Conflict and war — Judaism

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 3, 3.1 (Judaism). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

Jewish law placed a limit on warfare to protect trees. The rule that spares fruit trees during a siege is the source of the tradition's whole prohibition on needless destruction — which tells you that its restraints on force were never only about who may be killed.

What it means

Judaism is not pacifist and it is not permissive. The specification names the technical vocabulary and it is worth using. Milchemet mitzvah is a commanded war — defence against attack, obligatory and needing no further authorisation. Milchemet reshut is a discretionary or optional war, which in classical law required the authorisation of both the king and the Sanhedrin.

Tohar ha-neshek is purity of arms: force used only as far as necessary and never against non-combatants. Bal tashchit is do not destroy, derived from the prohibition on cutting down fruit trees during a siege and applied as a general rule against needless waste.

The Just War conditions — just cause, proper authority, last resort, proportionality, discrimination — line up closely with the Jewish categories, and the authorisation requirement was arrived at independently of the European tradition rather than borrowed from it.

Isaiah 2:1–5 supplies the goal: nations beating swords into ploughshares and learning war no more. It is read both as a prophecy of the messianic age and as a standard for present policy, and those two readings produce different conclusions about disarmament today.

Why believers hold it

The reasoning holds two commitments together, and both come from the same principle. Life is of infinite value, so it must be defended — pikuach nefesh makes defence obligatory rather than merely permitted, and refusing to defend the attacked is a decision with victims of its own.

But life being of infinite value also means the enemy's life counts. That is why terms of peace must be offered before a siege, why the laws of siege protect trees, and why purity of arms exists at all. Judaism's laws of war are one principle worked out in both directions, which is more interesting than a permission with restrictions bolted on.

Weapons of mass destruction are where the criteria give the clearest verdict, because discrimination between combatants and civilians is impossible by design rather than by accident. The deterrence argument — that possession without use prevents war — is a position most often taken in practice rather than defended in principle.

The honest difficulty is applying classical categories to a modern state. Milchemet reshut required institutions that no longer exist, so a serious rabbinic position holds that discretionary war is simply unavailable today. Saying that is stronger than pretending the mapping is straightforward.

Where it comes from

• Rabbinic teaching — Pikuach nefesh; Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 85b (with Sanhedrin 37a) (translated)

  Saving a life overrides almost every other commandment.

  The preservation of life outranks nearly all religious obligations, including Shabbat observance and fasting on Yom Kippur.

  What it is doing here: Makes defence obligatory rather than optional, which is what rules pacifism out of the tradition and forces the argument onto conduct instead.

• The Tanakh — Nevi'im (Prophets) — Micah 6:8 (translated)

  To do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.

  The prophetic summary of what God requires: justice, mercy and humility, in place of sacrifice performed without them.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the standard that conduct in war is measured against, since justice and mercy do not lapse when fighting begins.

• The Torah — Leviticus 19:18 (translated)

  You shall love your neighbour as yourself.

  The command from which the surrounding chapter's social laws follow — fair wages, honest weights, care for the deaf and the blind, and the stranger.

  What it is doing here: Extends the obligation to the person on the other side, which is the reasoning behind offering terms and sparing what need not be destroyed.

Where it bites

It shows in Israeli military ethics, where purity of arms is a named principle in the army's code and is argued about publicly rather than quietly — one of the few places in the world where a religious just-war tradition is applied to current operations in real time. It shows in Jewish chaplaincy, in Jewish peace organisations, and in rabbinic writing on the ethics of specific decisions.

It also shows in the direction of the environmental principle. Bal tashchit is now applied to food waste and energy, and it began as a siege law — which is worth using in an answer, because it demonstrates that the tradition's restraints on force reached beyond the protection of people.

What people get wrong

People think: Judaism is a peaceful religion, so it opposes all fighting.

Actually: Defence is obligatory rather than permitted, because saving a life overrides almost every other commandment. Judaism is not pacifist, and describing it that way removes the interesting material — which is the conditions it places on a war it has already required.

People think: The biblical wars of conquest show what Judaism teaches about war today.

Actually: Mainstream rabbinic thought does not treat those narratives as a model for modern policy, and the operative categories are the classical legal ones — commanded war, discretionary war, purity of arms. Using conquest narratives as current teaching misrepresents what the tradition actually applies.

People think: Judaism is the Old Testament part of Christianity.

