I read recently an account the British special operations during WWII. They had a machine code-named 'Ultra' which could read all of the German army's secret correspondence. There were times that Churchill let people die because he felt that were he to protect them, i.e. foil whatever operation the Germans (ymach shmo) were plotting, it would reveal too clearly that their secrets were being read, leading them to change their ciphers, and jeapordizing the outcome of the war.
What would halacha dictate in such an instance?
I've seen R. Moshe's tshuva that a person is not obligated--but is permitted--to endanger his life to save another, but this is a different case.

So Churchill could predict, that the War would end better, if he re-strained from helping people? What a shmuk!!!

I guess I didn't explain what I feel the question is here: He did withheld the information because he felt that in the end 1)it will save lives (by being able to know what they were going to do, one could defeat them more quickly, thus sparing more lives), and 2)win the war.
If he would save lives now, he would almost certainly have caused even more deaths later on. Does it make more sense now? I can definitely see two sides to this question.

I can see your point Daniel. I am just wondering if perhaps, by delaying the War in fact became bigger as a result. That if a few small successes earlier were to wain the confidence of the Hitler Machine, they might not have reached a point of total confidence and power?

Although, I also see that, had they discovered England had their technology worked out and they had been able to change the codes ect...then perhaps we would all now be members of a Dictatorship.

I have a third consideration to add...if the current Isreali Government had access to important information regarding Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran intelligence informaiton...would they wait to the end to see if it would be useful, or would they do something about it now?

p.s. I wasn't calling you a smuk, by the way, but was refering to Churchill's reasoning...but might change my opinion of Churchill's reasoning if I could understand it more fully.

quote:

Originally posted by Katja:
I can see your point Daniel. I am just wondering if perhaps, by delaying the War in fact became bigger as a result. That if a few small successes earlier were to wain the confidence of the Hitler Machine, they might not have reached a point of total confidence and power?

Katja, I think Daniel's point is about the risk to "win a battle, lose a war". The Nazi Germany, from 1939 and up until 1943, was winning the war, and even small local skirmishes giving them a hard time would not possibly damage their war machine. Since 1941, guerilla (partisan) warfare was waged heavily all across the Nazi-occupied Europe. It did nothing to stop the Wehrmacht progress to the east, up until the Battle of Stalingrad in the fall and winter of 1942-43.

Now, of course if Britain and the US had not taken Chamberlain approach in giving away Sudetenland (Northern Czechia) to Hitler, but taken a stand instead, perhaps the outcome of the world history would have been very different. But that did not happen. After the winter of 1943, Britain and the US did act on the information being intercepted and decoded by the British intelligence services, which ensured the success in North Africa and Italy starting in 1943.

I seem to recall that if Jews are being held hostage and the captor demands that one be sacrificed in exchange for saving the whole group, it is forbidden to sacrifice the individual (unless the individual indeed committed some capital offense for which he is indeed guilty).
If this is correct, perhaps it would be forbidden to sacrifice the lives of individuals for a greater purpose, no matter the consequence.

Wouldn't it then be forbidden to go to war?

Well, let's see. In order to perform the mitzvah of milchama, it certainly is necessary to put oneself in danger. Certainly when commanders send their troops into battle, they are placing them in harm's way, and we can be fairly certain that some will die (as Dovid comforted Yoav after the death of Uriyah etc.). It would seem to me though that this is a different question, namely "could one send some to a certain death for the purpose of winning the war, and perhaps saving more lives." Certainly we can fight a war; I am asking if one conducting a war can make this type of calculation.
As I type these words again the thought occurs to me that it may be forbidden, for the gemara says that when faced with a choice between killing another and being killed, one must be killed. The reason is given "who says your blood is redder, maybe his is," which means that you must remain inactive, for you may not say your life is more valuable.
The only thing is, Rashi there (if I recall) says "either way a soul will be lost." Would it be the same, though, if, say, one soul is lost and 30 saved?

I would say that we know that you cannot kill someone in order to save yourself, because who says you're more precious than the other. This would apply to many against one as we'll see. If you don't do an action, it would be permitted, like letting yourself be pushed on a baby to crush it, because who said that it's better than you. so Shev V'al Tasah.

You cannot even hand someone over to save yourself, unless he was picked out. There is a Machlokes Rishonim wether he has to deserve death also. It would seem that's only because you physically hand them over. You definitely don't need to save them if it puts you in danger. Or in our case give them information to save themselves. (see YD 157:1 for these Halachos)

Over here, the Knaitch would be, that you're not physically handing them over to the enemy, but you're commanding them to go into battle when you know they'll be killed. This would seem not to be the physically handing over. I think it might be depend on the Machlokes whether Mossar, which is Garmi, is Midarbanan or Midoiraisa. Tosfos holds it's Midarabanan, and just by saying something you hadn't done anything. Therefore in our case you may be able to tell them to go on for the greater good of the people, since you're technically not doing anything but just causing it to happen. But to the Ramban that holds it's from the Torah and the Steipler says (BK 35) is considered like Adam Hamazik (as if the person himself physically damaged) so over here it could be considered as actually handing them over and would be prohibited even to save other lives.

