Response to an article regarding the recruitment of Haredi and Torah scholars

In honor of Dr. Michael Avraham.
I read your article, and saw a number of points in it that were not sufficiently integrated. I would be happy if you would address these points.
The distinction between the duty of combat and the duty of equality
First, it should be noted that your article discussed two different issues that were intertwined despite their differences.

• The question of ‘equality of burden’ is whether it is appropriate for a certain group in the population (the ultra-Orthodox and/or Torah scholars) to be exempt from military service, even though others are forced to do it (and perhaps even because of their non-conscription, others are forced to do longer or more dangerous service).
• If we were to assume for any reason that it is appropriate for this group to receive an exemption at the expense of the others (or if we were to conclude that they are not obligated to the same burden at all), we would have to discuss whether those people are obligated to go and serve on their own behalf, as they are obligated in other commandments and moral matters.

The situation of the State of Israel and the IDF in relation to combat duty
And I would say, the State of Israel is not in a situation that requires general conscription (a groom leaving his room and a bride leaving her veil), in which every person who is fully or partially qualified takes up arms and goes to fight.
I am not familiar with the situation and needs of the army (and it turns out that neither are you), but from what I hear from the media and certain public figures, the question today (as much as there is a question about whether the Haredim will enlist) is whether the Haredim will enlist, or whether they will have to extend the service for all those serving, as well as call up reservists who have already been called up to the full service several times in recent times.
And even if this claim is not true, and the conscription of yeshiva students is necessary even if they extend their service and continue the current policy of calling up the reserve, still from the perspective of the duty of combat (what you read in your article ‘The duty to save the persecuted from the hands of the persecutor’ and ‘The law of war is a mitzvah’), there is no difference between someone who has already served in the past and someone who has not, and between an 18-year-old boy and a 35-year-old man, etc., all of whom are obligated by this mitzvah, (and consider yourself, if a person sees his comrade in danger, and if he should exempt himself on the grounds that he saved many people with his life).
And as for the person being condemned, why doesn’t every man who is capable of fighting to one degree or another go to war? The answer is, of course, that there is no need, and if so, there is certainly no argument as to why Torah students are not required to enlist from the perspective of the “duty to fight,” but only from the perspective of the question of equality.
Sisera’s War and Its Participants
And the fact that you cited a number of judges regarding the Sisera war proves this point, since Deborah only cursed the inhabitants of Meroz (of course, all of this does not begin with the MDA, since it is about a star), even though only ten thousand men from the sons of Naphtali and the sons of Zebulun participated in the war, and the former explained this point there, that she cursed them because they were close to the fighting area, or because they were particularly heroic and despite this they did not come to help.
But regarding the issue of recruiting ultra-Orthodox and Torah scholars, it is certainly not possible to learn from this that they can be required to train themselves in basic training so that if and when there is a war they can help in it.
The duty to save lives
And although, as we explained, this question does not specifically concern the ultra-Orthodox and Torah scholars, we will discuss what you brought from the words of Maimonides and the poskim regarding saving the persecuted from the hands of the persecutor and saving lives, which you claim requires the ultra-Orthodox and Torah scholars to enlist in the army.
And I don’t know what this has to do with us. Surely, any person who can save the persecuted will save them, but it is unthinkable that a person would be obligated to study medicine and then be available at the hospital 24/7 so that he can save any person who needs it (even if without him there wouldn’t be enough doctors).
And enlisting in the IDF, which means long training in basic training, and dedicating time to being ready for war and attack, is similar to this picture we drew.
In a detailed light, the duty of equality of burden
Now that we have explained that claims from the side of the duty to fight are not claims at all, we are left to discuss the second and main issue, which is equality of burden, meaning that since the State of Israel needs soldiers, why should the ‘general public’ have to serve, while the public of Torah scholars and/or the Haredim be exempt from this.
And in addition, you claimed to oblige the Haredim to enlist, since the state obligated them to everything, and you claimed that it has the authority to do so for three reasons, which will be explained later.
And here, the issue of the duty of equality is divided into two branches, as you already mentioned in your article.

• The obligation to defend the country, and it is a matter of taxes for the citizens of the city, where every person is obligated to participate in paying the tax, (and it is explained in the law that it is a partnership), and paying the tax also includes protecting the city, and regarding conscription into the IDF, one must be obligated to pay the tax.
• When there is already a war on the ground, and a ‘law of war’ is created that does not require the entire public to fight, but rather a part of it, it is necessary to decide who will be drafted and who will be exempted from this, and on the face of it the right thing is for everyone to do their part.

