Q&A: Drafting Torah Scholars Specifically
Drafting Torah Scholars Specifically
Question
Hello Rabbi,
May your strength be increased for the detailed and well-reasoned article 649. I only wanted to comment on one point. The Rabbi suggested that there should be an elite group that receives an exemption from the state and the security establishment in order to grow in Torah. And I ask: isn’t it the opposite?
Clearly the Torah is our life and the length of our days, but wouldn’t it make sense that דווקא those who “have been sanctified as holy of holies” should be the ones to go out to war? After all, according to Rabbi Yosei, “the one who is fearful and fainthearted” who returns from war is one who is fearful because of the sins in his hands, and his view was ruled by some of the medieval authorities (Rishonim), and in the Shulchan Arukh: one who speaks between Yishtabach and Yotzer has committed a transgression and returns from the battle lines. That is, there is a point to specifically sending out those who are meticulous in observing the commandments. And so too Rashi on the verse “Arm from among yourselves men for the army” {Rashi: “men” — righteous men… and those who fear sin}.
And likewise Sefer HaChinukh: “And similarly, one who fears because of the transgressions in his hands should be sent back, lest others perish because of his sin.”
And Rabbi Zevin also wrote: “Does the Torah protect those who engage in it? On the contrary—that is precisely why Torah scholars should participate in the campaign, and the merit of the Torah will protect them and their comrades.”
I don’t have a proof, but it seems quite clear from the figures of Moses our teacher, Joshua son of Nun, Othniel son of Kenaz—who restored thousands of Jewish laws that had been forgotten—the Sanhedrin {who went out to battle} that the Rabbi mentioned in his article, that if they had offered them lifelong kollel status they would have said: no thanks!! We prefer to be hesder guys, combining Torah study with sharing the security burden.
That is to say: specifically the great righteous people should be partners in the army, both because of their unique contribution to the public and because of sharing the burden—literally. How much army? How much yeshiva?—I won’t get into that discussion.
Thank you, Rabbi.
Answer
Since in my view it is not the Holy One, blessed be He, who wins the war but the army, I do not see a connection between the soldiers’ level of righteousness and victory. Beyond that, I think the exemption given to exceptional students is not given so that it will protect us, and it is also not granted to them as a matter of law. As a matter of law, everyone is obligated to be drafted. Rather, this is an exemption like that given to outstanding athletes (except that Torah is more important, so this is an a fortiori case). In principle everyone is obligated to be drafted, including everyone who studies well or less well. Still, there is logic in exempting people who dedicate their lives and are especially outstanding. There is no problem exempting a few hundred people from the army. It changes nothing whatsoever in our security situation. If it did make a difference, then we would also need to draft athletes and artists and the like.
Discussion on Answer
Homiletical teachings really do not obligate me. Beyond that, the Talmud has no way of knowing that, so I assume they too said it as educational exposition and not as a factual description. True, I have written several times that divine involvement did exist in the past (“the hands of Moses win the war”), but throughout the generations He has reduced it.
It surprises me that the Rabbi disagrees with tannaim. How does the Rabbi know that Rabbi Yosei did not have a tradition for his interpretation {although in my opinion Rabbi Akiva would also agree with him that it is preferable for the righteous to go out}? Beyond that, this was ruled in the Shulchan Arukh—or is that also not binding?
Shouldn’t someone who is careful about the commandments also be careful about the commandment to save Israel from an enemy’s hand (regardless of whether this is an intellectual/moral commandment, as the Rabbi likes to argue)?
Y.D. — that is a communal commandment.
Or — that’s the categorical imperative.
A communal commandment is fulfilled in that way. Thus the Talmud in Sukkah says regarding the prayer leader and the congregation in Hallel, that he recites and they respond. And various fools insist on repeating the words the prayer leader says when there is no need for it. It is a communal recitation. This has nothing to do with the categorical imperative, because the categorical imperative speaks about an individual obligation and tests it by asking what would happen if all individuals acted that way. But communal tasks are divided among the different parts of the public. Does everyone need to be in Sayeret Matkal? Or perhaps everyone should study medicine?
I can’t manage to understand the Rabbi’s approach. There are sayings of the Sages that the Rabbi is not bound by even though they are Jewish law, and sayings that he is—“the hands of Moses wage war”—maybe that too is just a nice interpretation or an educational statement?
It really isn’t very complicated, and it has been explained here more than once. Aggadic sayings have no authority whatsoever. At the same time, I can use some statement as an illustration and not as a source of authority. Even statements that are Jewish law—if they are based on an error, I am not bound by them (such as the permission to kill a louse).
Is the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yosei HaGelili aggadic?? I still haven’t understood according to what criterion there are sayings the Rabbi treats as correct—“the hands of Moses wage war”—whereas Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rashi, and Sefer HaChinukh are just non-binding ideas? Regarding a louse, that is a case of factual error, and therefore there are halakhic decisors who were stringent, but there are also halakhic decisors, including Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who said that despite science it is permitted to kill a louse. This is also brought in the book Me’or HaShabbat (part 3), a responsum on killing lice nowadays, in the name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach of blessed memory: “Perhaps the reason for the permission intended by the Sages is because the matter is not visible to the eyes.”
What was unclear in what I explained? What is the point of lists of names like this? I said what I thought. That’s all.
What isn’t clear is the Rabbi’s criterion for rejecting statements of the Sages that don’t seem right to him, and which statements do seem right in the Rabbi’s eyes.
So the Rabbi does not agree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Sefer HaChinukh, and the sayings of the Sages about the difference between the days of David and the days of Ahab, when they died because of informers?
?