This is just what comes to my mind off the bat, and I'm sure that the Sugya can be more far reaching, but this is at least a start.

Quote"I seem to recall that if Jews are being held hostage and the captor demands that one be sacrificed in exchange for saving the whole group, it is forbidden to sacrifice the individual (unless the individual indeed committed some capital offense for which he is indeed guilty).
If this is correct, perhaps it would be forbidden to sacrifice the lives of individuals for a greater purpose, no matter the consequence."

Yes, and I dealt with that Yerushalmi in my last post

Quote "You cannot even hand someone over to save yourself, unless he was picked out. There is a Machlokes Rishonim whether he has to deserve death also. It would seem that's only because you physically hand them over. You definitely don't need to save them if it puts you in danger. Or in our case give them information to save themselves. (see YD 157:1 for these Halachos)"

But that is to actually hand over him, which is tantamount to killing them. If you don't hand him over, but just cause him to get captured (Grama) then it would seem it would be different.

So the question is by ordering them to go into battle where they'll get killed is considered just a Grama or handing them over, which I want to compare it to Mossar.

Quote "As I type these words again the thought occurs to me that it may be forbidden, for the gemara says that when faced with a choice between killing another and being killed, one must be killed. The reason is given "who says your blood is redder, maybe his is," which means that you must remain inactive, for you may not say your life is more valuable."

I also dealt with that in my first post "
I would say that we know that you cannot kill someone in order to save yourself, because who says you're more precious than the other. This would apply to many against one as we'll see. If you don't do an action, it would be permitted, like letting yourself be pushed on a baby to crush it, because who said that it's better than you. so Shev V'al Tasah. "

The last part is Tosfos. I think that despite Rashi's P'shat there, from the Yerushalmi of not handing anyone over we can deduce that even to save many lives is Ussur. Kol Shcain by actually Killing.

But I think this case is closer to the Yerushalmi case than the Killing case since you're not killing them yourself, rather just handing them over. We see a Kula there that if they pick the person to hand over you may, and to some Rishonim, even if he's not guilty.

Tosfos would disagree with Rashi's reasoning, since he goes with the Svara of Shev Val Taaseh Adif, and no matter what, don't do a Maaseh to kill someone.

quote:

Over here, the Knaitch would be, that you're not physically handing them over to the enemy, but you're commanding them to go into battle when you know they'll be killed. This would seem not to be the physically handing over. I think it might be depend on the Machlokes whether Mossar, which is Garmi, is Midarbanan or Midoiraisa

It occurred to me over Shabbos that in the original case I presented (where the British knew info that would save a town, but didn't share it for fear it would give away the fact they had cracked the nazi's yemach shmam codes) there is not even a grama.
It's really a transgression of lo saamod al dam rayecha. They didn't actually give anyone to be sacrificed; they merely withheld information with which others could have saved themselves from attack, in order to be able to save others in the future.
Then I thought that perhaps one could argue they would be ovair either way; if they don't give the info, they are ovair lo saamod for a certain group; if they do give the info, they are ovair on lo saamod on the klall, for they have failed to protect them from the enemy.
In such an instance, perhaps they did the right thing, seeing that their main tafkid was to protect the klall--lo saamod for the rabim--since either way lo saamod wil be transgressed.

quote:

they merely withheld information with which others could have saved themselves from attack

Its too bad they couldn't have arranged for some coincidental noticing of the enemy approaching through conventional means, and just happened to be well prepared to defend?

Or if a fire broke out in an empty barn causing the evacuation of the town the day before the expected attack?

Yeah, you're right. The book says that one time they had to sink some ships headed for N. Africa in the fog; it was critical to the war, even though it would give away, seemingly, that they had cracked the code. They did in fact see in their intercepts that the Germans suspected their ciphers had been compromised, but someone thought of the idea of wiring (in a code they knew the Germans had cracked) phantom Italian agents for having 'given away the positions of the ships,' a ruse the Germans bought hook line and sinker. I guess they just didn't think of it.

Rabotai,

I don't get it. How does "Lo taamod" work with inaction at a time of war? I can't understand. Did those who chose to fight against the Nazis violate a mitzvah by doing so?

Yes, and how do we know that in that town there was not someone who had valuable skills that would have been useful in the future against the enemy?

How many other situations did Churchill avoid, just waiting for that perfect moment, when 'he' considered victory would be gained?

My intent was that being able to know the enemy's intent and being privy to his internal correspondence is such a huge advantage that giving it away, say to save a small town, if it were to result in losing major battles or indeed the war, would be a failure to protect all the people who were subsequently killed.
I even thought to myself that to give away this advantage could be a violation of lo saamod because the government has an obligation to defend all its citizens from danger, and to give it away would be endangering the entire nation.
Indeed, this history ('Bodyguard of Lies', by Anthony Cave Brown) claims the Germans had the better army and armaments--the only reason the Allies won, he argues, was because of their advantage in intelligence.

Yes, it wasn't very intelligent to begin killing innocent people and waging a war, not only against the rest of the world, but against G-d!