Could you expand on what kind of contribution to society this is? A metaphysical one? Or in terms of the presence of Torah scholars among the Jewish people? And if it’s the second, does serving a bit in the army really hinder that so much? Don’t others also contribute through their careers? In the end, he’s dealing with his own life, not directly with the public good.

The question is what your starting point is. As a believing person, I assume we would agree that Torah study is equal to them all. The continued existence of the Jewish people is only a technical matter. The question is: what does it exist for? Like that poor Chinese man who had two small coins and bought a slice of bread and a flower with them. They asked him: why didn’t you buy two slices of bread? He answered that one coin he invested in order to survive, and the second he invested so that there would be something to survive for.
The contribution is not only metaphysical. Our goal is to pass the Torah onward. That is why we are here. Therefore it is absurd to abandon the goal for the sake of the means—to subordinate the learners to defending existence. Beyond that, even from an Ahad Ha’am-style perspective, learners make an important contribution to preserving our culture, our uniqueness, and our national identity. Public motivation to serve in the army also increases thanks to the learners. In the general public there is a high rate of draft evasion, and in my opinion this is partly due to their disconnect from culture and national commitment.

It’s true that there are those who could still grow even if they served a bit in the army, but on the other hand, why should they serve? Is army service holier than learning? I see no point whatsoever in their serving in the army. Would the army really be held back if a few learners didn’t give it their year? When it comes to a certain number of artists and athletes, everyone accepts that they should be exempted when necessary. So should a priestess be treated worse than an innkeeper?!

I have to draw your attention to the fact that you keep wondering only about one side of the equation, while those very same questions arise even more forcefully about the other side, and for some reason seem obvious to you. You ask what is so critical about learning without service, but you do not ask yourself what is so critical about service if that means not giving up a few learners for a year. Will the army collapse? Why is that even important? Its importance is completely negligible.
Likewise above, you asked why learners shouldn’t enlist and prepare themselves for war, and you compared this to those who serve in the prosecution, regarding whom it somehow didn’t bother you at all that they have not the slightest contribution to the next war. The importance of service in the prosecution is self-evident to you, but the importance of learning is not.

In my view this is a very problematic and mistaken outlook. It seems to me that it stems from an inferiority complex found in a large part of the religious public, rooted in the fact that the number of learners and exemptees today is far beyond what is proper, desirable, and justified. But the necessary conclusion is that the number of exemptions should be changed, not that one should undermine the necessity itself. That is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Does the Rabbi think there should be a quota on the number of exemptions for Torah learners, or should every learner be granted an exemption?
When the Rabbi says the number of exemptions should be reduced, does that mean examining who is learning properly and who is not?

Obviously, someone who is not learning as he should should not be exempted. Someone who is learning properly but has no future in learning—that is, in the future he will go out to work, or will need to go out to work—also has no reason to be given an exemption. The exemption should be given to someone who has a good chance of continuing this as a life career, and is worth supporting at public expense and granting an exemption.

Thank you.
Let me sharpen my question.
1. If someone is learning, how can we know whether he has a future in learning? A person’s ability to remain in learning on his own over the years depends on many variables—financial, emotional, etc.
2. Hypothetically, if there were very many people willing to sit and learn in the future as well, what is the limit at which we would require them to serve because there would already be too many learners? Or is there no such thing as too many learners?

There is such a thing as too many learners. I don’t have a number, and that is really not an important question. First let’s get to the bridge, then we’ll cross it. I don’t think many would meet my criterion, so the question is only hypothetical.
This is an assessment that can turn out to be wrong, like any assessment. Still, even at a fairly young age one can already form a not-bad estimate.

The heart knows whether it is for integrity or for crookedness, and a person has 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?

Once, at work, a secular woman asked me whether my son would serve in the army. In response I asked her whether her son would study Torah. She answered that military service is a public matter, while Torah study is a private matter.

I have a friend for whom this is the standard way of dodging secular attacks. I do not accept that claim. If Reuven does not do his duty, does that justify your not doing your duty? True, if you are talking about sharing the burden—because fighters and learners are needed, and one segment of the population does not take part in learning, so the other segment focuses specifically on that—I can understand it. But that is not the case here, because the evasion of the army is not due to learning but out of fear of moral or religious deterioration and so on, and it is done on unjustified scales. Therefore I do not accept your argument.

Why is the percentage of learners not an important question?
Does the Rabbi think that the percentage of learners that exists today in the Haredi population (even if we subtract those who are not really learning) is a number a state can live with, both security-wise and economically?
Within not many years, the Haredi public is expected to grow to dimensions that will require us to think about whether we exempt everyone who studies seriously (and will continue to do so in the future), or whether we limit their percentage in the population.

And if I may add another question: in light of the Rabbi’s view 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.

Actually, I did serve. I didn’t expect such a republican answer (you could almost feel Rabbi Kook arguing with it in Orot HaTeshuvah).

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

Yoav, who said the question of the percentage of learners is unimportant? The exact number is not important and cannot be quantified. Clearly there is a reasonable measure of learners, and I neither want nor am able to give a number for that here. I think we’ve really exhausted this discussion.
In my opinion they definitely should be funded, and I wrote about this in Column 34.

Does the Rabbi’s opinion still support what he wrote here in this discussion?

Why not? What changed?

1. I read a bit above, and it seems to me there is a mistake here. It was written that today artists and athletes are exempted, and that is not accurate. They do basic training and serve full service (admittedly usually an easy one), so that the army has the ability to “use” them in reserve duty. At least that was the case when I served. True, 20 years have passed, but I haven’t heard that this changed.

2. Regarding the importance of Torah study, I don’t think that is relevant in this context. Obviously Torah study is vital for the Jewish people, but not necessarily the Torah study of a specific individual at a specific moment in time. There would be no harm at all to Torah study if a young man went to the army and received at least minimal training, which would make him available for reserve tasks.

3. One can argue that we don’t really need that many soldiers anyway. I don’t agree with that, but even if we assume it is true, a situation in which a distinct social group unilaterally decides that it is the one that does not serve is not reasonable. If fewer soldiers are needed, then one should determine in a substantive way, based on their data, whom to release and whom to draft. Studying in a post-high-school yeshiva is not a legitimate criterion.

As someone who disagrees with you on the matter of learning from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), I have to say that the fact that God-fearing Torah scholars read Moses’ plain words—“Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here?!”—and the moral flaw in this conduct is not clear to them, is excellent evidence for your approach.

Everything you wrote here is no different these days from what it was before. As for the arguments themselves:
1. That is just semantics. That is called an exemption. And they really do not do reserve duty.
2. It is vital that there be Torah learners at a high level, certainly no less than artists, military bands, and military store clerks. Indeed, we are not talking about a specific individual. Who said we were? There is no need whatsoever for him to receive training that is worth nothing when in any case he is not intended to do reserve duty.
3. Here you are simply repeating my own words.