PARSHAT KEE TETZE

(5768)

 

IN A DIFFERENT VOICE

“They shall say to the elders of his town, this son of ours is disloyal and defiant, he does not listen to our voice.  He is a glutton and a drunkard.”  (Deuteronomy 21:20)

            Let us begin with a strange law, a law so difficult the Rabbis of the Talmud interpreted it out of existence.  The Torah speaks of a stubborn and a rebellious son who does not listen to the voice of his mother and father.  He is taken to the elders at the gates of the city, and there he was stoned to death.  (Parents raising teenagers are often tempted by this law.)

            The Talmud carefully studies the law.  It then concludes, “There never was such a stubborn and rebellious son, and there never will be.  It is written in the Torah so that we will study and receive a reward.”  (Sanhedrin 71a)  R. Jonathan disagrees, saying there was such a son who was put to death and he sat on his grave.  But the majority view, and the accepted view of Jewish tradition, is that putting to death a stubborn and rebellious son could never happen.

            How did the Rabbis manage to interpret a law of the Torah totally out of existence?  The answer is by what modern scholars call hermeneutics, the careful reading and interpretation of a Biblical text.  The text says that the stubborn and rebellious son does no listen to the voice of his mother and father.  The word voice is written in the singular.  In other words, the mother and father must be speaking with one voice.  But it is impossible for a mother and father to speak with precisely the same voice; if nothing else, the pitch and timbre are different.  So the law could never be applied in real life.

            Some would see such Rabbinic hermeneutics as ridiculous, the kind of sophistry that causes people to make fun of Rabbis.  Who cares if the word voice is written in the singular or the plural?  On the contrary, I find the Rabbinic argument exceedingly clever.  Here was a law from the Torah that the Rabbis did not like.  They needed a way to interpret it so that it remained on the books but was never applied in real life.  And they found such a way.  Only if the father and mother speak in precisely the same voice is the stubborn and rebellious son guilty.  And in real life that could never happen.

            I would be the first to recommend to parents that they make an effort to speak in the same voice.  Children become experts at a very young age at playing their parents off one against the other.  “But mommy said it was okay.”  “Daddy said I could buy this.”  Consistent parenting is an ideal that moms and dads should strive for.  But in real life it rarely happens.  Mommies and daddies do speak with different voices.  In fact, men and women speak in different voices.  And perhaps that is not a bad thing.

            Today there is much discussion of gender.  Is there a difference between men and women?  Now that women can be ordained as rabbis (at least outside of Orthodoxy), does a woman bring a different perspective to the rabbinate?  For that matter, do women lawyers or doctors bring a different voice to their professions?  Now that a woman came so close to receiving the Democratic nomination for president, and another woman was picked as the Republican nominee for vice president, does it make a difference?   Do women speak in a different voice than men?  And do they add a different perspective?

            Feminist scholar Carol Gilligan published a groundbreaking book in 1982 called In a Different Voice.   In the book she argued that girls use a different type of moral reasoning than boys.   While boys tend to see moral issues in terms of rules and principles, girls tend to see such issues in terms of relationships.  (Of course, whenever one speaks about questions of gender, one is painting with a very broad brush.  Every man and every woman is an individual; some mothers are more father-like and some fathers are more mother-like.)  But according to Gilligan, speaking in broad general terms, men and women do speak in a somewhat different voice.

            I believe that it is part of God’s gift to the world that there are two genders, and that men and women often balance each other out.  I am thrilled to have female rabbis in our community because I believe they have insights which balance out us male rabbis. For too many years Judaism only heard male voices.  And I was lucky enough to be raised by a father and a mother.  They often spoke in a different voice.  We live in a society that needs to hear both male and female voices.

 

 

PARSHAT KEE TETZE

 (5767)

 

DIVORCE

 

“A man takes a wife and possesses her.  She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house.”                            (Deuteronomy 24:1-2)

 

            This week’s portion speaks of divorce.  In particular, it teaches that if a man divorces his wife and she marries another man, her first husband is forbidden ever to take her back.  The question that jumps out at me is, if the Torah sees marriage as so vital, why does it permit divorce at all.

            I discussed this issue at length in my book God, Love, Sex and Family.  Here is a short selection from that book.  (As you read this selection, think about the question – which of the two views of divorce is most prevalent today?  And is that healthy for society?)   

            There are two views of divorce, corresponding to two views of marriage.  Much of our legal history has been an interplay between these two views. 

