By Rabbi Shay Tahan

The Israeli passengers aboard the hijacked airplane were repeatedly described as heroes.

In the aftermath of the terrifying ordeal, their courage, composure, and determination to confront the danger were widely praised. The Prime Minister himself referred to them on multiple occasions as heroes, reflecting the natural human admiration for people who display courage in the face of mortal danger. But what exactly makes a person a hero? At first glance, the Torah seems to offer a very different definition. Ben Zoma teaches in Pirkei Avot (4:1): “Who is a hero? He who conquers his inclination.” If so, one might think that what we commonly call heroism—physical courage, the ability to confront an enemy, or the willingness to stand firm in a dangerous situation—is not the type of gevurah that the Torah considers truly praiseworthy. According to this understanding, true heroism is found not in overcoming an external enemy, but in mastering oneself. Yet when we examine the words of Chazal and the verses of Tanach, the picture is far more nuanced. The Torah and Nevi’im repeatedly use the term “gibor” to describe people who possess physical strength, courage, and military ability. We find expressions such as “gibor chayil,” “ish milchamah,” and “giborei chayil,” all referring to people capable of fighting and overcoming their enemies. Indeed, throughout Tanach we find people described as “gibborim” specifically because of their strength and ability in battle. Already in the Torah, we find the term “gibor” used in reference to physical strength. Regarding Nimrod, the Torah says: “He was a mighty hunter before Hashem” (Bereishit 10:9). Thus, the term “gibor” itself is used to describe a person possessing strength and practical ability—in this case, the strength of a hunter.

In the days of David, we find this even more explicitly. When Shaul seeks to know who David is, one of his attendants says: “Behold, I have seen a son of Yishai the Bethlehemite, who knows how to play, a mighty man of valor, a man of war, discerning in speech, a handsome man, and Hashem is with him” (Shmuel I 16:18).

The word “mighty” in the pasuk here, as in many other places, is the Hebrew word “gibor,” explicitly describing David as a mighty and courageous man.

Here “gibor chayil” and “ish milchamah” are mentioned together, and it is clear that “gibor” does not mean one who conquers his inclination, but rather a person possessing courage, strength, and military ability. Similarly, regarding Gideon, when an angel of Hashem appears to him, he says: “Hashem is with you, mighty man of valor” (Shoftim 6:12). These words are spoken to Gideon before he is sent to save Israel from Midian, and the title “gibor chayil” is directly connected to his military mission and his ability to go to war.

We find the same regarding Yiftach: “And Yiftach the Gileadite was a mighty man of valor” (Shoftim 11:1), immediately followed by the account of his war against Ammon. Here as well, “gibor chayil” describes a person possessing practical and military strength. In Divrei Hayamim, we find even more explicit expressions. Regarding the men who came to assist David, it says: “And they were among the mighty men, helpers in the war” (Divrei Hayamim I 12:2). Later, regarding the men of Gad, it says: “Mighty men of valor, men of the army for battle, who could handle shield and spear, whose faces were like the faces of lions” (ibid. 12:9). It further says: “For they were all mighty men of valor, and they became officers in the army” (ibid. 12:22), and regarding the tribe of Shimon: “Mighty men of valor for the army” (ibid. 12:26).

We therefore see that in Tanach itself, the word “gibor” is explicitly used to describe strength, courage, and military ability. If so, how did Ben Zoma say, “Who is mighty? He who conquers his inclination”?

It appears that the explanation is that the Mishnah does not intend to negate the very concept of physical heroism. Rather, it teaches that there are different levels of gevurah. There is external heroism—a person who is courageous and capable of fighting and overcoming his enemy—and there is internal heroism—a person who masters himself and is capable of conquering his inclination. The Mishnah does not mean that the former is not heroism at all, but that the latter is the greater and higher form of heroism, the one in which a person is truly worthy of praise. The Bartenura explains the Mishnah accordingly: “Who is a hero who is worthy of being praised for his heroism? He who conquers his inclination.” This implies that physical courage is also considered a form of heroism, but the person who conquers his own nature is the one who is truly worthy of praise. Also Rabbeinu Yonah, in his commentary on Pirkei Avot explains that there are two types of heroism: one is to be a mighty warrior whose heart never fears, and the other is to conquer one’s inclination. Ben Zoma teaches that conquering one’s inclination is greater, for being a mighty warrior is not such a great accomplishment.