Actually: Judaism is a living religion with its own scriptures and a two-thousand-year interpretive tradition. It matters here because the working law of war is rabbinic rather than biblical: the categories that decide a case were developed in the Talmud and its commentaries, not read off the narrative.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Use the two categories of war by name; they are the specifically Jewish content of the unit.
• Give purity of arms and bal tashchit rather than a generic list of Just War conditions.
• Never present Judaism as pacifist; pikuach nefesh makes defence obligatory.
• Concede that the classical categories are hard to map onto a modern state.
• Use Isaiah 2:1–5 as the goal rather than as a description of the present.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

Judaism is not pacifist and it is not permissive. The specification names the technical vocabulary: milchemet reshut, the optional or discretionary war, which requires authorisation and is distinguished from milchemet mitzvah, the commanded war; and tohar ha-neshek, purity of arms, the principle governing weapons and conduct. Isaiah's vision of swords beaten into ploughshares is the goal, and the laws of war are what applies until then.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Milchemet mitzvah (also milkhemet mitzvah)

A commanded war — defence against attack; obligatory and needing no further authorisation.

Milchemet reshut (also milkhemet reshut)

A discretionary or optional war, which in classical law required the authorisation of the Sanhedrin and the king.

Tohar ha-neshek (also purity of arms)

Purity of arms; the principle that force is used only as far as necessary and never against non-combatants.

Bal tashchit

Do not destroy; derived from the prohibition on cutting down fruit trees during a siege, and applied as a general rule against needless destruction.

Just War

The theory that war requires just cause, proper authority, last resort, proportionality and discrimination.

What Judaism teaches

• shared — Defence against attack is obligatory, and Jewish law does not permit passivity when life is threatened.
• shared — A discretionary war required formal authorisation in classical law, which is a proper-authority condition arrived at independently of the European tradition.
• shared — Even in a siege, needless destruction is forbidden — the prohibition on destroying fruit trees is the source of bal tashchit.
• shared — Peace is the goal: Isaiah 2:1-5 describes nations beating swords into ploughshares and learning war no more.

Why it teaches this

The reasoning holds two commitments together. Life is of infinite value, so it must be defended — pikuach nefesh makes defence obligatory rather than permitted. But life being of infinite value also means the enemy's life counts, which is why the laws of siege protect trees, why terms of peace must be offered first, and why purity of arms exists. Judaism's laws of war are the working out of a single principle applied in both directions.

Sources of authority

• Rabbinic teaching — Pikuach nefesh; Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 85b (with Sanhedrin 37a) (translated)

  Saving a life overrides almost every other commandment.

  The preservation of life outranks nearly all religious obligations, including Shabbat observance and fasting on Yom Kippur.

  How to use it: It is the principle that makes Jewish ethics practical rather than absolutist: the law itself provides for setting the law aside when life is at stake.

  What it does not settle: It permits, and often requires, abortion to save the mother. It does NOT extend to euthanasia — the distinction between saving a life and ending one is where the argument sits.

• The Tanakh — Nevi'im (Prophets) — Micah 6:8 (translated)

  To do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.

  The prophetic summary of what God requires: justice, mercy and humility, in place of sacrifice performed without them.

  How to use it: It answers the accusation that religion is ritual: the prophet himself says ritual without justice is worthless.

  What it does not settle: It states the standard, not the policy.

• Jewish thought — Tikkun olam; developed in rabbinic and later kabbalistic teaching (translated)

  Repairing the world.

  The duty to work at mending a broken world. Especially prominent in Reform Judaism's account of Jewish purpose.

  How to use it: It gives the meaning of life an outward direction: the purpose is not personal salvation but the world's repair, which is a distinctive answer on 2.2.

  What it does not settle: Its prominence differs by tradition. Presenting it as the whole of Jewish purpose flattens Orthodox emphasis on mitzvot.

• The Torah — Leviticus 19:18 (translated)

  You shall love your neighbour as yourself.

  The command from which the surrounding chapter's social laws follow — fair wages, honest weights, care for the deaf and the blind, and the stranger.

  How to use it: Reading it with its own chapter turns it from a sentiment into legislation, which is a much better answer than quoting the verse alone.

  What it does not settle: Shared with Christianity, so it is not distinctively Jewish.

Different interpretations

• Milchemet reshut read as effectively unavailable today, since the institutions that could authorise it no longer exist — a serious position among rabbinic authorities.
• Purity of arms read as a military doctrine and read as a religious principle; it is both, and it is publicly argued about in Israel, which makes it live rather than theoretical.
• Isaiah's vision read as a prophecy of the messianic age and read as a standard for present policy; both readings are used and they lead to different conclusions about disarmament.

Differences within Judaism

All agree that defence is obligatory and that conduct in war is constrained. The genuine disagreement is about how classical categories apply to modern states and modern weapons.

