Ki Teitzei – Sanitation and Shechinah

Synopsis: This is the audio version of the 5-page article I wrote and published on rabbischneeweiss.substack.com/ on 8/21/26 titled: Ki Teitzei – Sanitation and Shechinah. I had a radical reading of these two obscure mitzvos and was delighted to discover that Ho’il Moshe took the same approach. Once I started writing, I couldn’t NOT include Shadal, Ralbag, and Ramban.

-----

The Torah content for the month of Elul has not yet been sponsored. If you’re interested in sponsoring, let me know!

-----

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]

Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | Instagram

Podcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah Podcast

WhatsApp Content Hub | Old Blog | Amazon Wishlist

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:08

Hello, I'm Rabbi Matt Schneewiss, and this is the audio version of the five-page article I wrote and published on my Substack at Rabbi Schneewiss.substack.com on August 21st, 2026. And the article is titled Ki Taitse Sanitation and Schrina. The Scourge of the American Revolution. More than 25,000 American soldiers are estimated to have died during the Revolutionary War. The shocking fact is that disease killed two and a half times as many of them as the British did. Only 6,824 died in battle. Roughly 10,000 died of disease in their own camps. The other 8,500 died as prisoners, many due to diseases as well. We now know that the maladies that ravaged these revolutionary soldiers were largely preventable. Here is a passage from David McCullough's 1776 about the horrid illness breeding conditions. Quote Camp fever or putrid fever were terms used for the highly infectious, deadly scourges of dysentery, typhus, and typoid fever, the causes which were unknown or only partially understood. Dysentery had been the curse of armies since ancient times, as recorded by Herodotus. Typhus, characterized by high fever, severe headaches, and delirium, was carried by lice and fleas, which were a plague amid the army. One soldier recorded seeing a dead body so covered with lice that it was thought that the lice alone had killed the man. Typhoid fever, also characterized by a raging fever, red rash, vomiting, diarrhea, and excruciating abdominal pain, was caused by the bacillus salmonella typhosa in contaminated food or water, usually the result of too little separation between sewage and drinking water. And it was not the troops alone who suffered from camp fever. Many of those who came to nurse them were sickened or carried the disease home, and thus it lay waste to one New England town after another. Of the prisoners of a single charge in Danbury, Connecticut, more than a hundred would die of fever by November. Infectious filth was understood to be the killer. Cleanliness in person, clean cooking utensils, clean water, and unspoiled meat and produce were seen as essential to the prolonged health of the army, and this was among the chief reasons for constant insistence on discipline and order, and especially with so many thousands encamped in such close company. As it was, open latrines were the worst of it. But there was also, as recorded in one orderly book, a great neglect of people repairing to the necessaries. Instead, they voided excrement about the fields perniciously. The smell of many camps was vile in the extreme. End quote. The mitzvos of military sanitation. Among this Parsha's wartime passages is one that describes and legislates the Israelite military camp conduct. Sorry, that describes and ill and legislates Israelite military camp conduct. Quote from Devarim 23, 10-15, when you go to war, nope, when you go forth in camp against your enemies, then you shall guard yourself from every evil thing. If there is among you any man who is not clean because of a nocturnal occurrence, then he shall go outside the camp. He shall not come into the midst of the camp. And it shall be toward evening, he shall bathe himself in the water, and when the sun is down, he shall come into the midst of the camp. You shall have a place outside of the camp, and you shall go out there outside, you shall and you shall have a peg upon your gear, and it shall be, when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it, and shall turn back and cover your excrement. For Hashem your God walks about in the midst of your camp to save you and to give up your enemies before you. And your camp shall be holy, and he shall not see in you erva, nakedness of any matter, and he will turn away from after you. The halachos for these mitros are sparse. Ramam codifies them in the laws of kings and wars, six, fourteen through fifteen, quote, and it is forbidden to relieve oneself in the midst of the camp or upon the face of the field in any place. Rather it is a positive commandment to establish a designated pathway there to relieve oneself in. As it is stated, you shall have a place outside of a camp. And likewise it is a positive commandment for there to be a peg for each and every soldier, hanging along with his implements of war. He goes out by way of that aforementioned path, digs with it, relieves himself, and covers the examen. As it is stated, and you shall have a peg upon your gear. Whether