This is also explicit in the commentary of the Midrash Shmuel on the Mishnah. He begins with the question that Chazal say that at the time of a person’s formation, it is decreed whether he will be strong or weak. The Tanna therefore comes to teach that it should not be assumed that the one who was decreed to be strong is considered a gibor. Rather, the greater hero is the one who conquers his inclination. He writes: “Certainly, both are called mighty, because both are fighting—one against his inclination and the other against his enemy.”

The Midrash Shmuel therefore states explicitly that both types of people are called giborim: the one who fights his inclination and the one who fights his enemy.

He continues: “One who possesses this heroism, the one who conquers his inclination, also possesses the other form of heroism, the heroism of defeating enemies.”

The Tiferet Yisrael likewise explains the Mishnah in a way that clearly distinguishes between possessing physical strength and possessing the type of heroism that deserves praise. Physical strength or power, in itself, is not something to be praised. Courage, however, is indeed a form of heroism. Nevertheless, the greater praise belongs to those who are able to overcome their desires and master their own inclinations.

He writes: “For if we praise a mighty man, it is not because he has the strength to strangle and murder tens of thousands of human beings like doves and young pigeons, for if so, how is he more praiseworthy than wild beasts, lions and tigers, together?”

“But his praise is that he is not fainthearted, and he uses his strength for a lofty purpose. He does not fear bodily harm, and he is even willing to risk his life, solely in order to achieve that lofty purpose that he seeks to accomplish.”

His words make clear that the existence of a courageous person is not in question. A person can be a “gibor” because he possesses courage, because he is not fainthearted, and because he is capable of standing in the face of danger and even risking his life. What makes such strength praiseworthy, however, is not the strength itself. Heroism becomes a virtue when a person uses it “for a lofty purpose.” We can now understand the verse that Ben Zoma brings as his proof: “He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who captures a city” (Mishlei 16:32). The verse does not say that the one who captures a city is not a gibor. On the contrary, it presents the conqueror of a city as an example of a person possessing great strength—a person capable of fighting, overcoming enemies, and capturing a city. It merely teaches that there is a form of heroism greater than this: “he who rules his spirit.” Capturing a city is heroism directed outward; conquering one’s inclination is heroism directed inward. The first overcomes others, while the second overcomes himself. This is why Ben Zoma said, “Who is mighty? He who conquers his inclination”—not because there are no other forms of heroism, but because this is the higher form of heroism.

This is also the deeper meaning of the words of David HaMelech: “Who trains my hands for battle, and my fingers for war” (Tehillim 144:1). David does not view the ability to fight as something that contradicts the service of Hashem. On the contrary, he thanks Hashem for training his hands for battle and his fingers for war. There is therefore a proper place for physical and military ability when it is used for a worthy purpose.

At the same time, David himself teaches that a person may not become arrogant because of his strength or place his trust in it as the source of his salvation. Rather: “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we will invoke the Name of Hashem” (Tehillim 20:8). A person may possess chariots and horses, weapons of war, and physical ability, while nevertheless recognizing that his strength is merely a tool in his hands, and that salvation comes from Hashem.

From here, we can also understand the meaning of heroism in a time of danger. The Torah does not demand that a person remain helpless when he or another person is facing danger. On the contrary, it says, “Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow” (Vayikra 19:16), and Chazal derive from this (Sanhedrin 73a) that one who sees his fellow drowning in a river, or being attacked by bandits, is obligated to save him. Courage and the ability to act in a time of danger can therefore be part of a person’s obligation.