Why does the Torah juxtapose the Parshah of going to war to that of Eglah Arufah?
Ba'al ha'Turim #1: It actually places the Parshah between two Parhiyos about going to war to teach us that if a Sonei takes advantage of the state of war and murders the man whom he hates, 1 one should first eliminate the murderer 2 before going to war again, in order to succeed in battle.
Ba'al ha'Turim #2 (citing Sotah, 44a): The Torah juxtaposes "Ki Seitzei la'Milchamah ... " to "Ki Sa'Asei ha'Yashar" to teach us that it is only Tzadikim who go to war, and next to the word be'Einei Hashem" to teach us that when Yisrael go to war, Hashem goes with them. 3
Riva: To teach us that Eglah Arufah is not brought for a murdered Nochri. Sha'ul erred in this, and said 'if the Torah said to bring Eglah Arufah for one soul?' (Yoma 22b), therefore he kept alive Agag, Melech Amalek. 4 It says about this "va'Yirev ba'Nachal" (Shmuel 1 15:5).
See Ba'al ha'Turim.
Ba'al ha'Turim: As the previous Parshah ends "v'Atah Teva'er Dam ha'Naki ... ".
Ba'al ha'Turim: As the Navi states in Zecharyah, 14:3.
Indeed, the Gemara says that he questioned why he must kill so many people, and animals that did not sin, and minors. However, he killed all the people except for Agag. It seems that he kept Agag alive for a different reason! Perhaps it was due to honor for kings, combined with his mistaken esteem for the value of a Nochri's life. (PF)
Which kind of war is the Torah talking about?
What is the significance of the phrase "u'Nesano Hashem Elkecha be'Yadecha" before "Veshaviso Shivyo"?
Oznayim la'Torah: It implies that the Din of Y'fas To'ar only applies after victory has been achieved - While the war is in progress intimate relations with a captive is potentially dangerous. 1
Oznayim la'Torah: As we see in the story of Yehudis and King Aliporni.
Why does the Torah write the double expression "Ve'shaviso Shivyo"?
Rashi: To include any Cana'anim 1 among the captives (provided they do Teshuvah [and undertake to keep the seven Mitzvos B'nei No'ach] - Sotah, 38b).
Torah Temimah: 'And you capture their captives' even if they are Cana'anim. See also Ba'al ha'Turim.
What are the implications of "Oyvecha"?
Riva: One kills Nochrim only if they are your enemies, but not S'tam Nochrim, whom we do not raise [from a pit to save them] nor do we cast them in (to cause their death). 1
Oznayim la'Torah #1: It implies 'but not a friendly neighbor with whom you have temporarily fallen out - with whom you should make-up and not go to war. 2
Oznayim la'Torah #2: It precludes a civil war between tribes, 3 from taking captive and from the Din of Y'fas To'ar.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that the Pasuk includes Cana'anim. But the Torah writes about Cana'anim "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah"!
Riva: This includes Cana'ani men who married women of other nations, and they gave birth to girls. Their lineage follows their mothers, 1 and not the fathers. "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah" was not said about them. If both parents are Cana'anim, one may not keep her as a Y'fas To'ar.
This is astounding! Yevamos 78b learns from "Asher Holidu b'Artzechem" that a Nochri's lineage follows his father, so you may keep alive a Cana'ani's child from a man of other nations, but not a Cana'ani's child from a woman of other nations! Moreover, earlier in this Pasuk, the Riva asked and answered why we need two D'rashos to permit Cana'anim (Refer to 21:10:151:1). He did not question the Heter! (PF)
Rashi writes that "ve'Shavisa Shivyo" permits keeping alive a Cana'ani among the captives. But above in 20:11, Rashi learns this from "Kol ha'Am ha'Nimtza Vah"?
Refer to 20:11:151:1-3 and notes.
Rashi writes that "ve'Shavisa Shivyo" permits keeping alive a Cana'ani among the captives. How do we derive this from there?
