Q&A: The Hesder Track and Military Exemption for Yeshiva Students
The Hesder Track and Military Exemption for Yeshiva Students
Question
Hello Rabbi, following column 609 about drafting yeshiva students (“in those days, at this time”), a few questions and clarifications.
A. What does the Rabbi think about the hesder yeshiva track? Seemingly here too (even though the approach is light-years away from the Haredi approach to this, and still) the value of Torah in a certain sense overrides the value of sharing the public burden, and the military service is shortened by about half. Isn’t there here too an element of “Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here?!” and other arguments of that kind that the Rabbi raised against the Haredi approach, which could also be brought against any “discount” in the public burden given to Torah students? (I’m asking as a hesder student, trying to clarify my path.)
B. The Rabbi argued that “Notice, this exemption does not stem from the fact that his Torah protects all of us, but from the fact that it protects him. The claim that he protects us too is an additional claim, and it is hard to find clear support for it in the relevant Talmudic passages.” It seems clear and simple to me that there are sources for this; perhaps the Rabbi missed them by mistake, or perhaps you understand them differently. I’ll bring the first two that came to mind right away, just briefly, and I’m almost sure there are more proving that Torah study in fact protects and strengthens the fighters and the people:
Tosefta, tractate Sotah, chapter 11, halakha 15:
“Similarly, you say: ‘Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem.’ Is it possible to say so? Rather, who causes our feet to stand firm in war? The courts of David, which sit in the gates of Jerusalem.”
Babylonian Talmud, tractate Makkot 10a:
“Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written, ‘Our feet were standing within your gates, O Jerusalem’? What caused our feet to stand firm in war? The gates of Jerusalem, where they were engaged in Torah.” And so on and so forth.
C. Is there an explicit prohibition or Jewish law saying that a person who is not a prodigy violates something if he dodges IDF service? And is there a way to explain logically to a person who doesn’t believe why that same ‘prodigy,’ because of his Torah ‘hobby,’ should not serve in the IDF? Seemingly he ought to contribute his part, even partially, and continue studying Torah peacefully all his life…
Thank you.
Answer
1. It’s not black and white. You could also ask about those who serve in the army canteen or in administrative roles as opposed to combat soldiers, and certainly compared to elite commando units. Everyone does his part. Hesder yeshiva students do serve and do reserve duty like everyone else, and only part of the service is exchanged for Torah study (according to the formula of two years of Torah = one year of service). That is entirely legitimate, like the Nahal and other military frameworks. This is not comparable to the Haredim, who receive a blanket exemption regardless of whether they are learning, and even one who does learn does not serve at all, and is not always suited to that either.
2. There are midrashim about many things in many directions. This is not “Torah protects and saves.” Clearly they are speaking about the merit of Torah study, which helps (in my opinion even that is not correct, but let’s leave that aside). Even the midrashim about Moses raising his hands are like that. From there to drawing practical conclusions is a very great distance. The question is how many are learning and to what extent the learning protects, and certainly when it comes to a blanket exemption and so on.
3. I wrote that this is not about a specific law or prohibition. It is a moral principle: shall your brothers go out to war…
As for persuasion, that is another matter. I can explain to him why I think so, but it won’t convince him. Still, he has to accept that there are different views in society.
The comparison between hesder service and the Nahal or non-combat or less significant service is problematic in several respects:
1. The Nahal track today is not similar; it begins with a year of service and ends with a year of volunteer activity, and it is open to everyone. The hesder track is open only to the religious, and there is no contribution in it to the general population (and that is before we even talk about the month and a half of bein hazmanim, when the yeshiva boys look after their own affairs).
2. The comparison to less significant service is also irrelevant—among hesder soldiers too there are those who do the shortened service in an insignificant way; not all are combat soldiers and not all are in meaningful roles.
3. The fact that they do reserve duty like everyone else is also not an argument, because it is like everyone else—how does that justify the exemption of a year and a half? In a rough calculation under the current reserve-duty law, this amounts to 30 extra years of reserve duty by someone who does full service.
4. A combat hesder soldier has about 4–6 months on the line during service (depending on the length of training and the timing of exercises). A soldier who does full service comes out with about three times as much participation in life-threatening activity. What justifies the difference?
5. Even if all your arguments are correct and there are other similar forms of service, how is that relevant to the value question? As HaGashash said: “Both of them are offside” (Offside Story, there, there).
6. In the end we return to the categorical imperative: this is a track based on political pressure from religious parties, open only to the religious, with no admission criterion beyond being religious, no quantitative limit or quota, not much real oversight or enforcement, and many vacations. If everyone acted this way, it would be impossible to maintain an army. Would those who participate in the track want everyone to be able to act this way, or does their participation rest on the fact that others do not have a similar exemption?