• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mixed burial in the IDF

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Orthodox Judaism DIR

Thought I'd open this up for hopefully a bit of niche discussion (niche 'cause right now there aren't a lot of OJs here. But don't worry, one day we'll rise to power :cool:). (Sorry it came out long)

Earlier this week, the IDF Rabbinate Corps together with MK Elazar Shteren announced a solution had been found to the problem of burying non-Jewish IDF soldiers with Jewish IDF soldiers: Digging the non-Jewish graves deeper than the Jewish graves.

The problem referred to here is that on one hand, non-Jews aren't to be buried in the same cemetery as Jews, but on the other hand, there's a haskafic view that brothers-in-arms should be laid to rest near one another, which can't be so in Israel, as long as those brothers-in-arms are a Jew and a non-Jew.

The IDF RC later released a statement saying their decision was in the works for a couple of years now and they were being backed by Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, Rabbi Yitzchak Zilberstein, Rabbi Avigdor Neventzal, Rabbi Shlomo Fischer, Rabbi Aryeh Shteren and Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef.

As it turns out, this isn't exactly correct. Though the Rabbinate hasn't released all of the haskamot yet, Rabbi Zilberstein wrote at the end of his "haskamah" that it's a complex issue and his conclusion is to remain inconclusive and not pasken. This already raises a red flag on the Rabbinate's statement.
upload_2020-11-6_11-1-8.png


I was informed by a reserve military rabbi that Rabbi Aviner and Rabbi Fischer both did, indeed, agree to the heter, while Rabbi Neventzal only agreed if a certain provision is made, and it's highly unclear whether the army maintains that provision in their final decision. As for the rest of the mentioned rabbis, currently it is unknown what they said exactly.

So, some more red flags.

For those less familiar with MK Shteren, Shteren is a reserve Aluf (major general, one rank beneath the Chief of Staff) in the IDF and a religious left-wing MK. Shteren has been criticized multiple times in the past for pushing both in the army and in politics positions that, in religious terms, are very liberal at best and antithetical to Torah at worst. Shteren said that he's been pushing for the creation of a solution for years now and even consulted the late Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu zt"l on the matter.

Multiple IDF Chief Rabbis over the years rejected various solutions. I don't know the exact reasoning of each and every one, but when the announcement was made, Rabbi Yisrael Wiess, former IDF Chief Rabbi, immediately came out against this. He made two points in particular:

1. When he was the IDF CR and the issue was raised before him, he went and consulted Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu and Rav Yosef Elyashiv zt"l and they all agreed that the best solution would be to have in every military burial area a separate plot for non-Jewish soldiers, designed in the most respectful way possible.

2. During his time as IDF CR, this issue was raised before him with the deaths of 21 soldiers. And every single time, before the funeral, he sat down with the families and explained the halachic situation, pointing out that the non-Jewish plots weren't outside of the fence or something, that the deceased would be buried alongside people of their own faith, much like Jews expect their own faith be preserved even after death. And he said that every single time, the families accepted and they only commenced with the funeral upon having the full agreement from the families.

Per all of this - and the fact this is not really an issue that is heard about in the news - it seems to have been a non-issue, which makes Shteren's reasoning all the more worrying: Is he really doing it because he cares about the feelings of non-Jewish soldiers and their families, or does this stem from a liberal world-view?

Shteren later remarked:

"In my view, there's no need for any partitions external or internal. There's no fuller conversion than to die protecting the people and the country. If a soldier didn't get around to having a circumcision but his entire body was sliced up for the Jewish nation, that's not enough? Who decided that not turning on a light on Shabbat was more religious and [worth] more points in the eyes of Hashem than giving yourself up for the Jewish nation as a kiddush Hashem? I hope the decision will bring people closer to Judaism."​

So here's what the question I'm raising: Was it the right call or not? Sure, there are halachic leniencies and some big rabbis are backing this - but ultimately, was it the right call (taking in all of the different issues under consideration)?

