recruitment

Can you expand on what kind of contribution to society is this? Specific? Or from the presence of Torah scholars in the Jewish people? And if on the other hand, is it really such a hindrance to serving in the army for a while? And others do not contribute in their careers, after all, he is concerned with his own life, and not directly for the common good

The question is what is your starting point. As a believer, I assume we will agree that Talmud Torah is against everyone else. The rise of the Jewish people is just a technical matter. The question is what does it exist for? Like that poor Chinese man who had two pennies and bought a slice of bread and a flower with them. Ask him why he didn't buy two slices? He replied that he invested one pennie to survive and the other to have something to survive for.
The contribution is not just specific. Our goal is to pass on the Torah. That's why we are here. Therefore, it is absurd to abandon the goal for the means. To enslave the learners to the defense of existence. Beyond that, even from a common perspective, learners make an important contribution to the preservation of our culture and our unique and national identity. Public motivation to serve in the army has also increased thanks to learners. There is a high degree of evasion among the general public, and in my opinion this is part of the disconnect that exists among them from culture and national commitment.

It is true that there are those who can grow even if they serve a little in the army, but on the other hand, why would they serve? And is service in the army more sacred than study? I see no point in them serving in the army. And does it hinder the army if a few students don't give their year? With respect to a certain number of artists and athletes, it is accepted by everyone that they should be exempted if necessary. So you won't be a priestess as a surrogate?!

I must draw your attention to the fact that you are constantly wondering only about one side of the equation, and the same questions that arise more forcefully about the other side for some reason seem obvious to you. You ask what is so critical about studying without service, and you don't ask yourself what is so critical about service without giving up on a few students who will give a year? Will the army collapse? Why is it even important? The importance is completely negligible.
Similarly, above you asked why those who study won't enlist and prepare themselves for war, and you compared this to those who serve in the prosecutor's office, about whom for some reason it really didn't bother you that they had no contribution to the next war. The importance of serving in the prosecutor's office is obvious to you, but the importance of studying is not.

In my opinion, this is a very problematic and erroneous view. I think it stems from a feeling of inferiority that exists in a large part of the religious public, which is rooted in the fact that the number of students and exemptions today is far higher than is appropriate, desirable, and justified. But the obvious conclusion is that the number of exemptions should be changed and not questioned as to their very necessity. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Does the Rabbi think that there should be a quota for the number of exemptions for Torah students, or should an exemption be granted to every student?
When the Rabbi says that the number of exemptions should be reduced, does he mean to check who is studying properly and who is not?

It is clear that someone who is not studying properly should not be dismissed. Someone who is studying but has no academic future, meaning that in the future he will go out to work or will have to go out, there is no reason to give him an exemption either. The exemption should be given to someone who has a good chance of continuing it as a lifelong career and is worth keeping him at the public's expense and giving him an exemption.

Thank you.
I will repeat my question.
1. How do we know if someone who is studying has a future as a scholar? A person's ability to remain in study alone for years depends on how many things disappear, financially, mentally, etc.
2. Hypothetically, in the event that there are many who are willing to sit and study in the future as well, what is the limit at which we will require them to serve because there will already be too many students? Or is there no such thing as too many students.

There is such a thing as too many students. I don't have a number and this is a really unimportant question. First we will reach the bridge and then we will cross it. I don't think many will meet my criteria, so the question is purely hypothetical.
This is an assessment that can be misleading like any assessment. And yet, at a fairly young age, it is already possible to form a fairly good assessment.

The heart knows whether to bend or to bend, and a person needs to be honest with himself. In the Haredi world, there is a built-in opposition to military service, so the discussion there is different: Is military service legitimate at all?

A secular girl once asked me at work if my son would serve in the army? In response, I asked her if her son would study Torah? She replied that military service is a general matter and studying Torah is a private matter.

I have a friend who says this is his usual way of avoiding secular attacks. I don't accept this argument. And if Reuven doesn't do his duty, does that justify you not doing yours? Well, if you're talking about dividing the burden (because you need fighters and students, and there's a segment of the population that doesn't take part in learning, so the other segment focuses exclusively on it), I can understand that. But that's not the case with Didan, because the avoidance of the army is not because of the study, but out of fear of spoilage, etc., and is done to an unjustified extent. Therefore, I don't accept your argument.

Why is the percentage of students an unimportant question?
Does the rabbi think that the percentage of students in the Haredi population today (even if we subtract those who do not study) is a number that the state can live with (security and economic)?
In not many years, the Haredi public is expected to grow to proportions that will require us to think about whether we are dismissing everyone who studies seriously (and will continue to do so in the future) or whether we are limiting their percentage in the population.

And if I may ask another question, in light of the rabbi's opinion that Torah study grants exemption from military service, should they be funded. And how much, like higher education? Like they are funded today?
Thank you.

I actually did. I didn't expect to receive such a republican answer (you could sense Rabbi Kook arguing with her in the light of the answer).

Y”D, who said you didn't serve? I was talking about your answer and not about what you personally did.

Yoav, who said that the question of the percentage of students is not important? The number is not important and cannot be quantified. It is clear that there is a reasonable amount of students and I don't want to and can't give a number here for this matter. I think we have really exhausted this discussion.
In my opinion, they definitely need to be funded, and I wrote about it in column 34.

Does the Rabbi's opinion still support what the Rabbi wrote in the discussion here?

Why not? What has changed?

1. I read a little above, and it seems to me that there is a mistake here. It says that artists and athletes are currently being fired, which is not accurate. They do basic training and serve full service (albeit usually light), so the army has the ability to “use” them in the reserves. At least that was the case when I served. It has been 20 years, but I have not heard that it has changed.

2. Regarding the importance of Torah study, I do not think it is relevant in this context. Of course, Torah study is essential for the Jewish people, but not necessarily the study of Torah by a specific person at a specific point in time. There would be no harm in Torah study if a young man joins the army and receives at least minimal training, which would make him available for reserve missions.

3. It could be argued that we do not need so many soldiers anyway. I disagree with this, but even if we assume that it is true, the situation in which a distinct social group unilaterally decides that it is the one that does not serve is unlikely. If fewer soldiers are needed, it is necessary to determine objectively, based on their data, who to release and who to recruit. Studying in a large yeshiva is not a legitimate criterion.

As someone who disagrees with you on the matter of studying the Bible, I must say that the fact that God-fearing scholars read the simple words of Moses – “Your brothers will go to war and you will sit here?!” and they are not clear about the moral flaw in this conduct, is excellent evidence for your theory.

Everything you wrote here is no different these days from what it was before. As for the actual claims:
1. This is just semantics. It's called exemption. And they really don't do reservists.
2. It is essential that there be high-level Torah scholars, certainly no less than coaches, military bands and chemists. Indeed, we are not talking about a specific person. Who said that? There is no need for him to receive training that is worthless when he is not destined to do reservists anyway.
3. Here you are repeating what I said.