A much broader concern was raised by Zeev Leiter. He understood that Jews were now recruited into all national armies and therefore Jews would be fighting fellow Jews . With this in mind should Jews willingly serve in any army?>*
Despite these caveats military service was accepted and the responsa turned to specific issues connected with such service. There was little use in discussing the obligations of daily prayer, minyan, shabbat observance, dietary laws, etc. and they were left to the individual to do what was possible. Dina demalkhuta dina and escaping danger to one’s life were frequent rationales cited by both sides in this debate.
The private issues were left to the individual, but the broader communal issues could not be escaped. When a Jewish soldier was killed, if married, his wife could well become an agunah as witnesses
normally considered competent did not exist or there were none. This presented a series of family issues which involved the entire community with the potential of a large number of women left as agunot along with the economic issues which needed to be resolved.
Death without witnesses has always been a problem, but it was rare; now it could affect thousands. Was the official testimony of the state acceptable? Could now nonobservant Jewish soldiers testify? Would soldiers who violated shabbat and dietary laws be considered“kosher” witnesses? Contradictory responses appeared to these and similar questions. Joseph Saul Nathanson (1810-1875), for example, considered such violators as acting under duress; they had been law abiding and so their testimony was valid.>> On the other hand Akiba Eger (1761-1837) suspected their veracity even if understood as serving under duress.’ Mordecai Benet (1753— 1829) agreed and considered such witnesses posul from Torah. >” Meir Esh of Hungary rejected such testimony on the grounds that these individuals would not return to the path of the Torah after military service and always rejected such testimony.” While Hayyim of Zanz accepted such testimony unless there was convincing evidence that the soldiers were actually pasul. Their statements should not be rejected just because they were soldiers, but only if someone testified