they had the ark with them or not, this is how they would act at all all the time, as it is stated, and your camp shall be holy. End quote. Rabbi Nahom Rabinovich in the Yad Pshuta clarifies the division of responsibility for these mitzvahs. Quote, the Brahmam opens with the rationale of the mitzvah, since it is the rationale for both mitzvahs, namely that the camp should be pure, and the prohibition obligates each of the soldiers. However, the first mitzvah, i.e., making a latrine path, is incumbent upon the community in the camp or upon the commanders, whereas the second mitzvah, i.e., carrying a digging implement, is incumbent upon each and every individual. Due to this distinction, he begins, and likewise it is a positive commandment for there to be a peg for each and every soldier. End quote. The distinction between communal and individual responsibility is important, as we shall later see. The questions. What interests me about these mitzvahs is the reasoning stated in the text. Quote, for Hashem your God walks about in the midst of your camp to save you and to give up your enemies before you, and your camp shall be holy, and he shall not see in you ervah of any matter and turn away from them after you. End quote. There are a number of questions here. What exactly is the relationship between the rationale or rationales given for these mitzvos? What does it mean that Hashem walks about in the midst of your camp? Are saving and giving up your enemies meant to be read as two types of divine assistance or one? How exactly would the transgression of the mitzvos in the pat this passage cause Hashem to turn away from following, to turn away from after you? Rather than attempting to answer all these questions, we will try to arrive at a general understanding of how these two mitzvahs relate to each other and of the Torah's choice to present its reasoning in this form. Shadal's approach, reminders. The most straightforward explanation I found was stated by Shadal in his commentary on Tivarium 2315, translated here by Dan Klein. Quote, Therefore your camp must be holy. The essential point of this commandment was to establish the idea in their hearts that God was proceeding before them, and that from him came victory. Therefore it was commanded that they should set the Lord before them always, as if they were in his temple. The purpose of all these regulations was so that the people should stand in awe as if they were in the temple of God. End quote from one Shmuel 1747. That, quote, the king is not saved by a great army, a warrior is not delivered by great power, the horse is futile for salvation, and with its great strength it provides no escape, end quote, from Tahilim 33, 16 through 17. That, quote, a horse is prepared for a day of war, but salvation belongs to Hashem, end quote, from Nishlay 2131, and quote, that the war is not yours, but God's, end quote, from to Devarim 2015. Shadal understands the Halachos in our passage as reminders of this fundamental principle. By conducting themselves with holiness in the camp and treating it as if it were the temple of God, the soldiers are reminded that Hashem is with them and that he is the one who determines the outcome. Rah Bag's approach, a means to salvation and victory. Rah Bagh, in his commentary on Tvarim 23, 10 through 15, offers a more multifaceted explanation than Shadal's straightforward reading. Quote, He said that when you go to wage war against your enemies and you place the city under siege in a manner that the Israelites are encamped to besiege their enemies, it is necessary that they guard themselves against every evil matter in order that they do not remove Hashem's Hajjaka, providence, from themselves. He juxtaposed this to what he said: you shall guard yourself from every evil thing, to warn a person not to entertain thoughts of transgression by day and come into a state of impurity at night. And he commanded that such a person go outside of the camp, for the camp is holy, and that the Shina, the divine presence, is in it. End quote. Rah uses the terms Hajgacha and Shrina interchangeably, as Maimonidean commentators are wont to do. See the Ramam in the Mora, 125. But as the rest of his commentary shows, the mechanism is far from simple. Quote, He commanded that they designate a place outside the camp to relieve themselves there, for the covot honor of Hashem, who walks about in the midst of the camp, together with the fact that by this the camp will be guarded from that foulness. For that reason, for this reason as well, he commanded him that he should have a peg with his weapons, with which he can dig the ground when he relieves himself, and he will cover his excrement with earth. This will cause them not to sense that foulness in that holy camp, and there will be covod for Hashem. From here we learn that it is not proper to pray and to say whole words of holiness in a place where there is excrement unless it is covered. To save you and to give up your enemies before you. The first objective is to save you, and if you merit that some of the of the Hajjgacha cling to you such that he gives your enemies before you, he will do this as well. And he shall not see in you ervah of any matter and turn away from after