And despite the many similarities between the two, we will discuss them separately.
The form of tax distribution in military service
If we came to discuss the obligation to enlist in the IDF from the perspective of tax laws (which are derived from partnership laws), we will have to delve into the issue of whether this form of division is kosher according to Halacha in several cases.

• Is it right for me to pay my share of taxes for people who defended the country before I was born or before I arrived there?
• Can tax distribution be defined as equitable even though one is forced into more difficult or dangerous service?

And there are several other such discussions, and there is no room here to elaborate.
Tax exemption for scholars
And even if the facts are true and there is indeed a tax obligation to serve in the army, aren’t the T.A.8. model states exempt from tax, as you mentioned in your article.
And what you brought from the words of the Radbaz (Chapter 2, Teshuvah 1992), which you claim explains from his words that there is no exemption from tax for the Tahach, since they, for their part, do not need the protection at all, and you opened your mouth to say that anyone who demands tax exemption on this basis is nothing but a hypocrite, it seems that you did not bother to read all of his words, which he later explains to the Hadiya that this is not his intention, and writes:
And do not be mistaken in my words, for I did not say this except at a time when the owners of houses claim that we do not need a guard if everyone does not help, and the sages say, “Therefore, appoint guards.” In the 23rd chapter, it says, “I compel these to do so…” And if it is clear that the owners of houses also need a guard, and they do not claim this except so that the sages may travel with them, then it is clear that if the sages claim that there is no need for a guard, A.N. Dashtko They don’t have to help…
And to the best of my knowledge, there was no Haredi demand whatsoever for the establishment of the army, and you opened your mouth to speak ill of the Torah scholars for no reason.
And regarding the claim that in the state the distribution of taxes is not according to the benefit enjoyed by the tax payer but according to other accounts, and that the 7th Amendment regarding conscription into the army does not apply to exempting someone who does not need protection, such as a TA, here even if we assume that the state has the authority to collect the tax in this way, and does not constitute a dhazalnuta law, if a person is shown who does not belong at all to benefit from the state budget, the state certainly does not have the authority to charge him with tax, and so the 7th Amendment regarding TA who do not belong at all to military affairs, (and far from saying that the fact that they are obligated to pay the money is anyway considered to belong to the state, this constitutes two matters), and the 7th Amendment has been proven in the General Court that the reason for exempting TA from tax is not only Because they do not benefit from it, but also because it is not appropriate to require them to serve in the military, not because they are not members of the Jewish community (and it is explained in the above Radbz response that this also applies to those who go out to serve in the military, and simply), and therefore the state certainly does not have the authority to determine that those who go out in the military should serve in the military, this is a gift from what is written in the Torah.
And regarding the argument brought up in your article, that if the exemption from the TAH is indeed valid even today, why aren’t they also exempted from the financial expenses of the security, and this is not a problem at all, Delfi Mishak previously stated that regarding payment, the explanation of the “No One Can Make Money” does not apply, and so it was more important to insist on this, and in particular that it does not apply to dividing the money that is paid, and determining which amount goes to security and which to other matters, (and in particular that most Torah scholars really do not pay income tax).
Although this argument is not useful for exempting all yeshiva students, as the Radbaz already wrote briefly in the above-mentioned reply:
And even though there is another reason, because I doubt whether there is anyone who is not in the state of purity, I will not enter into this investigation now because my words will upset some wise people, and therefore silence is better than speech.
And in the glosses of the Rema on the Shulchan Shulchan Yod Rema 32, it is explained which TAH is exempt from tax.
He is considered a scholar of his generation who knows how to read and recite Torah, and understands most of the passages of the Talmud and its commentaries and the rulings of the Ge’onim, and his Torah is mastered in the manner explained.
And it is certainly not possible to say that all yeshiva students meet this definition.
The State’s Authority to Determine Conscripts
In your article, you wrote that the state has the authority to determine who is drafted, and this is for three reasons.

• Dina Demalkota Dina.
• Community regulations.
• A king who sends out a commandment to war.