            One opinion sees marriage as an institution ordained by God and meant to last for a lifetime.  This view would accept the New Testament saying, "What therefore God has brought together let no man put asunder."  (Matthew 19:6)  At its most extreme, people who hold this view would forbid divorce altogether.  If that was not practical, they would at least limit it to the most extreme grounds such as adultery, cruelty, bigamy, habitual drunkenness, or desertion.  Such divorces would proceed in these limited cases only when one partner finds fault with the other.  Under the influence of early Christianity which permitted divorce only for adultery, this was the way most divorces were handled by the civil law until the last couple of decades.

            The second opinion sees marriage as a contract between two parties for their own personal self-fulfillment.  Like any other contract, the marriage ought to be voidable at the will of the parties involved.  There would be no need to search for fault in these cases; irreconcil­able differences would be sufficient grounds to terminate a marriage.  By making no fault divorce a possibility, this view removes the litigation and bitterness that so often accompanied divorces when "fault" must be proven.  At the most extreme, proponents of this view would remove the government from any role in divorce proceedings except the administra­tive function of recording the divorce action.  Just as two individuals can get married with a minimum of government interfer­ence, so can two individuals divorce at their own initiative. 

            Thus, we see two extreme points of view with allowances for some degrees of moderation on both sides.  One extreme sees marriage as permanent and unbreakable.  In theory this is the view of the Catholic Church, which forbids divorce altogether.  (The ability to annul marriages gives the Catholic Church an escape route by allowing the Vatican to cancel an untenable marriage by saying no true marriage ever took place.)  The view that marriage is permanent and unbreakable can be moderated by allowing divorce for certain limited grounds, in particu­lar adultery.  Still, advocates of this approach tend to take a view of society that sees a stable family structure as more important than individual rights and happiness. 

            The other extreme view sees marriage as a mere contract which can be rescinded by mutual consent.  To this view, there ought to be no more stigma attached to divorce anymore than there would be if two people dissolved a business partnership.  If a marriage is not working, let people go there separate ways with no questions asked.  This view is moderated by those who believe that marriage must be more than a mere contract, particularly when young children are involved.  In such a case there ought to be some reasonable grounds such as irreconcilable differences before a marriage can be terminated.  Still, proponents of this view would advocate for a simple, no fault divorce procedure attainable by mutual consent.  Advocates of this approach tend to take a view of society that see individual rights and self-fulfillment as more important than family commitments. 

            Accordingly, the ongoing tension of family commitments versus individual rights has played itself out in the history of divorce in America.  Nonetheless, there must be a middle ground where a balance is found between the need for family stability and the respect for individual rights.  This is where I turn to my own tradition.  Judaism, when viewed with a historical perspective, has marked out precisely this middle ground on the complex issue of divorce.  

 

 

 

PARSHAT KEE TETZE

 (5766)

 

LAW OR COMMANDMENT

 

“You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed, else the crop – from the seed you have sown – and the yield of the vineyard may not be used.  You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together.  You shall not wear cloth combining wool and linen.”                                                                   (Deuteronomy 22:9-11)

 

            This portion has more laws than any other portion in the Torah.  The laws deal with such a variety of subjects that it is impossible to pin down one theme.  Some deal with family life such as the law of the stubborn and rebellious son or the law of divorce.  Some deal with ethical maxims such as returning lost objects or caring for the widow and the orphan.  Some deal with ritual matters like not mixing seeds or wearing clothing with wool and linen.  Much of the portion is highly concerned with ethical issues, treating every human being as infinitely precious in the eyes of God.  And yet, some of the laws are unethical such as the commandment to cut off the hand of a woman who touches a man inappropriately.

            How are we moderns to relate to all these laws?  Are they obligatory today?  Should we be checking our clothing to make sure that there is no mix of animal products (wool) and plant products (linen)?  (Fortunately it says nothing about polyester.)        In a broader sense, does the word “Torah” mean law, as many translate it?  Or does it mean teaching, as I prefer to translate it?

            In the Orthodox world, these are God’s laws, and they are binding.  In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates asked the question, “Is something good because the gods say it is?  Or do the gods say it is good because it is?”  From an Orthodox perspective, the law is good because God says it is.  The law is the law, and as Moses put it in a well-known Talmudic passage, “Let the law split the mountain.”  From an Orthodox perspective, the answer is simple.  “God said it, I must do it.  Period!”

