גריי מאטר ד, ישראל, כשרות בתנאי קרבGray Matter IV, Israel, Kashrut in Combat Conditions
א׳
1The Torah (Devarim 6-10-11) makes an astonishing implication in its description of the incredible boon we would find we enter the land of Canaan - “Houses filled with all sorts of fine items, pits already dug and vineyards and olive groves that we did not plant that we may eat to our satisfaction”. The Torah implies that we may eat any of the items we find in the homes of the people of Canaan that we shall conquer even if the food is not kosher! In fact, the Gemara (Chullin 17a) supports this explanation stating that we may even eat dried pig that we find in these homes! Chazal rule such is permissible despite the fact that the pesukim could have potentially been interpreted as permitting only those items such as vineyards and olive groves (assuming they are not orlah) which are kosher.
ב׳
2The Rambam’s Explanation
ג׳
3Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 8:1) severely limits the application of this Halachah. He imposes the following four limitations: the Halachah applies only to front line soldiers, only when located in enemy territory, (where the supply lines from the Jewish army are disrupted) only if they are very hungry, and only if there is no other food available. The Kesef Mishneh (ad. loc.) explains that the soldiers are not dangerously hungry to the point that they will die if they do not eat. Rather they are simply very hungry and they cannot find kosher food. The Netziv (Ha’ameik Davar to Devarim 6:10) explains “that the permission granted is due to Pikuach Nefesh (danger to life), as being overly concerned about Kashrut during war can lead to endangering lives”.
ד׳
4The Torah according to the Rambam’s approach is expanding the definition of pikuach nefesh in a wartime scenario. Soldiers in battle are in a situation of severe stress and must be as alert as possible to preserve their own lives, the lives of their comrades in arms and the lives of the citizens they are protecting. A soldier that is not properly fed might not fight effectively as he must and might thereby endanger lives.
ה׳
5The scenario described by the Rambam was the very unfortunate and regrettable reality encountered by some Israeli soldiers who fought in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Soldiers were located deep in enemy territory where the supply lines were disrupted. They were very hungry and non-kosher food was available in the homes they had taken over. These soldiers asked if it was permissible for them to follow the Rambam and partake of the non-kosher food (Techumin 27:399).
ו׳
6In fact, many years ago I counseled a relative who was assigned to command a security checkpoint in Shomron from the early morning to the afternoon, to drink water on Shivah Asar B’Tammuz, lest he become dehydrated and incapable of properly executing his potentially life saving duties. Since then, the rabbinate of Tzahal has greatly improved its services and I now counsel those who ask to present such dilemmas to their Rav Tzva’ee (military chaplain).
ז׳
7The Ramban’s Explanation
ח׳
8One major impediment to following this Halachah of the Rambam is the fact that the Ramban (Devarim ad. loc.) rejects his interpretation. The Ramban understands that the permission granted has nothing to do with combat conditions or pikuach nefesh. Rather it is specific permission given under specific circumstances for all of Am Yisrael to eat the non-kosher food that is found in the homes of the people that we conquered in the time of Yehoshua. According to the Ramban there is no practical relevance of this Halachah beyond the time of Yehoshua bin Nun. The pesukim’s failure to mention war and soldiers may support the Ramban’s interpretation.
ט׳
9We offer two explanations for why the Torah, according to the Ramban, granted such permission to our ancestors. One possibility is that this permission demonstrates the principle of Yalta (Chullin 109b) that for everything forbidden there is a permitted counterpart. The examples he offers include cheilev (fat) of a chayah (a non-domesticated animal) which is the kosher counterpart of the forbidden fat (cheilev) of a beheimah (domesticated animal), a part of the permitted shivuta fish (which tastes like pig) which is the counterpart to non-kosher pig and dam tohar (see Vayikra 12:1-8) which is the counterpoint to dam niddah.