you. This tells us that if Hashem will see in them any sin and disgraceful thing, his Shrina will depart from them. And we learn from this, according to our methodology, that as for Ervah, the covering does not suffice for it, uh, if it can be seen. This is so because its matter is more disgraceful than excrement, for seeing it brings one to entertain thoughts of transgression. End quote. Shadal, who writes nothing about Hashgah, regards the statements to save you and to give up your enemies before you as outlining truths these halakhos are designed to recall. In contrast, Rabagh maintains that the Halachos are designed to bring about these two objectives. Hashem's Shina, that is his Hashgaha, will accompany the Israelite army so long as they accord proper covet to Hashem by observing these halakhos. The lower level of Hashgah is salvation, in which Hashem protects us from the harm our enemies would inflict. The higher level is victory, in which he helps us defeat them. Rabag's approach complements Shadal's. According to Shadal, the Torah wants us to be cognizant of the army's relationship with Hashem. According to Rabag, the merit of that cognizance translates into divine assistance. Ramban's approach, keeping the Shina with us. The crux of Ramban's approach in his commentary on Devarim 2310 is you shall guard yourself from every evil thing. Quote, Scripture gives its warning at a time when sin is prevalent, and what is known of the practices of the camps that go out to war is that they eat every abomination and rob and plunder and are not ashamed, even at adultery and every vile act. Even he who is upright among men by his nature clothes himself in cruelty and fury when a camp goes out against an enemy. And therefore Scripture warned concerning it, and you shall guard yourself from every evil thing. And by way of Pshat, the plain sense, it is a warning against everything that is forbidden. End quote. Ramban then quotes a lengthy sifray that itemizes the categories of sin against which soldiers must guard during the wartime. Apothazara, idolatry, giloy araius, forbidden sexual relations, shvehus damim, bloodshed, kila sashem, blasphemy, and lashanhara, evil speech. He then explains how the suffray is consistent with his view, quote. And this too is of the reason that we explained. For aside from the warnings that have come regarding these severe transgressions, Scripture adds a love, a negative commandment in the camp, that we guard ourselves in it from all these transgressions, so that the Shina not depart from Israel who are there. As it is stated, for Hashem your God walks about in the midst of your camp. And one who commits the great transgressions in the camp is like those of whom it is said in your Miyahu seven thirty, they have set their abominations in the house upon which my name is called to defile it. And further, so that enemies not prevail over us if we do like their deeds, which cause them to be exiled from before us. And this is, and to give up your enemies from before you, before you. And they added Lash and Hara to it, so that disputes not multiply among them, and they strike among themselves a blow greater than that of the enemies. At first glance, Ramban and Rabag appear to be saying similar things, both warned that improper conduct in the camp will cause the Sheenas to depart and might result in our defeat. Granted, Ramban expands the scope of the Torah's concern, noting that men at war are prone to many more sins than the Torah explicitly mentions, whereas Rabag sticks to what the text says. Still, the general thrust of their commentaries seems the same. But note Ramban's innovation. Quote, Scripture adds a lav in the camp, that we guard ourselves in it from all these transgressions, so that the Shina not depart from Israel who are there, end quote. Out of all the commentators and all the authors of Sifreha mitzvos, Bahag, Yureim, Rambam, Smog, Smok, Seferhinoch, Ramban is the only one who counts, quote, that there not be any evil matter in the camp, end quote, as its own mitzvah. He enumerates this in his list of mitzvahs that Rambam forgot, quote unquote, to count in Losa number eleven. Here is an excerpt from his lengthy entry, quote, the substance of this mitzvah is that they are forbidden in the camp from these transgressions that cause the removal of the Shinah. And he warned us with this love that one not cause the removal of Shinah, of his Shina from us in the camp. For one who transgresses them causes Israel to fall by the sword and profanes Hashem and renders their idolatry esteemed in the eyes of the enemies. End quote. In light of this point, a significant difference between the two approaches emerges. Whereas Rahbah regards, and he will turn away from after you, as a consequence of violating these mitvos, Ramban sees it as the purpose of these mitvos. In other words, Rah would say, the Torah commands us to guard against every evil matter lest the Shinah depart. Whereas Ramban would say, the Torah commands us to guard against every evil matter so as not to cause the Shinah to depart. Ho'il Moshe, the Torah's ingenious method of military sanitation enforcement. In his commentary on our passage, Dvarang 2310, Ho'il Moshe makes two points, one