            A secularist would disagree.  These laws are man-made, perhaps slightly more progressive than the Code of Hammurabi, but no different in essence.  Man-made laws are enforced by humans and can be overturned by humans.  We can certainly learn from these laws and gain insights into how an ancient society organized itself.  But these laws are not binding.  In our own day of individual autonomy, when Jews turn to civil law in the various lands where they live, the traditional Biblical code of conduct has no binding force.  And certainly from a secularist perspective these laws may be wonderfully insightful, but they have nothing to do with God.

            So we seem to have two choices.  The laws are God-given, Orthodox, and binding.  Or the laws are man-made, secular, and optional.  Is there a third choice?   I believe the answer is yes.  On this issue like many non-Orthodox rabbis who love tradition, I turn to the brilliant work of the philosopher Franz Rosenzweig.

            Rosenzweig was an amazing man.  Growing up in an assimilated home, he almost converted to Christianity.  He decided to give Judaism one more chance, attending services on Yom Kippur in a little Orthodox synagogue in Berlin.  There something touched him and he began to explore Judaism.  Together with Martin Buber, he translated the Bible into German and established a lehrhaus, a center for adult Jewish learning.  He wrote his great book of Jewish philosophy, The Star of Redemption, on postcards from the front in World War I.  And as his body was failing from Lou Gehrig’s disease, he kept teaching and writing until the end of his life.

            Someone once asked Rosenzweig if he observed the law of wearing tefillin, phylacteries each morning.  He answered, “Not yet.”  The answer reflects one of his most powerful insights.  There is a difference between a law and a commandment.  A law sits in a book; a commandment speaks to our soul.  The job of a Jew is to look at the laws and seek to turn them into commandments, something that binds us to God.

            Rosenzweig’s insight teaches us how to read this week’s portion.  These are laws that grew out of the Jewish encounter with God.  Right now they sit in a book.  Our job is to turn as many of them as possible into commandments, teachings that touch our very souls.  They are laws; we must make them into commandments.

 

PARSHAT KEE TETZE

(5764)

 

BORROWING EGGS AND SPERM

 

“The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel.”                                                (Deuteronomy 25:6)

 

            Infertility is a major issue, particularly as more of us delay marrying and have children later in life.  Science has discovered ways to borrow sperm, borrow eggs, even borrow a womb.  The Catholic Church has condemned these procedures as opposed to natural law.  From my perspective as a rabbi and a frequent counselor of infertile couples, can these methods ever be justified?

            Allow me to share some thoughts from my book God, Love, Sex, and Family:       

            The Torah teaches that God commanded Moses to take a census of the people Israel "who were registered by their clans of their ancestral houses." (Numbers 1:18)  The Biblical commentator Rashi makes the comment that this means everyone should know their genetic lineage.  The question of lineage profoundly affects the religious view of the new reproductive tech­niques as well as adoption.

            When a baby is born, part of that baby's identity as a human being is his or her genetic background.  Such lineage may not be the most important factor in a child's identity; the mentor who raises the child is more important than the progenitor who sires the child. (Baba Metzia 2:11)  Nonetheless, one cannot ignore bloodlines.  A child's genetic heritage gives that child his or her physical appear­ance, intelligence, native talents, and unfortunately sometimes, a predispo­sition to certain diseases and conditions. It is part of the child's very being.  Genetic material also gives the child a connection with (usually unknown) biological siblings, and always creates the real possibility of accidental incest.  The fear of incest is one major reason many religious leaders of all faiths are reluctant to approve donor gametes.           

            In my own religious tradition, many rabbis forbid the donation of sperm, eggs, or a womb because of this great emphasis on determining proper lineage.  For example, by Jewish law a woman must wait three months after a divorce before remarrying; if she becomes pregnant before the waiting period has elapsed, paternity cannot be clearly established. According to traditional Jewish law, one's status as a Jew is decided by the biolog­ical mother.  Other examples are one's status as a Kohen, Levi, or Yisrael, the three tribal groupings of the Jewish people, which is decided by the biological father.  Similarly, a person is either kasher (fit) or a mamzer (illegitimate) based on the genetic lineage.

            In the case of reproductive techniques, we are therefore faced with a classical dilemma of two conflicting religious values.  On the one hand, there is the primary commandment to "be fruitful and multiply."  On the other hand, we are similarly commanded to establish proper lineage for a child on both the mother's and the father's side.  Can the issue of lineage be overlooked to allow a couple to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation?  Which consideration takes precedence?

