The term “trauma” is correctly applied to the experience of Israelis and Jews around the world since the attacks of October 7, and as many people recognize, surviving traumatic experiences can result in difficult psychological and emotional outcomes. Questions that emerged related to the experiences of the past several months include what types of traumatic experiences may be present in the context of this war, what type of support might be needed, and who can or should provide this support. I hope that this and subsequent columns address these questions in ways that can raise awareness in our communities, as well as offer ways to best support those who are impacted by the war.
In this column, I focus on one aspect of the war most commonly experienced by soldiers and other military service members, namely the perpetration of an act that, in the soldier’s perception, violates his moral code and inappropriately caused or contributed to the harm or death of an undeserving victim. This term might apply to actively harming an innocent civilian, making a mistake that led to a fellow soldier being injured or killed, causing distress to one’s family or loved ones, or any number of other types of harm that the soldier may have contributed to.
In contrast to other types of “typical” traumatic experiences that might be characterized by the fear associated with perceived harm to body or life, perpetration is different. Instead of fear characterizing the traumatic experience, soldiers might depict events that lead to debilitating guilt and shame, and the difficulties dealing with those powerful and painful emotions. We can appreciate why this perception might be so devastating for a soldier. His mission was to protect the people of his country, and more immediately to protect his fellow soldiers. Instead, through an action or inaction, he believes that he caused harm or death to someone whose life he was meant to preserve. Compounding the emotional pressure, some soldiers seek to escape intrusive thoughts through disruptive means: they may turn to unhealthy substances or experience challenges in their relationships with spouses, kids, and friends, and many report having thoughts of self-harm. As their daily functioning suffers, for example with changes in sleeping patterns, the soldiers struggle to maintain work; they may be unreliable in their relationships and feel even more guilty and ashamed because they are unable to function as they used to.
In such cases, soldiers often find themselves working with mental health professionals who seek to support the soldier through talk therapy. One common therapeutic strategy aimed at providing relief is to challenge the soldier’s attribution of responsibility, with the following logic: If the soldier believes that he is entirely or mostly responsible for this injury or death, the intensity and persistence of his distress will also increase. However, if the soldier recognizes that many other factors surely contributed to the tragic outcome, he might find a pathway toward alleviating the guilt that he carries. If one takes a big-picture look at war, this type of approach contains elements of truth: the geopolitical forces that led to armed conflict are far beyond the scope of the soldier’s influence; it is not the soldier who chose to go to war to encounter impossible and hellish conditions, and he rarely controls the setting that includes making split-second decisions in the face of exhaustion and fear. For some soldiers, this type of reframing is very effective in providing sufficient relief, and it can open the door to a process of self-forgiveness.
For others, however, the internalized belief persists that he is morally culpable for his actions or inactions that contributed to the terrible outcome – and sometimes the soldier’s understanding may not be a distortion. It is at this point that we begin to see that traditional psychological or psychiatric interventions might be insufficient.
Particularly for soldiers who are connected to religious thought and practice, these issues include profound spiritual and religious components, and are the ultimate expression of the verse in Koheles (1:15): “What is crooked will not be able to be straightened, and what is missing will not be able to be counted.” Does G-d hold me accountable for what happened? Is there a process for repentance and atonement, and if so, what does that look like? The big questions of morality, forgiveness, fairness and culpability overlap with psychotherapeutic aims, but very often extend beyond those boundaries. For these challenges, we can turn to our Sages and tradition for guidance on how to support people who are struggling in the aftermath of a perceived perpetration.
I will briefly share a few select insights that shed light on how our mesorah can help us provide support for these soldiers. First, we find that the poskim recognize conditions that might limit moral or halachic culpability, such as the reality of the “fog of war” (Minchas Yitzchak 5:56) and that a person engaged in an “act of saving” (ma’aseh hatzalah) should not be held responsible for unintended negative consequences (Chasam Sofer, Orach Chayim 177; Chazon Ish, Sanhedrin 25). This idea is similar to the psychotherapeutic approach described above, and for some, knowing that the principle is reflected in our mesorah can make them more receptive to its message.
Second, we find that at times, the role of the posek is to offer perspectives that bring relief to the petitioner. For example, regarding a question related to conduct during the Holocaust posed 30 years later, the Minchas Yitzchak (5:55) says as follows: “Had he approached me with the question prior to his action, we would have required a long answer to examine this issue of dinei nefashos; however, since the question came to me after the act, it is appropriate to calm the questioner’s soul.” And finally, our mesorah provides a pathway toward repentance and atonement, even for the most tragic circumstances, which can release the soldier from some of the debilitating guilt. As we see in the poskim, this process, which often includes the formalized vidui, and takes into account the nature of the act, the person’s level of culpability, and the practicality of the process for the specific individual seeking this atonement.
Providing this type of support and guidance requires an appreciation of the knowledge gained through the contemporary study of psychology as well as a sensitivity to the profound wisdom of our Sages and the mesorah. As with any other shailah, the rabbi or religious leader needs to dedicate the time to listen to and understand the soldier, and sometimes may work in collaboration with other professionals who can provide a more complete picture of the experiences the soldier is describing.
As with other situations supporting people struggling with post-traumatic stress, there are often no simple solutions or boilerplate statements that will help a soldier struggling with questions of perpetration. But as a community, and particularly for those in positions of leadership, providing a knowledgeable, patient, and compassionate ear, and sharing from the vast wisdom of our mesorah, can be an invaluable piece in our returning soldiers returning to civilian life. May Hashem protect our soldiers, their families, and all of the Jewish people.