minor and one major. Quote, the evil thing, namely a reprehensible matter, in Znus, promiscuity, and Mishkov Zahor, homosexual relations, and Maase Onan, Onanism. And a balcari, one who experienced a seminal omission, even involuntarily, shall distance himself one day from the camp and shall not fight together with the rest of the people. End quote. Hoil Moshe, presumably inferring from he shall not see in you erva of any matter, reads every evil thing as a reference to sexual violations. Not only Znus, which is common for soldiers at a time of war, but even Mishkov Zahor and Misei Onan. As far as I can tell, he is a Das Yachid, a singular opinion on this matter. And footnote: I ran deep research on both Claude and Chad GPT to see if wartime Mishkov Zahor was common enough in the ancient world that the Torah would speak out against it. According to both AI reports, there's no evidence that this was the case. Back to the text. But it's this next part of Hoyel Moshe's commentary that blew me away. Quote. And all this, i.e., the Torah's military camp regulation, is to warn them that when they are encamped on the open field, they should guard themselves in purity so that there not arise in them severe the severe illnesses that commonly come about in the camps of soldiers, and they should also cover their excrement so that it not ruin the air. And although he wrote as the rationale for this prohibition, for Hashem, your God walks about in the midst of your camp, it is to instill fear in them in order that they be careful with all these things. For if he had told this to them by way of advice for their own good, they wouldn't have listened. Likewise, our rabbis of blessed memory also did this by establishing the Tilas Yudaim, hand washing with a blessing in the morning and before a meal, because if they had advised the masses of people to wash their hands, they wouldn't have listened. But now that they established the matter as an obligation, they are careful about it. End quote. Rather, the purpose of these mittos is to maintain sanitary conditions in the camp so that we won't die of disease. And the statements about the Shrina are merely the rhetoric that the Torah employed to drive home the message. A naive skeptic might question Hoyel Moshe's claim that if he had not told this to them by way of advice for their own good, they wouldn't have listened. But history bears this out. And I'm not even talking about ancient history, in which most people and most societies were accustomed to living in their own squalor, and all the more so more so during wartime. I'm talking about fairly recent history in which poor sanitation decimated the armies of empires. The example cited above from the American Revolution, 1775 through 1783, is powerful as is, but here are a few more. In the Crimean War, 1853 to 1856, 77% of Brit of the British Army's deaths, that's 16,325 out of 21,097, were from disease. In this U.S. Civil War, 1861 to 1865, roughly two-thirds of soldier deaths were from disease rather than battle. In 1898, during the Spanish-American War, the Army reported 20,966 cases of typhoid fever, resulting in 2,192 deaths, which is more than five times as many as the 385 deaths in battle. Throughout history, soldiers have been advised or even commanded to adhere to sanitation guidelines for their own good. It was known, if not fully understood, that unsanitary conditions were linked to outbreaks of disease. And by the time of the Spanish-American War, germ theory was settled science. The bacterial causes of typhoid were well known, and the Army's own regulations already required the sanitary measures that would have prevented it. Yet that knowledge didn't translate into practice. Herein lies the genius of the Torah's approach. First, it eliminated the ambiguity and indecision about where to defecate by legislating a designated latrine area as part of the camp design. Second, it removed the excuse of not being equipped to dig a latrine by mandating that each soldier carry a digging implement along with his weaponry. As a talent of mine pointed out, this underscores that the cleanliness of the camp is as critical to the outcome of the war as the weapons themselves. Parenthetically, the split between these two requirements is why Rabbi Nahom Rabinovich's point about division of responsibility is important. The Torah places some of the responsibility on the officers and the rest on the individual soldiers. Third, it framed these requirements as a matter of religious obligation, providing a theological reason instead of an easy to ignore practical one. Lastly, it explicitly stated that the outcome of the war would depend on their adherence to these laws. Concluding thoughts. Although Ho'il Moshe writes that the Torah's statements about Hashem walking about in the camp and saving us from our enemies are mere rhetoric, that rhetoric turns out to be true. By adhering to these laws, Israel would save itself from many of the diseases that ravaged armies for millennia. If one understands Hajga to operate through natural mechanisms, which is a can of worms I won't open here, then perhaps this is precisely what the Torah means when it says that Hashem will save and protect us if we adhere to these laws.