            I have always contended in my counseling that the issue of lineage is secondary to the issue of procreation.  Having a baby is central to the religious view of life.  Establishing proper lineage may be good practical advice; it is important to a child's self-esteem and possibly to his or her medical condition to know where he or she comes from.  Nonetheless, the law to establish a proper lineage is not so vital that it ought to prevent an infertile couple from pursuing the new reproductive techniques.  Given the choice between no child and a child whose maternal or paternal lineage is unknown, I would opt for creating the child.

            In fact, there is biblical precedent for ignoring facts of lineage in establish­ing legal paternity.  According to the law of levirate marriage (Deuteronomy 25:5-10), if a man dies childless, his brother is expected to raise children in the name of the deceased brother.  One brother is the sperm donor; the other is the legal father.  This case implies that the true father is not the progenitor but the one who gives his name and values to the child.  We can draw upon this example as a precedent for permitting artificial insemination with donor sperm.  There are similar precedents to permit donor eggs and even surrogate motherhood.

            Infertile couples who are considering unconventional medical procedures such as those discussed above should have the support and blessing of the religious community.  Coping with their own infer­tility already imposes burdens on them; their suffering should not be exacerbated by community censure.

 

 

 

PARSHAT KEE TETZE

(5763)

 

PEOPLE ON THE FRINGES

 

"You shall not abuse a needy and destitute laborer, whether a fellow countryman or a stranger in one of the communities of your land."

(Deuteronomy 24:14)

 

I saw a fascinating movie this week called Dirty Pretty Things.  Set in London, it shows the world of illegal immigrants and others living at the fringes of society.  The story revolves around a doctor from Nigeria, now forced to drive a taxi by day and work in a seedy hotel by night.  He chews medicinal roots to stay awake.  He befriends a young Turkish woman who works as a hotel maid, and then in a sweat shop.   The story takes off when the doctor discovers some shady happenings in the hotel.

One scene in particular greatly moved me.  Someone asks the doctor, AWho are you people?@  He answers rather sadly, AWe are the people you don't even notice.  We are the ones who drive you places, who clean up after you.@    They are the ones who do the work that most of us do not want to do.   Every society has those living on the fringes, those who pick our vegetables, clean our homes, sew our clothes, do much of the work many of us do not want to do.  And we barely notice them.

In this week's portion we read more laws than any other portion in the Torah.  They cover a variety of topics, both ethical and ritual, with no systematic order nor clear organization.  They call for the people Israel, once they enter the land, to be a holy nation.  And of course holiness is to uphold the highest ethical standard of behavior.  Central to that vision is how society treats those living on the fringes.

There are many such laws mentioned in the portion.  Employers may not exploit a  day laborer who depends on this wage to support himself or herself.  A creditor may not enter a private home to take clothing belonging to the debtor.   A runaway slave may not be forcibly returned to his owner.  The body of a criminal executed may not be left out to be mocked overnight.  And of course, special care must be taken for the widows and the orphans, those without clear means of support. 

The essence of these laws is that we are to see all our fellow human beings, even those on the fringes, as created in the image of God.  All have a fundamental dignity and deserve to be treated with kindness and respect.  Most important, we need to see the others, the people we do not even notice.

Many of the people who read this message are in well-paying, highly respected professions.  We are the managers in the corporate world, the physicians in the hospital, the lawyers in the office buildings, the professors on the campuses, the clergy in the synagogue and church.  Do we even notice the support people who help us do our job?  How do we treat the secretaries and other clerical workers, the health workers and technicians, the legal aids and couriers, the graduate students and teaching assistants, the religious school teachers?   There is certainly a hierarchy out there.  And equally important, how do we treat those on the bottom of the chain of authority, the food servers and maintenance workers and janitors?  Do we even notice them?  My question to those in the professional world is, do you know the name of the person who cleans your office?

The Torah is teaching us that a society rises or falls based on how it treats those on the fringes.  For years I have been giving advice to young people seeking a marriage partner.  I have said, "Look at your dates.  How do they treat subordinates?  Not their boss but their employees.  How do they treat the shop keeper in a store, the waitress in a restaurant, the doorman in a building?  This will tell you far more about their values than hours of discussion about politics."

