Some of the most important issues of our times are to whom should weapons be sold. The answers can make a difference between war and peace, and who controls the world and its resources. It is making a difference in the Ukraine and is certainly making a difference in Israel as it fights its wars on seven fronts. But alliances change over the years. Nowhere is the change of alliances more dramatic than in the page of the Talmud studied around the world last week Friday, on the Fourth of July (Avodah Zara 16).
On that page, Rav Ashi said that “we sell weapons to the Persians, who protect us”! It certainly could have happened in the days of Cyrus (Koresh), under whose rule the Jews were allowed to return to their homeland and rebuild the Beit HaMikdash. This past month, we have not exactly encouraged the sale of weapons to the modern day Persians, though it might be argued that we favor the sale of weapons to be used in modern day Persia to protect civilians of all countries (including Iranians).
The lesson of Rav Ashi, of course, is that we sell weapons to (and by extension buy weapons from) countries that protect us and our allies (and protect civilians in Iran and Arabia), which is a lesson in self-preservation. Further comparisons between Persia referenced by Rav Ashi and the America of our times are left for others to make, if they wish to do so.
For the record, some of the commentators to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 15) point out that Jews may even sell weapons to enemies of the Jewish people as long as the sellers have reason to believe that the purchasers will use the weapons for justified reasons such as personal self-defense; and the Israeli government routinely does so without even knowing about the views of these commentators.
The page of the Talmud leading into the page studied on Independence Day tells us that, apparently again for self-preservation, our Rabbis taught that we may not sell shields to Gentiles (Avodah Zarah 15). The obvious question not spelled out in the Gemara is that why is this a problem? Aren’t shields by definition defensive? The Talmud then proceeds to give an answer: even though shields are not considered offensive weapons, by definition they can still be used as offensive weapons (Avodah Zarah 16). One modern example of a part of a weapon being repurposed that I thought of is the butt of a rifle.
Actually, indirectly, even “defensive” “non-weapons” can be used to commit harmful offenses, e.g., radar detectors to encourage reckless speeding, and bullet-proof vests to embolden armed robbers.
Similarly, considering alternate uses for innocent pieces of metal, Rav Ada bar Ahavah (son of Love) forbids selling blocks of iron to Gentiles, because they can be melted down and fashioned into weapons. The Gemara then points out that in that case, even hoes and axes should not be sold to them, sort of the reverse of the conversion of swords into plowshares (Isaiah 2:4).
But Rav Zvid saved the day for commerce in metal by taking the position that Rav Ada’s prohibition applied only to Indian iron which was extra strong and particularly suited to weapons of war. The free world collectively held its breath during the recent “Twelve Day War” as we were told that the uranium deposits under the mountains of modern day Persia were “protected” by specially hardened concrete that could resist even the U.S. “bunker busters,” conjuring up images of the Indian metal.
The Gemara concluded, however, that “nowadays” we sell all weapons (Avodah Zarah 16), presumably meaning we are free to sell all weapons, but should still use the guidelines described above.
Restrictions on the sale of weapons have even been imposed on the sale of animals that have been used as weapons. No less an authority than Rabbi Yehuda haNasi prohibited the sale of horses to Gentiles on the grounds that horses, at least in his time, had the status of being weapons because they were taught to kill (even though nowadays and for centuries earlier most of the killing was done by the people riding the horses). But we follow the view of Ben Betera that it is permitted to sell a horse to Gentiles.
One may not sell lions to Gentiles, according to the Talmud, because lions can cause injury to the public (Avodah Zarah 16), to put it mildly. In the wake of Israel’s “Operation Rising Lion,” the reference to lions has added significance, but even further significance should be attributed to the word “public” (l’rabeem) in that citation. Lions and “militants” can cause injuries to the public, but it cannot be over-emphasized (though it seems to be under-emphasized) that Israel’s war against likely future users of nuclear weapons was also the war of all countries around the globe who (should) appreciate no longer having to fear the imminent threat of nuclear annihilation or even nuclear blackmail.
Let us hope and pray that the recent “12-Day War” will become known to all people around the globe as the War to End Nuclear Proliferation, with existing weapons to no longer need to be shared with allies or aired at enemies.