And we will discuss each of them in turn.
Dina Demalkota Dina
Apart from the issue you have already mentioned, whether the law of the kingdom applies to the institutions of the state. Apparently, this rule of law does not apply here, as we note that it is said only with regard to beneficial property between a person and his fellow man and with regard to the obligation to pay taxes.
Although here the general rule is that if someone is required by law to enlist, then the king should do so, and if he is not required by law to enlist, then the king should certainly not benefit from it here (and regarding the collection of tax money, what is said is that since taxes must be paid by law, the king is entitled to collect it).
Community regulation
In your article, you addressed the fact that even if there is no law of the Kingdom, the law of the MM does not detract from the regulation of the communities, and since the Haredim receive funds from the state, they are also obligated to its regulations.
And I can’t understand what the connection is, because they receive the money because they pay taxes like other citizens, (and it doesn’t concern the question of whether they pay less than they receive or not), and it has nothing to do with the laws (and I don’t know that criminals don’t receive budgets).
And these two claims require a lot of Talmud, if it is to be shown that indeed the Dina Demalkuta applies here, it must be discussed whether, in the context of the fact that the government does not conscript Torah students, contrary to the High Court ruling, it is appropriate to define that the Dina Demalkuta requires conscription, and I do not have the tools to discuss this question.
In addition, it should be noted that this exemption is granted to Haredim upon joining the state and as a condition for their joining, and therefore there is no reason to obligate them by the law of the kingdom or the regulations of the communities.
The law of a king who issues a commandment for war
First, it should be noted that this law, (assuming that which of the state institutions has the authority to issue a mitzvah to war), certainly belongs to the government and not to the Knesset or the High Court of Justice, and therefore, as long as the government has not decided of its own accord , to issue the Torah-studying public to war, they are not obligated to do so.
And we do not yet find that the king’s duty in this matter is to say who went out to war and who did not, but only the very act of bringing the people out, but who actually went out (in the event that it is not necessary for everyone to go out), in this we return to discussing what is more appropriate according to the morals of our Holy Torah.
Interim summary
Regarding the conscription of Haredim and Torah scholars, the question of the law of salvation and protection of life does not apply at all, since the question is not whether soldiers will be conscripted for war, but who will be conscripted, and therefore the question is whether there is room to exempt Torah scholars at the expense of the rest of the people.
And on this question, there is no reason to exempt all Torah students from the exemption of the 18th century from tax, since not all of them meet the criteria for this, and in addition to the argument raised in your article that perhaps this exemption does not apply in the war that is already here.
And from here we come to the eight exemption claims in your article.
The Haredi public’s lack of connection to the state
In your article, you wrote that even if we accept an argument that says that the Haredi public is not part of the state and the problems created by it will still be obligated by the law of saving lives, etc.
But certainly, regarding the question of whether it is right to exempt the ultra-Orthodox public at the expense of the rest of the public, this argument is useful.
I would like to emphasize that I do not agree with this claim and I only came to respond to your claims.
The value of Torah study
A second argument is that in a country like the State of Israel, where much of the public’s resources and money are invested in things that are important to all sorts of ideologies, the Haredi public has the right to demand that legislation be passed that also enshrines their ideology, and if such a law cannot be enacted due to the High Court ruling, then the rights of the Haredi in the country have evaporated and if so, they cannot be forced to fulfill their obligations. This certainly constitutes a case of arbitrariness, in which one can accept his ideology at the expense of general resources and the other cannot.
I personally do not agree with the argument of the Magna Torah and the Metzla, and therefore I do not address it.
Maintaining a high level of spirituality in the army
A third and main argument is that the army cannot maintain the same level of spirituality as is practiced in the Haredi community, and in order to change this, a change is needed in the entire hierarchy of the army, meaning that the military rabbi (the chief rabbi and the junior rabbis) have the final say on every question, and in addition, the body that will elect the military rabbis must be a Haredi body that is agreed upon by the entire Haredi community. Considering the fact that until recently, the senior command of the army did not agree to make a general statement that they would take care of all the religious needs of the Haredi community in the army, these changes are certainly not relevant.
And regarding the question of whether it is appropriate to exempt the Haredi public at the expense of the rest of the public, the answer is certainly yes, because if you do not want to maintain high standards of spirituality (assuming that low standards can be maintained in the army), and are not willing to allow us the conditions necessary to do so in the army, you will be honored and be in the army in our place (and even if part of the national religious public also wants the same things and yet enlists, this is not a claim to obligate the Haredi public, but only to exempt them).
The form and methods of fighting
There is another and important argument that, for understandable reasons, is not raised in the Haredi public, and that is that in the Torah there is a way to fight, and if the State of Israel decided to give up on “a people shall dwell alone and shall not consider the Gentiles” and to endanger soldiers for this purpose and extend their military service indefinitely, for the sake of their liberal values, those enlightened liberals would be honored to do so themselves, (and as for the national religious public, some of which do not support those values, Ahn and they really can get rid of that law, and they do not do so of their own free choice).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

With great respect
xxx xxxxxxxxx
Hebron Yeshiva