The movie I saw this week moved me not simply because it was a dramatic story with good acting, but because it showed another side of a beautiful city, London.  It is the side tourists do not want to see.  But we need to see those on the fringes.  For we cannot pretend to love God and ignore any of God's children.

PARSHAT KEE TETZE

(5762)

 

HONEST WEIGHTS

 

"You shall not have in your bag diverse weights, a large and a small."

(Deuteronomy 25:13)

 

I received an exciting offer from a book publisher.  Would I be interested in writing a chapter on family life for a new book soon to be published?  The book would be an anthology of essays by prominent speakers and writers on family issues.  I asked about royalties, and the publisher promised the standard royalty structure divided between the authors.  I asked if there was a cost to me to participate, and they said "no!"

Then I received the paperwork.  They were thrilled to publish my work.  My only commitment was to buy a large number of books at a set price, costing several thousand dollars.  I quickly declined.

It was a classic case of "bait and switch."  Lead the customer on with one deal, and then before the deal was closed, change the terms to a less favorable deal.  It is one of the many false business practices too prevalent today.  A customer is presented with one product, and soon discovers that he or she is really getting a different product.

This week's portion speaks about honest weights and measures.  A merchant must have an absolutely honest scale.  It is forbidden to have a weight or any other measuring device that cheats the customer.  A customer must know precisely what he or she is buying from the merchant.

We live in a time of overwhelming corporate dishonesty.  From Enron to Worldcom, from insider training to audits by accounting firms with a financial interest in shading the truth, many in the corporate world have broken their trust with the public.  Unfortunately the stock market and the entire economy has been effected by these dishonest dealings.  Too many businesses have been less than forthcoming in their operations.   Behind this rash of corporate dishonesty is one of the oldest vices in the world, greed. 

Greed is not simply a symptom of the large corporate world.  Small businesses are hardly immune.  How often does a business or a contractor promise more than he or she can realistically deliver?  How often does a business hide defects in its product?  How often does a business person sell without disclosing all the details?  How often do businesses keep two sets of books in order to cheat the government?  How often do businesses make a special offer, and then the customer finds that the product offered is not available?  How often do hidden, undisclosed costs and overruns suddenly appear on the bill?

I discuss these issues with our young people, and they sometimes speak out against capitalism.  They see these practices as proof that the entire economic system is corrupt and in need of replacement.  I try to explain that perhaps capitalism is a bad system, but it is certainly better than any other.  There is nothing wrong with people trying to earn a living selling goods and services.  There is nothing wrong with people trying to get the best price the market will bear.  But at least present any goods and services to customers with honesty and integrity from the very beginning.  "No false weights" means that the customer knows precisely what he or she is receiving for the money..

Maimonides, the great medieval philosopher and authority on Jewish law, wrote "The punishment for dishonest measures is more severe than the punishment for forbidden sexual relations, for the latter is a sin against God only, the former against one's fellow as well as God."  (Rambam Hilchot G'neiva 7:12, based on Baba Batra 88b, I want to thank Rabbi David Rosenn for pointing out this source to me.)  In general Maimonides took a hard line on improper sexual behavior.  But he believed that proper business behavior is even more important.  Maimonides continued with the words that  to cheat one=s fellow in business denies the very purpose of the Exodus from Egypt.  We did not go from slavery to freedom to build a corrupt society.

Each of us should look at ourselves in the mirror on a regular basis and ask the question, "Was I absolutely honorable in my business relationships."  

PARSHAT KEE TETZE

(5761)

 

GENDER SEPARATION

 

"A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor a man a woman's garment, , for all who do so are an abomination onto the Lord."

(Deuteronony 22:5)

 

God=s first creative act was an act of separation.  God separated light from darkness, day from night, the waters above from the waters below, water from dry ground.  Ultimately God separated animals and birds, dividing the animals into clean and unclean animals.  Finally God created humanity, separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, men and women, both created in the image of God.

One of the key ideas of numerous religions is imitatio deo, the imitation of God. We achieve holiness through our own acts of separation and distinction.  Yet, one of the key areas of separation discussed by the Torah is terribly troubling to moderns - the separation of men and women.

This week's Torah portion contains more laws than any other portion in the entire Torah.  Hidden in this long list of legal obligations is the prohibition of wearing clothes usually worn by the opposite gender.  Many traditionalists interpret this very strictly, forbidding women from wearing pants or men from wearing earrings.  Others say that fashions change, and what was male or female attire in one generation will vary in a new generation.  But the underlying idea of gender separation remains.

