04 Jun A SOLDIER’S ABANDONED BELONGINGS

The horrific October
7 attacks were such
a surprise and shock
that soldiers stationed
elsewhere or away on
leave for the holiday
dropped everything they
were doing and ran to the
south to join the fight. Soldiers who were
not on their base went straight to the south.
Soldiers who were in their base packed
quickly and left. Over seven months later,
many personal items remain on those bases
in the north. Meanwhile other soldiers and
reservists were sent to those bases. I was
asked whether soldiers currently in the north
may use some of the left items. For example,
may they use a personal phone charger left
at the base on October 7? What about shoe
polish or clothing?
I. Conquered Property
A similar but more common question is
whether a soldier may use personal items
found in a house conquered/occupied during
war. For example, Israel ordered evacuation
of various cities during the current war.
After the evacuation, soldiers entered the
cities and took control. Many soldiers spent
time in various houses and buildings. Are
they allowed to use or take items found in
those buildings?

The IDF forbids soldiers from taking items
that belong to enemy soldiers or civilians.
However, it is valuable to discuss what
halachah says about it, both for the sake
of learning and also for cases where the
IDF does not apply. Rav Ya’akov Ariel
(cont., Israel) was asked about a unit whose
commander determined that the IDF forbids
only taking items but allows use of items
within a captured building (Be-Ohalah Shel
Torah, vol. 6, no. 58). Religious soldiers
asked whether halachah allows them, for
example, to heat up their food in a captured
oven.
Rav Ariel quotes the verse which explicitly
permits using items conquered in war:
“and you shall eat the spoils of war” (Deut.
20:14). While a soldier is expected to
fight idealistically, and not for profit, there
is room for him to acquire the items he

conquers. Rav Avraham Dovber Kahane-
Shapiro (20th cen., Lithuania) explores at

length the technical mechanics of how a
soldier acquires the conquered goods (Devar
Avraham, vol. 1, no. 10). Regardless of these
mechanics, a soldier acquires ownership.
Rav Ariel asks what the effect is of the
IDF prohibition. Does it prevent the soldier
from acquiring the object or does it merely
forbid the soldier from using an item that
technically belongs to him? Meaning, is this
a prohibition on the object (cheftza) or the

person (gavra)? If the IDF rule prevents a
soldier from acquiring the object then the
soldier cannot use it at all. If the rule merely
forbids him to take the object to which he
is legitimately entitled, then perhaps he may
use it within the captured building. Since the
source of the acquisition is a biblical verse, a
gezeiras ha-kasuv, Rav Ariel concludes that
the IDF rule only places a limitation on the
soldier (gavra).
II. Temporary and Terrorist Property
However, sometimes Israel sends the IDF to
take over an area temporarily. The various
wars in Gaza over the past two decades,
including the current war, are examples of
temporary military occupation. It is not clear
that in a conquest of that nature, a soldier
acquires any items. Therefore, Rav Ariel
concludes, we must act strictly and refrain
from taking any items in a temporarily
conquered building. However, if it is
common practice among IDF soldiers to
use conquered items while in a conquered
building, then we can assume that the IDF
rule does not apply to this practice. Rav Ariel
concludes that it is permitted to use the items
although it seems to me from his arguments
that we should conclude that it is forbidden
to do so when the military occupations is
temporary.
Rav Yosef Tzvi Rimon (cont., Israel)
was asked a more specific question: can
you take items that belong to captured
terrorists? If the IDF destroys that personal
property, can soldiers take from it before
it is destroyed? Rav Rimon points to the
IDF rule forbidding soldiers from taking
spoils of war. He adds an insight he
heard from Rav Aharon Lichtenstein who
explains that the Torah forbids taking
spoils from Amalek because that war
should be undertaken solely for divine
purposes. When people benefit personally
from the war, it detracts from the intent and
transforms the the commanded military
killings into forbidden murder. While
this does not technically apply to current
wars, its message remains cogent. A war
is a national undertaking from which no
individual should profit.
III. Abandoned Property
When someone finds an object, one of the
key determinants to whether he may keep
it is whether the original owner gave up
on finding it (yei’ush). If the soldiers who
evacuated their bases in the north have
given up on retrieving their abandoned
items, then anyone can come and take
them. Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat
262:3) says that if you find the item
after you can reasonable assume that the
original owner gave up, then you may keep
item. However, if the item came into your
possession before the owner had yei’ush,
then you may not keep it. It would seem
that we need to determine if most soldiers

who abandoned their personal property
gave up on those items and, if so, when.
Without any clarity on that issue, we have
to act strictly. I am too distant to know the
sentiments of those soldiers.
Items left in community property might
be different. Both Rav Shlomo Zalman
Auerbach (20th cen., Israel) and Rav
Moshe Feinstein (20th cen., US) rule that
schools may sell personal items left in
their buildings after the term is over (cited
in Piskei Ha-Mishpat 262:2n12). Once the
students have left for a reasonable amount
of time (a month or two), the school acquires
any items remaining on the property (kinyan
chatzer) even if they are labeled with
individual names (although a student may
later request reimbursement for his item). If
so, perhaps the IDF acquired all the personal
items abandoned on bases. According to
this reasoning, IDF hierarchy may give
permission to soldiers to use the items.
Even if the original soldiers retain
ownership of their personal items, there
may be room for new soldiers at the base
to use at least some of these items. Rav
Shabsai Cohen (17th cen., Poland) offers an
important ruling with common application.
In his Shach commentary (Shulchan Aruch,
Choshen Mishpat 358:1), he quotes Tosafos
who forbid feeding someone from a friend’s
food even if you know the friend would
agree. According to Tosafos, the friend must
knowingly permit you to give someone else
his food, otherwise you are stealing it. Shach
disagrees and says that if you are certain that
your friend would say yes, then you may use
the item (give away the food) without his
explicit permission. According to the Shach,
you do not need explicit permission to use
someone else’s items. You just need to know
that if asked, he would allow you to use it.
The question then becomes whether
soldiers from bases in the north who are now
in Gaza would allow other soldiers to use
their personal items. Presumably it depends
which items. I suspect that they would object
to someone else using their toothbrush or
wearing their undergarments. And I suspect
that they would gladly allow other soldiers
to use their cellphone chargers and shoe
polish. But, again, I am distant from the
reality of IDF soldiers. Responsible parties
(the IDF rabbinate?) should make these
evaluations based on intimate knowledge of
IDF soldiers in the field.