י׳
10Yalta illustrates that the forbidden items per se do not represent the essence of the prohibition. Rather, our abstaining from eating pig, niddah, cheilev and all other forbidden items stems purely from obedience to Hashem. The Torah permitted us these counterpoint items, to emphasize that we abstain from forbidden foods not because there is something inherently wrong with them but only due to adherence to the divine discipline.
י״א
11Another explanation (based on Rav Elchanan Samet Iyunim B’farshee’ot Hashavua 2:311-313) is that Hashem sought to limit the challenge we faced upon entering Eretz Yisrael. We were faced with the enormous difficulty of eliminating the avodah zarah (idolatry) which was at times quite valuable (see Devarim 7:25 which states that some of the Canaaim’s idols were made of gold and silver). Eretz Yisrael when controlled by the seven nations was awash with avodah zarah as Devarim 12:1-3 demonstrates. It was an enormous challenge for our ancestors (and can be today as well if valuable avodah zarah falls into our hands from sources such as the estate of a non-observant relative or a gift from a business partner) to destroy avodah zarah that sometimes can be worth a fortune.
י״ב
12Moreover, the Jews upon entering Eretz Yisrael had not eaten conventional food for forty years while in the Midbar. They were in the midst of the war to conquer Eretz Yisrael and therefore were likely not to have had the opportunity to properly cultivate various crops. Thus, they were very likely subsisting on whatever food they could find. When they conquered a home of a Canaanite they were confronted with Torah prohibitions and obligations that were enormously difficult to fulfill. Under these circumstances Hashem permitted the lesser of the two evils, consuming non-kosher food, in order for us to withstand the challenge of having to utterly destroy avodah zarah no matter how great its value.
י״ג
13Support for this explanation may be gleaned from the words of the Ramban who states “All the prohibitions were permitted to them except, the prohibition of Avodah Zarah”. This implies that the permission emerges from the concern for adherence to the avodah zarah prohibition. This is an example of Hashem not imposing a too difficult of a challenge upon us (see Avodah Zarah 3a-b). Beit Din is similarly enjoined from imposing a decree that is too difficult for most of the community to endure (Avodah Zarah 36a).
י״ד
14The permission to violate the less severe prohibition is similar to Eliyahu permitting the offering of korbanot outside the Beit Hamikdash at Mount Carmel (Melachim I ch.18) in order to wean the people of the northern kingdom from idol worship (see Rambam Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah 9:3). Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook similarly explains (Chazon Hatzimchonut V’hashalom) that the Torah permits killing animals for food in order to stress the severity of the prohibition to murder.
ט״ו
15Halacha L’Ma’aseh – Practical Application
ט״ז
16It is difficult for poskim to permit soldiers to follow the Rambam’s opinion. The Shulchan Aruch does not address this issue, as it was not a relevant issue at the time of its composition when there was, sadly, no Jewish state nor Jewish army. The Aruch Hashulchan He’atid (Hilchot Melachim 77:2-3) which does address issues of war strongly objects to soldiers following the lenient opinion in the wake of the many questions he poses against the Rambam’s opinion. Indeed, Rav Yitzchak Herzog, the Ashkenazic chief rabbi of Eretz Yisrael during World War Two, counseled soldiers who were fighting the Nazis (Yimach shemam) in the Jewish Brigade of the British army, to avoid non-kosher food despite the difficulty of doing so (Teshuvot Heichal Yitzchak O.C. 42). While praising those who fought in the Jewish Brigade and extolling their important role in fighting the evil Nazis, he reasoned that the Ramban certainly does not permit eating non-kosher in such circumstances as he would limit the permission to soldiers fighting in a Jewish war.
י״ז
17Rav Eliezer Waldenberg (Teshuvot Tzitz Eliezer 18:70:10), addressing the challenges faced by soldiers in Tzahal, is very reluctant to rely on the Rambam’s opinion in light of an insight of the Meshech Chochmah. The Meshech Chochmah notes that the pasuk that follows immediately the Torah’s permission to eat the captured items states “Be careful not to forget Hashem your God”. He interprets this as a warning of the possible very negative impact of consuming the non-kosher items, despite the Torah permission to eat them. He notes that the Gemara (Yoma 39a) warns of timtum haleiv, the spiritual numbing of the heart that occurs as a result of consuming non-kosher items even when it is permissible to do so.