In the Orthodox Jewish community, this gender separation is taken quite literally.  Men and women do not sit together during public prayer, and a physical barrier (mehitza) is erected between them. This has led to religious services being male only, with women as spectators behind the barrier, if they can see at all.  Some creative Orthodox synagogues are experimenting with women only services, a move considered very controversial in Orthodox circles.

In the non-Orthodox community, we have removed this separation during prayer.  Men and women sit together, and in most (but not all) non-Orthodox services, men and women participate together in synagogue ritual.  This has led to a younger generation of women far more learned in Jewish traditions and rituals.  But it also raises a serious question, is there any legitimacy to separation between the genders?  Or should egalitarianism lead to unisex?

The issue recently came up in a rabbi's internet discussion.  As a Conservative synagogue, part of our bar mitzvah program is to teach boys how to wear tefillin, the leather boxes containing Biblical verses traditionally worn by Jewish men on their arms and foreheads during daily worship.  My synagogue requires every bar mitzvah age boy to have tefillin and learn to put them on.  Several rabbis on the internet raised the issue, if we are to require this of boys should we not require this of every girl who wants to become a bat mitzvah.

Certainly a girl who desires to put on tefillin is free to do so.  (According to Rabbinic tradition, the medieval Biblical commentator Rashi had daughters who put on tefillin.  I had one bat mitzvah girl in my synagogue who learned how and put on tefillin every morning throughout her high school years.)  Nonetheless, it is one matter to teach an individual girl who desires to learn, quite another to require it of every girl.

Perhaps by requiring this mitzvah only of the boys, I am in a small way maintaining the gender separation required by the Torah.  Those of us in the liberal movements who have embraced egalitarianism must ask the question: Do we still see a difference between men and women?  Does the Torah requirement of gender separation still have any validity today?

PARSHAT KEE TETZE

(5760)

 

THE BEAUTIFUL CAPTIVE

 

"You see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her as your wife."

(Deuteronomy 21:11)

 

There are difficult laws in the Torah that are painful for us moderns to read.  Yet, sometimes after further consideration, we can learn a profound, modern insight from such a law.

The Torah speaks of a soldier who goes to war, takes captives, and sees a beautiful woman whom he desires.  He was not allowed to immediately have his way with her.  She was given thirty days to mourn her family, cutting her hair and nails and dressing in the garments of a captive.  Only after the thirty days was he permitted to take her as his wife.

The very notion of a man taking a captive woman as a wife against her will makes us cringe.  Still, soldiers in ancient times and soldiers today have had their way with captive women.  Men in the midst of war have always murdered, pillaged, and raped.  It is a reality of human behavior, as we can see from events in the Balkins these past years.

When men go to war, the evil inclination often has a powerful hold on them.  Soldiers in the heat of battle behave in a way that civilians at home would never consider doing.  War brings out the ugly side of people.

The Torah, aware of this reality, tries to get the evil inclination under control.  A man may desire a woman, but he cannot immediately have his way with her.  He must wait thirty days, while she does things to diminish her beauty and show her mourning.  At the end of the waiting period, there is a good chance that his desire will have died down altogether.

The Rabbis of the Talmud developed this idea further.  If a man should bring home a wife from the field of battle, she will soon become a hated wife.  (The next law in the Torah deals with a hated wife.)  Their son will grow up to be a stubborn and rebellious son.  (The law after that deals with the stubborn and rebellious son.)  By allowing his evil inclination to get the best of him in the field of battle, he will start a series of events with tragic consequences.

The goal of the Torah is to teach us humans to control our evil inclination.  Lust, violence, pride, gluttony, avarice, selfishness, anger, are all part of the human condition.  Times of war brings out the worst of these emotions.  That is why the Torah requires soldiers to control their lust, even in a battlefield situation.

Ben Zoma taught what I consider one of the most important Rabbinic teachings - "Who is Strong?  Whoever controls their evil inclination."  (Avot 4:1)  If we humans can learn self-control on the field of battle, how much more so in the office, the school, the board room, at home with our family.

Today our understanding of war has evolved.  Even amongst the evils of battle their are rules laid out by the Geneva Conventions.  The murder, plunder, and rape of civilians is unacceptable.  Enemy soldiers, when captured, must be treated according to certain humane laws.  We all know that in reality, soldiers do not always behave with such high ideals.  Even today, people are overcome by their evil inclination.