CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
50. Kosher Kitchen in Military Camps
(Vol. XXVIII, 1918, pp. 124-127)QUESTION: An Orthodox organization started an agitation to demand of the government that a kosher kitchen be provided in military camps. Is it necessary for Jewish soldiers to observe the dietary laws while in active service?ANSWER: The principle on the ground of which this question is to be treated, is the Talmudic rule “Dina demslchuta dina” (Gittin 10b, and in many other places). This principle has often been misinterpreted, as if any state law would supersede the religious law. The fallacy of such an interpretation is evident, or else the whole history of Israel from the time of Antiochus Epiphanes down to Nicholas II would be a rebellion against the Rabbinic interpretation of Judaism. The rule that obedience to the law of the state is to the Jew a religious duty, refers first of all to such laws which do not conflict with the religious duties, as tax and custom laws. Even then, the best authorities limit such duty to laws which do not discriminate against the Jews (Tosafot, Bava Kama 58a; Meir of Rothenburg, Responsa, ed. Prague, no. 134, ed. Berlin, no. 122; and Asher ben Yechiel, Nedarim 3.11, Kitsur Piskei Rosh). The clearest definition of the limitation is given by Mordecai Yafeh (1530-1612), who says: The principle of “Dina demalchuta dina” is restricted to cases in which the king derives a benefit from the law and which is needed for the welfare of the country (Lebush, Ir Shushan, sec. 369, Cracow, 1569).Application to War The application of this principle to war is given in the Rabbinic interpretation of Deut. 20:19-20, which says that the Sabbath law shall not stand in the way of any war operation (Sifrei, l.c., ed. Friedman, p. 111b). Historic facts prove that this principle was actually observed in the Jewish state. The Book of Maccabees reports that the heroes who fought for the preservation of their religion resolved that they would fight on Sabbath, if it was necessary (I Macc. 3:41). Until the end of the 18th century the Jews were not compelled to perform military duty. We have, however, individual instances during the whole period of the Middle Ages from all countries, and during the great wars of the 17th century we hear of instances in Germany as well as in Poland.l It is reasonably certain, and in the case of Worms expressly reported, that these Jewish soldiers fought on the Sabbath. Also, it is not likely that they could have observed the dietary laws under the exigencies of camp life. There is, however, the great difference that these Jewish soldiers were volunteers and therefore had the choice of violating their religion or keeping out of the army.Compulsory Service The first case in which the conflict between religious laws and military exigency was submitted to a rabbinic authority occurred, as far as I am aware, in Prague. During the siege of the city, which was the last act of the bloody drama of the Thirty Years War, the Jews had to do duty in repairing fortifications and in putting out fires caused by the bombardment (1648).2 Similar exigencies occurred in 1744, when the city was besieged by the Prussian army. The Jews again had to work on the Sabbath, and in spite of their urgent pleas they had even to work on Yom Kippur, Sept. 16, 1744, just the day before the city surrendered.3 Inasmuch as the Sabbath stands higher than the dietary laws (because the penalty for violating the dietary laws is stripes, while the penalty for breaking the Sabbath is death), and inasmuch as the Talmud places Sabbath observance so high as to say that it will wipe out the sin of idolatry (Shabbat 118b, an evidently hyperbolical, but significant expression), it is clear that the exigencies of the military service justify the breaking of the dietary laws.Direct Application to Dietary Laws Whatever higher critics may think of the chronological relations between I Samuel and Leviticus, it is clear that the report that Ahimelech gave to David the holy showbread means to convey that exigencies of military service supersede the dietary law (I Sam. 21:2-7). That this interpretation is old is clearly proven by the New Testament,4 where this incident is quoted as proof that necessity–and in this particular case, military necessity (I Sam. 21:3)–supersedes the dietary law. This is also the opinion of Rashi (Comm., l.c.) and of the Midrash (Yalkut, I. Sam, sec. 130), although Kimchi tries to explain the difficulty away by saying that the bread was not showbread, but the bread of thanksgiving offering, which lay people may eat. The question could not come before Orthodox authorities until recent times, because the first case of Jews being drafted into the army dates from 1788, when Joseph II of Austria introduced this duty by a law dated February 13. Complaints were heard by many observant Jews, but the humane emperor decided in an order of August 17, 1786, that nothing more shall be required of the Jews “als was die Not fordert.”5 In the same sense Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793), then Chief Rabbi of Prague, and one of the most celebrated rabbinical authors of the time, addressed the first contingent of Jewish soldiers and admonished them to observe the Jewish practices as far as possible.6 Moses Sofer (1762-1839), the greatest casuist of his age, condemns the practice, then extant, that the rich evade military service by bribery, so that the contingent is filled by drafting the poor. He says that no one has the right to make his fellow-Jew violate the laws, among which he mentions the dietary laws specifically as permissible under the exigencies of the military service.7Conclusion Military service is Dina Demalchuta. It is intended for the welfare of the country, and it applies to Jews and non-Jews alike. Therefore, it supersedes ceremonial law, including the dietary laws. It would be absolutely unfair to demand of the military administration to provide a kosher kitchen, which in some instances would be an impossibility, and in every case a hardship. Very observant young men, while in a camp which is in the vicinity of a large city, can easily provide themselves with kosher food, or Orthodox organizations may provide it for them, if they wish to do so, but from the strictest Orthodox viewpoint this is absolutely unnecessary.G. DeutschNotes1 A few instances will be given briefly: From Spain in the 12th century–Guedemann, Erziehungswesen I, 111; from Worms in the 13th century–ibid., 137; from Salzburg, 1382–Altmann, Geschichte der Jueden in S., pp. 103-105; from Thiengen, 1499: Guedemann, ibid., III, p. 165; from Hamburg, 1665–Jahrbuch der Jued. Lit. Ges. X, 279; from Poland, 1650-1660–Oest. Wochenschrift, 1910, no. 31-32; also from Poland in the 17th century– Resp. no. 2, Chemnitz, Der…Schwedische Krieg II, pp. 356 and 647. Settin (1648) speaks of a Jewish colonel who served in the Imperial Army.2 Milchama Beshalom, Prague, 1649, reprinted in Bikurei Ha-itim IV, pp. 103-130.3 Report of the eyewitness, Bezalel Brandeis, in Freimann, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Juden in Prag etc., p. 24 (Berlin, 1898).4 Matthew 12:5; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4.5 Allg. Zeitg. des Judentums, 1872, pp. 981-982.6 Klein, Sollen die Juden Soldaten Werden? (Vienna, 1783); Wolf, “Die Juden im oest. Heere.” in Oester. Militaerzeitung, of which an abstract is given in Allg. Zeitg. des Judentums, 1869, p. 565; Grunwald, Die Feldzuege Napoleons, p. 7 (Vienna, 1913).7 Resp. Chatam Sofer VI, no. 29. See also: Geiger, Rabbinisches Gutachten ueber die Militaerpflichtigkeit der Juden, Breslau, 1842. Eli Rust (Pseudonym for L. Landshuth), “Die Verbindlichkeit des Zeremonialgesetzes fuer Juedische Krieger,” in Heinemann, Allg. Archiv etc. 1842, vol. II, pp. 236-238.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.