• Orthodox Judaism — Maintains the classical categories; a range of positions on how they apply to a modern state, from strict application to the view that milchemet reshut is unavailable.
• Reform (Progressive) Judaism — Emphasises the prophetic peace tradition and is generally more sceptical about military force; strongly opposed to weapons of mass destruction.

Application to the issue

It shows in Israeli military ethics, where tohar ha-neshek is a named principle in the army's code and is publicly debated; in Jewish chaplaincy; in Jewish peace organisations; and in rabbinic writing on the ethics of specific operations, which is one of the few places where a religious just-war tradition is applied to current events in real time.

Arguments supporting

• A religion that values life must permit defending it. — Refusing to defend the attacked is a decision with victims too. (judaism)
  Answered by: Non-violent resistance has succeeded in cases thought hopeless, so the alternatives are not only fighting and submitting.
• Jewish law's requirement of authorisation is a real restraint. — A discretionary war needed both king and Sanhedrin, which is a higher bar than most modern states impose. (shared)
  Answered by: The institutions no longer exist, so the restraint is historical unless a modern equivalent is identified.

Arguments challenging

• Weapons of mass destruction cannot satisfy purity of arms. — They cannot discriminate between combatants and civilians by design. (reform-jewish)
  Answered by: Deterrence arguments hold that possession without use prevents war, which is the position most often taken in practice rather than in principle.
• Religious sanction for war is dangerous whoever holds it. — A cause believed to be God's does not negotiate. (non-religious)
  Answered by: Jewish law's categories function as restraints rather than as licences, and the requirement to offer terms of peace before a siege is the clearest example.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Atheist and Humanist attitudes assess war by consequences: justified where it prevents greater suffering, and almost never in the case of weapons of mass destruction, whose effects cannot be limited. Some accept nuclear deterrence reluctantly as having prevented major war; others regard the threat to civilians as already wrong regardless of use.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: Whether the value of life argues for fighting or against it. Judaism gets both answers from the same principle, and that is what makes its position more interesting than a simple permission.

Defensible conclusions

• Judaism's laws of war are a genuine just-war tradition reached independently, and the requirement to offer terms before a siege is a stronger condition than most modern doctrines contain.
• Weapons of mass destruction are where the Jewish criteria give the clearest verdict, because discrimination is impossible by design rather than by accident.
• The classical categories are hard to apply to a modern state, and the honest answer says so rather than pretending the mapping is straightforward.

Not defensible

• Describing Judaism as pacifist; pikuach nefesh makes defence obligatory.
• Treating the biblical wars of conquest as a model for modern policy, which mainstream rabbinic thought does not.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three causes of conflict, or three Jewish beliefs about war. Short phrases only.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two beliefs developed. 'Jews distinguish a commanded war from a discretionary one (1) — and a discretionary war required authorisation from both king and Sanhedrin (1).'
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain Jewish attitudes to war: defence as obligatory, the two categories, purity of arms, bal tashchit, and Isaiah's vision of peace.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Religion causes war.' Judaism's authorisation requirement and Isaiah's vision both cut against it, and the historical record complicates both.

Common mistakes

• Presenting Judaism as pacifist, which the sources contradict.
• Using biblical conquest narratives as though they were current Jewish teaching about war.
• Listing Just War conditions with no Jewish material, which the grid caps as generic.

“Judaism is the Old Testament part of Christianity.” — Judaism is a living religion with its own scriptures, its own two-thousand-year tradition of rabbinic interpretation, and its own account of what God requires. The Tanakh is not the Christian Old Testament in either arrangement or authority.

Write instead: The Tanakh has three divisions — Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim — and is read alongside the Talmud and rabbinic tradition. Jewish teaching about the afterlife, salvation and law is developed on its own terms. The scriptures overlap substantially, and the differences in ordering, canon and interpretation are real. Naming the Tanakh's structure is directly examinable at Paper 2 1.2.

Grade 9 insight

The rule that spares fruit trees in a siege is the source of bal tashchit — and notice what it means: Jewish law placed a limit on warfare not to protect people but to protect trees, and then generalised it into a prohibition on all needless destruction. A Level 4 answer uses that inversion. The tradition's environmental principle is a war law, which tells you that its restraints on force were never only about who may be killed.

Carry on through Judaism

• Previous unit: 2.8 · Childlessness and celibacy
• Next unit: 3.2 · Peace, reconciliation and forgiveness
• Conflict and war in the other religions: Buddhism · Christianity · Hinduism · Islam · Sikhism
• Side by side: Sanctity of life, abortion and euthanasia across the six religions — Is human life sacred, and may it ever be deliberately ended?
• Side by side: Conflict and war across the six religions — May a believer fight?
• All of Judaism · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification