The Challenge of Being a Jewish Soldier

Rabbi Dr. Darrell Ginsberg

Conduct on the battlefield is a hot button issue in today’s heightened political climate. No doubt, we are all aware of the increased scrutiny of soldiers by international human rights organizations. Of course, battle conditions today, reflected in technological advancements and new tactics, are quite different from the times of the original conquest of Eretz Yisrael. Yet the psyche of the soldier and the range of emotions he experiences has not changed an iota. Through a vague warning issued by the Torah, expanded on in a Sifrei and elaborated upon by the Ramban, we are made aware of the pertinent dangers awaiting the Jewish soldier and how his conduct can merit being mekadesh shem shamayim.

In going out to war, Bnai Yisrael are advised of the following (23:10):

“When you go out to encamp against your enemies take precautions from every evil thing.”

The question asked by many commentaries is what “evil” is being referred to in this verse?

The Ramban, after citing Rashi, offers an interesting premise:

“The well-known custom of forces going to war is that they eat al abominable things, rob and plunder, and are not ashamed even of lewdness and all vileness. The fairest of man by nature comes to be possessed of cruelty and fury when the army advances against the enemy…”

With this as his initial approach, he proceeds to introduce the Sifrei:

“And in the Sifre it is stated ‘I might think that the Torah is speaking of the laws of tumaa and tahara and maasros. It therefore says ervah (a later verse). Where do I know to include idolatry, lewdness, murder and blasphemy? The Torah says ‘every evil’. Or perhaps the verse is speaking only of tumaa and tahara and maasros? It says ervah – just as ervah uniquely represents a deed for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land and which removes the Shechina, so all deeds for which the Canaanites were driven from the Land and which remove the Shechina. When the Torah uses the term ‘davar’, it is referring to lashon hara.”

The Ramban further explains that the Torah included this admonition of these sins with reference to being a soldier. First, we obviously do not want to bring about the removal of the Shechina. Additionally, we do not want to be overpowered by the enemy due to our failings in these areas. Finally, he adds that the addition of lashon hara was to preclude any “contention” between the soldiers, leading to a worse outcome than what the enemy might unleash.

The Ramban is offering a general approach to this Sifrei, and serves to open up the area. Nonetheless, there are still some difficult issues with this piece. The context we are dealing with is the Jewish solider heading out to wage the war of God and be mekadesh shem shamayim. The first concern offered by the Sifrei is an adherence to tumaa, tahara and maaser? What is the apprehension? We also see that the Sifrei does not offer a more detailed explanation as to which areas of tumaa, tahara and maaser are being referred to (niddah, kashrus, etc.) How are we to understand, in light of the Ramban’s overall focus on the dangers of battle, these specific concerns? 

Moving along in the Sifrei, we see a focus on ervah as being the one area that the soldier must be most concerned with. Of course, we must ask what makes this the centerpiece of the Sifrei? On a more subtle level, we do see the Torah accommodating this very issue. The halacha of yefas toar clearly plays a significant role in dealing with the soldier’s battlefield experiences. It would seem that there is some room for the solider to “give in” to this emotional area – yet the Sifrei is focusing on this one issue as being the area to avoid at all costs.

It is also interesting how the Sifrei does not stop with ervah – it then includes the worst sins one could possibly be involved in. Is this really a legitimate concern for the Jewish soldier? If the Torah is worried that the situation of war definitively leads to these types of evils, then war should always be avoided. 

The Sifrei then describes the downside to ervah – it brought about the exile of the Canaanites from Eretz Yisrael and leads to the removal of the Shechinah. Again, one must ask, why focus solely on ervah in this context? Idolatry and murder surely could have brought about the same results.

Finally, we are left with the inclusion, almost as an afterthought, of lashon hara. It is hard to line up this sin against the more serious violations expressed by the Sifrei. Granted, the Ramban tries to explain how its presence would create contention within the army, and there is no reason to assume that it would not. But is this really a legitimate concern? Are soldiers more likely to engage in lashon hara in a time of war?

Yes, quite a lot of questions. The first step is to understand the overall idea of shmirah, as mentioned in the verse (“v’nishmartah”). The Ramban makes clear that the Torah is offering an “admonition”, an extra degree of caution that must be in the mindset of the soldier as he gears for battle. Normally, the Torah is satisfied with the fact that something is permitted or prohibited. The concept of shmirah might appear to be a superfluous layer on top of the commandment. It would therefore seem that the caution is being directed towards a situation where a person’s emotions are pushed into an extreme challenging state. In the day to day life of an individual, he does not normally encounter excessive tests of the psyche. As a result, it is within his control whether he will be overcome by his instincts and driven towards an area of prohibition. However, the solider is not in the normal emotional state; nobody can doubt the veracity of this when waging war. Regardless of the thoughts of the Jewish soldier, where his objective is kiddush shem shamayaim, he is entering a situation of emotional stress. This is why the shemirah is not unnecessary. When a person is placed into an abnormal emotional situation, he must be that much more careful.

This being the case, the Sifrei proceeds to then define the different dangers that could emerge from the soldier’s situation (this is only a basic approach to the Sifrei – there is much more to be said). At first, we see what seem to be issues of little importance in the battlefield. Why the additional caution regarding tumaa, tahara and maaser? It is the very fact these matters have very little relevance to him at the time of battle that helps develop an understanding. The Sifrei could be telling us that the fact that these types of matters, emblematic of the halachic system, may well become of lesser importance to the soldier. Why? When fighting a religious war, a person naturally engages in emotions of superiority. There is no question that being mekadesh shem shamayim endows a soldier with a certain degree of confidence. From there, it is not a far jump to superiority. And in doing so, the soldier views himself in a different light as compared to the rest of the nation. He is on the front lines, waging the good war, while the rest of the nation waits at home for the inevitable victory. This mindset naturally expresses itself onto the halachic system itself. The logic of the soldier is that the concern of tumaa and tahara is very nice for the average Jew, but becomes less relevant to the fighter. The Torah thus warns this soldier to be diligent in preventing this emotion from overpowering him.

The Sifrei then turns to ervah and the other heinous sins. Again, the issue here is the extreme emotional state of the soldier. In this explanation, the focus might be on the overpowering aggression that emerges in battle. A soldier is easily swayed by the desire to conquer, extending beyond the enemy to whatever he faces, and therefore seeks outlets for these emotions. It is natural why he would be more susceptible to the pull of the sexual world in light of the drive to conquer. It is true the Torah makes a point of allowing for such an outlet to exist for the soldier. However, the warning here has to do with the ability of the soldier to restrain his emotions. In this aggressive state, his ability to control his emotions becomes much more of a challenge, and it is personified in the area hardest to control, that of the sexual drive. This being the paradigm, the other evils are then mentioned to emphasize the overall control the soldier must have. Again, the concern here is not the actual committing of the actions – if that were so, there would never be a heter to go to battle. Instead, it is retaining the proper mindset, understanding the powerful emotions that are present and realizing the damage they can do. When representing God in battle, one’s mindset is of supreme importance.

The Sifrei then turns back to the consequence of ervah – it led to the exile of the Canaanites and the removal of the Shechinah. It is interesting that both of these consequences are mentioned; one could imagine that God’s “distancing” from the nation is the more severe issue. It could be that there are two fundamental problems with indulging in the world of ervah. The first involves the inability of a strong foundation of family to emerge. A society cannot evolve in a productive manner, in line with the will of God, without the concept of family to create it. When there are no boundaries to sexual indulgence, the society as a whole deserves the fate of the Canaanites. The other problem seems to be an idea in the individual. As mentioned previously, the sexual drive is one of the strongest instinctual drives in humanity. When a person cannot control this part of his psyche, he by definition cannot engage in yediyas Hashem – the two pursuits are mutually exclusive. On a grand scale, this problem brings about the removal of the Shechinah, meaning a change in how God relates to the nation. 

This leaves us with the issue concerning lashon hara. Previously, the Sifrei was dealing with certain dangerous emotions that need to be controlled at the time of battle. It is hard to posit that there was a genuine fear of an outbreak of slander occurring amongst the soldiers. To this end, the Ramban focuses on the damage that could occur to the army as a whole. Therefore, it would seem that what is being addressed is a different element of caution. The soldier must be aware of the damage to the contiguous nature of the army when people engage in an activity such as lashon hara. There are times where the danger is one that the individual soldier faces, and there are times when the danger threatens to engulf the army. The fear of lashon hara is not one of probability, but one of its potential impact on the army itself.  

What we see from this Sifrei, and in many other instances throughout the writings of Chazal, is the important need for the soldier to be aware of his emotional state while at war. Putting an individual in this taxing emotional state is certainly a tremendous challenge for the soldier – the Torah offers numerous methods where the soldier is defined as “unfit for duty”. Yet, as expressed in this Sifrei, if he knows himself, and understands how he will be challenged, he has the unique opportunity to be mekadesh shem shamayim, an act of perfection with untold benefits.