י״ח
18The Meshech Chochmah points to the Shulchan Aruch’s resolution (O.C. 328:14 and see Mishnah Berurah 328:39) of a classic dilemma posed by the Rishonim regarding one who on Shabbat must consume meat to prevent death but no kosher meat is available. In such circumstances one must choose between violating Shabbat, a capital crime, by slaughtering an animal to render its meat kosher and eating available non-kosher meat (a less severe prohibition). The Shulchan Aruch rules that one should violate Shabbat instead of eating non-kosher food even though eating the non-kosher food is a less severe prohibition. The reason, explains the Meshech Chochmah, is that eating non-kosher food leaves a negative impact upon the neshamah.
י״ט
19According to the Meshech Chochmah, the permission to eat non-kosher foods is implicitly discouraged by the Torah, not unlike the Torah’s implicit discouragement (see Rashi to Devarim 21:11 s.v. V’lakachta) of engaging the eishet yefat to’ar described in Devarim 21:10-14. He understands the permission as a concession to the yeitzer hara (evil inclination; see Kiddushin 21b) and as something that maximum efforts should be made to avoid. The Rambam’s permission might be compared to the permission to eat on Yom Kippur granted to the one bringing the sa’ir laAzazel (see Vayikra 16:21-22) to the desert cliff. The Mishnah (Yoma 66b-67a) states that food was offered him at each of the ten stations located on the route from the Beit Hamikdash to the cliff. The Gemara (ibid.) notes that no one who walked the sa’ir hamishtalei’ach ever partook of the food on Yom Kippur but the very fact that it was permitted to us helped them because of the paradoxical principle of eino domeh mi sheyeish lo pat b’salo lemi she’ein lo pat b’salo: one who has the option to eat cannot be compared to one who does not have what to eat. When one is given the option to eat he is less desirous of the food than he would have been had it been forbidden to him. Similarly, it is possible that even the Rambam believes that the Torah permits the soldier to eat non-kosher food when behind enemy lines in order to (paradoxically) help him resist the temptation to eat non-kosher food.
כ׳
20Conclusion – The Experience of Mr. Jack Scharf zt”l
כ״א
21The experience of Mr. Jack Scharf zt”l of Riverdale, New York, a highly decorated soldier in the American army in the European theater during World War Two, adds much cogency to the comment of the Meshech Chochmah. In a speech at the Torah Academy of Bergen County in 2005 he recounted that he avoided non-kosher meat as a front-line combat soldier; the only meat he ate was the kosher salamis that his mother occasionally sent him. His friend Mr. Saul Leiman of Bronx, New York also spoke at that event and noted that he also refrained from eating non-kosher meat during his years of service in the United States arm during World War Two, in the Pacific theater. He survived on ice cream, fruit and vegetables. Mr. Scharf also mentioned the non-kosher foods’ very negative impact on the Jewish soldiers who did not have the fortitude to refrain from non-kosher meat. He recalled that they were wont to flippantly remark “Uncle Sam taught me how to eat ham”, which unfortunately means “I became highly assimilated while serving in the American army”. It is no wonder that on one hand Mr. Leiman and Mr. Scharf raised observant Jewish families after the war while on the other hand the experience of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who served in the American army during World War Two contributed mightily to the tragic assimilation of a large percentage of the American Jewish community.
כ״ב
22Thus, as is noted in Techumin 27:407 by a contributor from Yeshivat Har Etzion, it is difficult to rely on the Rambam’s opinion in practice. Even under severe stress soldiers should make every effort to avoid relying on the Rambam’s lenient approach or at the very least they should minimize their reliance on this opinion of the Rambam even in a case which might involve pikuach nefesh. May Hashem quickly send Mashiach and render this and all halachic discussions of war as merely theoretical discussions.