13 Feb THE KOHEN SOLDIER

Kohanim are the
descendants of Aharon,
the priests of our
people. In past eras,
a kohen had a special
role in the nation. Even
today, a kohen retains
certain privileges and
obligations, such as being
called first to the Torah and not allowed to
enter cemeteries. The question arose during
World War I how far these privileges and
obligations extend.
I. Four Arguments On Each Side
In March 1916, R. Joseph H. Hertz, Chief
Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations
and the British Empire, was asked by the
British government whether kohanim should
be given religious exemptions from the
military draft. He replied in the negative,
which started a massive debate over the
matter. The Leeds Beth Din publicly objected
to the Chief Rabbi’s ruling for two reasons:
1) A kohen is forbidden to become impure
from dead bodies. Soldiers in battle are
exposed to dead bodies.
2) A kohen who kills someone is no longer
allowed to bless the congregation, to duchen.
A young Rav Yitzchak Herzog, who was
approximately 27 at the time and serving in
his first pulpit in Belfast, publicly disagreed

with the Chief Rabbi on this issue. Rav
Herzog added an argument from Rambam.
3) Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchos
Shemitah 13:12) explicitly states that the
tribe of Levi, including kohanim, do not serve
in the army: “They do not wage war like the
remainder of the Jewish people.”
Chief Rabbi Hertz replied to his critics in a

public letter which contained four counter-
arguments:

A) A kohen can become impure for a meis
mitzvah, a dead body with no one to bury it.
If he can become impure for that, then he can
become impure in war, presumably to save
lives.
B) The Chashmonaim were kohanim and
fought in battle against the Syrian Greeks.
C) The Talmud Yerushalmi (Nazir 7:1) says
that R. Chiya was a kohen and would become
impure to honor the king. Serving in the
king’s army is similar.
D) The kohen mashu’ach milchamah, the
priest who spoke to the troops before war,
sent home those who had recently built a
house, planted a vineyard or betrothed a
woman (Deut. 20:5-7). There is no mention
of sending back a kohen, implying that there
was no such military exemption.
II. Responding to the Arguments
Against

1) The first argument from the prohibition
against becoming impure is surprising.
Rav Menasheh Adler (Mareh Kohen third
rescension, vol. 2, no. 147), a prolific rabbi
in England at the time who often commented
on his contemporary controversies, agreed in
principle with the Chief Rabbi. He responds
to this argument that all Jews are forbidden
to kill and yet in a war we are expected to
kill our enemies. If a kohen is allowed to kill,
certainly he is allowed to become impure.
Perhaps even more cogent is Rav Meir
Arik’s response (published in Mareh Kohen,
ibid., no. 149) that today warfare is largely
through shooting rather than hand-to-hand
combat. There is no certainty that a soldier
will ever touch a dead body. Therefore, there
is no prohibition on a kohen to be a soldier
because he likely will not become impure by
touching a corpse. As it turned out, the trench
warfare of World War I made contact with a
dead body quite likely.
2) It is true that a kohen who murders, even
by accident, is no longer allowed to duchen
(Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 128:35).
However, R. Chizkiyah de Silva (Peri
Chadash, ad loc.) says that this does not apply
to a kohen who is forced to kill someone
(quoted approvingly in Mishnah Berurah,
ad loc., no. 128). While he does not quote
the Peri Chadash, Chief Rabbi Hertz makes
the same argument — that this law does not
apply to a soldier. Decades later, Rav Moshe
Feinstein (Iggeros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah,
vol. 2 no. 158) rules likewise. Rav Ovadiah
Yosef (Yechaveh Da’as 2:14) adds that
Israeli soldiers perform a mitzvah by killing
the enemy in a defensive war, which makes
them even less subject to this rule.
In the summer of 1948, during Israel’s
Independence War, Rav Ben Tziyon Meir
Chai Uziel, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of
Israel, published an article in the journal
Ha-Posek (5708, no. 1,084) arguing that
kohanim are obligated to join the army. In
response to the Rambam mentioned above,
quoted decades earlier by a young rabbi
who became Rav Uziel’s co-chief rabbi in
Israel, Rav Uziel explains:
3) Rambam only says that the tribe of Levi
does not wage war to conquer its tribal land,
like the other tribes had to do when they
settled the land of Israel. Because Levi does
not have a tribal portion, its members do
not go out to war like the rest of the Jewish
people. Rambam is not saying that Levites
are exempt from waging war in general.
III. Responding to the Arguments In
Favor
A) Rav Menasheh Adler (ibid., no. 147,
sec. 3) agreed with Chief Rabbi Hertz in
principle but not with his specific proofs.
He argues out that the law that a kohen can
become impure for a meis mitzvah does not
teach us anything about going out to war.
This proof lacks a sound logical basis.
B) Rav Adler (ibid.) explains that
the Chashmonaim were generals, not

infantrymen. They were not fighting at the
front but rather planning and leading. If so,
they cannot serve as a precedent for kohanim
serving in infantry. This response assumes
that the Hasmonean generals led from
the back and not from the front, engaging
directly with enemy soldiers. Rav Adler does
not provide any evidence for that assumption.
C) Rav Adler (ibid., sec. 4) points out that
the Gemara (Berachos 19b) says that those
who became impure in honor of the king only
did so on a rabbinic level. When it comes to
soldiers, we are discussing a biblical level of
impurity and therefore there is no proof.
D) Rav Adler (ibid., sec. 2) points out that the
kohen mashu’ach milchamah only addressed
the soldiers who had gathered for battle.
If kohanim are exempt from serving in the
army, they would not even gather for battle.
That would be why the kohen mashu’ach
milchamah does not instruct the kohanim to
return home.
IV. Other Arguments
E) Rav Uziel (ibid.) points out that the
Gemara (Kiddushin 21b) asks whether a
kohen may take a yefas to’ar, a captive bride.
A yefas to’ar is only taken in battle. Doesn’t
this question indicate that a kohen serves in
the army? (One could respond that kohanim
served administrative functions in the army
but then why were they allowed to take a
captive bride?)
F) Rav Uziel further quotes the Gemara
(Sotah 42b) which says that someone who
betrothed a woman who is prohibited to him
does not return from battle. The Gemara’s
examples include a kohen who betroths a
divorcee. Clearly, a kohen would go to war.
Otherwise, why is there any discussion of
when he can and cannot return from war?
Rav Uziel (ibid.) concludes that kohanim are
obligated to fight in the army. Rav Gedaliah
Felder, in the second volume of his Yesodei
Yeshurun (p. 52), published in 1957, seems to
agree with Rav Uziel. Rav Eliezer Yehudah
Waldenburg, in the second volume of his
Hilchos Medinah (3:3), published in 1953,
argues that kohanim are not halachically
obligated to go to war like other Jews.
However, they may join the army if they wish.
In the end, it seems that Chief Rabbi Hertz’s
view won the day. Rav Herzog served as the
Chief Rabbi of Israel when it became a state.
He did not attempt to implement a military
exemption of kohanim, not even a kohen
option to remain in administrative functions.
Perhaps he changed his mind or maybe he
believed that Israel’s defensive wars are
different than serving in the army of a foreign
country that does not face existential military
challenges.