My fear is that this will go down hill, especially in light of various secular, anti-religious organizations that are pushing their agendas onto the IDF in recent years and in light of Shteren's statement which, while seeming very patriotic, does not seem very Jewish.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
The right call?
If there is no plot available next to Fred, we can bury him next to Jim. He isn't being buried "not next to his commrade in arms" just near a different one. No one can be expected that he will be buried next to a specific person unless the people pre-buy plots in a private cemetary. If the families have been respectful of the reasoning then a politician who tries to solve a problem which hasn;t existed it stirring the pot operating under a different agenda, IMHO.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
As usual, I'm stuck wondering why big rabbis - and these are real big rabbis in the field of halacha in Israel - would give this heter to the RC? What convinced them? Being personally knowledgeable about the RC, they snap quite easily under pressure. But not these rabbis.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Maybe because, ultimately, where one is buried in terms of a "Jewish cemetery" is not a de'oraisa law (I'm not even sure the level of its derobbonon status - maybe it is some level of custom) so there is room to be meikil?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Maybe because, ultimately, where one is buried in terms of a "Jewish cemetery" is not a de'oraisa law (I'm not even sure the level of its derobbonon status - maybe it is some level of custom) so there is room to be meikil?
Oh certainly, I don't doubt there's room for leniency - it's a clear fact that they looked over the sugiya and found room for heterim. But there's a bigger picture here - and I think that that they're aware of this. Certainly I know that Rabbi Aviner and Rabbi Ariel always stay up to date with all of the news, and I'm sure at least some if not all of the others. So why did they figure that they should give this heter? Maybe I'm missing something here...
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Oh certainly, I don't doubt there's room for leniency - it's a clear fact that they looked over the sugiya and found room for heterim. But there's a bigger picture here - and I think that that they're aware of this. Certainly I know that Rabbi Aviner and Rabbi Ariel always stay up to date with all of the news, and I'm sure at least some if not all of the others. So why did they figure that they should give this heter? Maybe I'm missing something here...
I understand what you are asking and I'm just wondering if there is a subtext here, a "pick your battles" way of thinking. Give in on something which ultimately isn't so bad so you can keep something else. Sadly, I can't even look at piskei halacha as simpe expressions of limud hatorah and have to approach them with a cynical eye these days.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Shteren later remarked:

"In my view, there's no need for any partitions external or internal. There's no fuller conversion than to die protecting the people and the country. If a soldier didn't get around to having a circumcision but his entire body was sliced up for the Jewish nation, that's not enough? Who decided that not turning on a light on Shabbat was more religious and [worth] more points in the eyes of Hashem than giving yourself up for the Jewish nation as a kiddush Hashem? I hope the decision will bring people closer to Judaism."​
This line of reasoning is definitely wrong. Take for instance, Druze. They fight on the side of Israel because their religion tells them to fight on behalf of whatever country they reside in. Their reasoning has nothing to do with it being the Jewish nation, a Jewish country, or Judaism.
I think this is just another item in the Russian problem, with the same line of reasoning used to convert them.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
This line of reasoning is definitely wrong. Take for instance, Druze. They fight on the side of Israel because their religion tells them to fight on behalf of whatever country they reside in. Their reasoning has nothing to do with it being the Jewish nation, a Jewish country, or Judaism.
I think this is just another item in the Russian problem, with the same line of reasoning used to convert them.
Also, Druze have their own cemeteries. Those separate plots in the IDF cemeteries - most likely for, as you said, Russian soldiers. Shteren's pseudo-religious reasoning is usually considered wrong. However, he has always been capable of and successful in pushing his various agendas.

However, I was most troubled to hear that these rabbis did side with the IDF Rabbinate in this case. Perhaps it's what @rosends said, that they were trying to pick their battles. Unfortunately, it seems like their are less and less battles to be fought - at least in the ranks of the IDF - as the RC bends backwards more and more...
 
Top