A million-dollar question facing trauma researchers and mental health professionals is why some soldiers develop persistent post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTS), while others seem to recover following a potentially traumatic event. The importance of this question is hard to overstate. The better we can predict PTS, or even explain retrospectively what factors contribute to it, the better we can prevent the symptoms from emerging and develop targeted therapies to help these soldiers. About fifteen years ago, researchers began to consider a specific aspect of combat trauma, namely the experience of betrayal connected to a traumatic experience. Although scientific thinkers have only recently examined the role of betrayal in traumatic experiences, we can find lessons about this in our mesorah.
The experiential feeling of betrayal can be difficult to define exactly, just as describing any emotion can be challenging, but we can describe the contexts in which this emotion tends to arise. Betrayal occurs when one person’s trust in another person or entity is violated, especially when this violation of trust is in favor of less important needs. Of course, not all betrayals are the same. Three factors that likely increase the severity of the betrayal include the greater trust I placed in the offender; the greater degree of self-interest that motivated the betrayal; and the greater the harm that was incurred because of the violation of trust. These feelings of betrayal, which reflect one type of harm known as “moral injury,” seem to be both a cause and an amplifier of post-traumatic stress symptoms (Jordan et al, 2017).
Older Americans may remember one of the great betrayals felt by American military service members upon their return from fighting in Vietnam, when many were greeted with jeers and accusations. Indeed, the type of homecoming a soldier receives was found to predict PTSD up to 40 years later (Steenkamp et al, 2017). But this is only one type of experience in the context of war that can lead to profound feelings of betrayal among soldiers.
Let’s consider other scenarios that may contribute to these feelings: a fellow warrior on the battlefield may act recklessly, leading to the death or injury of other soldiers. Soldiers may believe that a commander is careless and instructs his soldiers to do something dangerous. A soldier may think that a politician’s decisions about war do not take into account the well-being of the soldiers, or that they are based on the politician’s self-interest. Soldiers may feel that their community or country fails to show appreciation for the sacrifice he and his fellow warriors made. Soldiers may feel that their efforts were all for naught if there are no or insufficient observable gains. Some of these betrayals may only emerge years later, and as such, we can begin to appreciate why the experience of betrayal can have an impact far beyond the exposure to the traumatic event.
The challenges of betrayal in war, which is not well understood in the scientific literature, is one of the recurring themes in Sefer Yehoshua and Shoftim, two sifrei Tanach that focus on war in the Land of Israel. Understanding the power of betrayal can help explain the connection between two episodes that occurred years apart, the second of which takes place at the end of Sefer Yehoshua (ch. 22). As background, Moshe commanded the tribes of Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe to fight alongside the rest of the Jewish people before returning to settle their tribal lands on the eastern side of the Jordan River. Now, after many years battling on behalf of the Jewish people, Yehoshua told these tribes that they have fulfilled their duties and may return home. Perhaps both weary and triumphant, upon crossing eastward over the Jordan to rejoin their families and communities, these warriors built a large mizbeach, fashioned after the altar in Shiloh.
The Jewish people in Israel heard about this newly constructed altar, and the navi tells us that the people of Israel gathered to go to war against Reuven, Gad, and half of Menashe; the Israelites thought that the mizbeach was built as a replacement for the mizbeach in Shiloh, and they regarded its construction as an act of rebellion. Even the leaders – the great Pinchas, and nesi’im from each tribe – interpreted the altar in this negative light. Ultimately, before waging a civil war, Reuven, Gad, and Menashe explained that the mizbeach was not meant to compete with the one in Shiloh; instead, it was meant to have the opposite effect and demonstrate to their populations the deep connection with the rest of the Jewish people on the western side of the Jordan.
Although this story had a happy ending, we might ask how did so many people misinterpret the actions so badly? The verses themselves provide some insight. The people of Israel invoked the memory of the sin of Pe’or, which they called a rebellion against Hashem and the Jewish people. According to Metzudas Dovid and Malbim, Pe’or was called a rebellion against the Jewish people because it led to the death of many Israelites who were not guilty of the sin in Pe’or. The reckless and sinful actions of the few caused the death of others. I suggest that the deep pain caused by the profound betrayal of Pe’or stayed with the Jewish people for a generation, and the fear a repeat betrayal led them to misinterpret the actions of the other tribes. To use modern language, the full impact of the trauma of Pe’or emerged over 15 years after the initial event took place.
It is impossible to insulate our soldiers from the vast and diverse pressures that they confront while prosecuting this milchemes mitzvah, but their mesirus nefesh on our behalf requires us to ensure that we are supporting them as best we can. May Hashem bring all of our soldiers home safely.
