Like other religions, Judaism has adjusted survival strategies ranging from quietism to militarism. The Jews of antiquity engaged actively and successfully in bloody wars that were considered to be divinely and ethically sanctioned, but after crushing defeats against the Roman Empire, militant responses to communal threat came to be regarded as self-destructive. "Holy war" was then removed from the repertoire of Jewish endurance strategies through the development of safeguards intended to prevent zealots from declaring war and thus endangering a weak and dispersed community. This move was sustainable within a particular historical context, which lasted until the modern period. Following traumatic modern pogroms and the Holocaust, however, military passivity came to be regarded as endangering Jewish survival. Consequently, the traditional safeguards were effectively removed for a significant sector of Jews, thereby allowing for a return to biblical-influenced militancy.
(See also Firestone’s book-length treatment of the subject, Holy War in Judaism: The Fall and Rise of a Controversial Idea [2012].)
The concern of appearing at all like rebelling (against the Romans) is indicated in a passage in tractate Rosh Hashana:
Rosh Hashanah 32b (section # 21):
אמר רבי יוחנן: בשעת השמד שנו.
Ed. Steinzaltz translation and explanation:
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They taught the halakha that the shofar is sounded during the additional prayer in a time of religious persecution. The gentile authorities prohibited sounding the shofar and appointed guards during the morning to ensure that the Jews comply. Therefore, the Sages delayed the sounding of the shofar until after the guards had left. A similar decree was not imposed against the recitation of hallel, and therefore it was recited during the morning prayer, at the earliest possible time.
(In the standard editions, shmad is changed to gezeirah, due to the Christian censors.) Whether R’ Yochanan’s explanation of the Mishnah in this case is the simple meaning is not for now. Regardless, it shows at least that R’ Yochanan himself was very sensitive to Roman perception of rebellion.
Reason # 2: The rabbinization of Biblical figures
A major theme in the Talmud, and related contemporary Midrashim, is the so-called “rabbinization" of Biblical figures. See my piece "Was Abraham a Lamdan" (July 4, 2023), with an important quote from the Talmud scholar Isaiah Gafni ( “Rabbinic Historiography and Representations of the Past”, in The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature [2007]):
The rabbinic ideal of "Talmud Torah" as the driving force in Jewish religious behavior is projected as a constant factor in the lives of the patriarchs: The children of the patriarchs study in the batei midrash of Shem and 'Ever, Jacob strives to establish "a house of Talmud where he might teach Torah" in Egypt (Genesis Rabbah 95:3); Abraham was well versed in the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat without an 'eruv, Joseph kept the Sabbath in Egypt (Genesis Rabbah 95:3); Abraham was well versed in the prohibition of carrying on Shabbat without an 'eruv, Joseph kept the Sabbath in Egypt, and therefore prepared his Sabbath needs on Friday (Genesis Rabbah 92:4); he and his father Jacob even studied Torah together before they were separated, and because both remembered the last chapter they had covered together, it could serve as a sign through which Joseph made himself known to his father (Genesis Rabbah 94:4) […]
The phenomenon of rabbinization has been noted by numerous scholars, with the most succint and cogent discussion being that of Izhak Heinemann (1940, 35- 39), as in so many other aspects of aggadic literature.
One fascinating aspect of this is the repurposing of militaristic language for metaphorical "battles" in the beit midrash. See on this Yishai Rosen-tzvi (I cite him in my piece on stories of rabbinic deception in the Talmud: “A Preliminary analysis of stories of deception in the Talmud”, f. 10, on a passage in Eruvin 53b), “The Rise And Fall Of Rabbinic Masculinity”, JSIJ 12 (2013), pp. 1-22. He makes the point there (p. 14) that “[i]t thus should not surprise us that the most basic terminology of the house of study is that of war. The sages are shield holders (בעלי תריסים), they attack (מתקיף) and defeat each other ( מנצחים זה את זה).”
Numerous instances of the Talmud downplaying militarism can be adduced. A few:
Weapons are "reprehensible" (g’nai - גנאי), according to the majority opinion, in Mishnah, Tractate Shabbat (translation and explanation from Talmud ed. Steinzaltz [Shabbat 63a, sections # 3-5]), citing the famous “Swords to ploughshares” verse in Isaiah:
לא יצא האיש לא בסייף ולא בקשת ולא בתריס ולא באלה ולא ברומח. ואם יצא — חייב חטאת.
רבי אליעזר אומר: תכשיטין הן לו.
וחכמים אומרים: אינן אלא לגנאי, שנאמר: ״וכתתו חרבותם לאתים וחניתותיהם למזמרות ולא ישא גוי אל גוי חרב ולא ילמדו עוד מלחמה״.
Just as it is prohibited for a woman to carry out certain items unique to a woman into the public domain, the Sages said that a man may neither go out on Shabbat with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield [teris], nor with an alla, nor with a spear. And if he unwittingly went out with one of these weapons to the public domain he is liable to bring a sin-offering.
Rabbi Eliezer says: These weapons are ornaments for him; just as a man is permitted to go out into the public domain with other ornaments, he is permitted to go out with weapons.
And the Rabbis say: They are nothing other than reprehensible and in the future they will be eliminated, as it is written: “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not raise sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4).
Militaristic Biblical stories are reinterpreted against their plain sense to neutralize their militaristic aspect. A prime example of this is where King David’s contemporary Benayahu’s heroic exploits are explained to be about Torah (Berakhot 18a (section #14) - 18b (section #1)).
King David himself is said by the Talmud to have not been allowed to build the Temple, because he has blood on his hands. Therefore only his son, Shlomo, could build it.
This all relates, as well, to the common stereotype of the "galuti", helpless Jew, that Zionism explicitly came to oppose. To do this, they explicitly called for a return to the Bible, full of military exploits, skipping over the rabbinic tradition. See my recent piece (mentioned at the beginning of this piece) where I mention "Negation of the Exile" by the early Zionists. And in another recent piece I discussed and analyzed a talmudic passage that explicitly states the theory that Jews being in “exile” (galut) is advantageous.