Q&A: Hesder versus Military Service
Hesder versus Military Service
Question
Hello Rabbi, I’m writing an article about the hesder track, and one of the things I’m dealing with is the claim that military service has more value than national service or yeshiva service because military service is harder and demands much more. I thought to say that there is a mistaken identification between difficulty and value (after all, a startup entrepreneur contributes more to the economy than a construction worker, for example, and nobody would care who worked harder), but I’m not entirely sure I’m right. Both in the current context and especially in a Torah context (of performing commandments, etc.). I’d be glad if the Rabbi could shed some light for me.
Answer
Hello Yair. I’ll try to shed light on your eyes (your face is what you’re supposed to brighten 🙂 ).
You are indeed right that one must distinguish between value and effort. But effort also has some weight: if you produce output of the same value but it requires more effort, then it makes sense that you deserve some credit for the effort and not only for the value.
But your starting point is mistaken, in my opinion. You’re starting from a point of comparison—who contributes more. But that’s nonsense, because if society needs both this and that, then the question of what is more important doesn’t arise. Each person should do something, and together everything will get done. It’s more important to be a fighter in Sayeret Matkal than a clerk, or even than a regular infantry soldier. So what? Does that mean everyone should go to Sayeret? It’s more important to be a doctor or a startup entrepreneur, so should everyone do that? If everyone goes there, who will do the surrounding work? Being a doctor or startup entrepreneur is more important than being a singer or painter or kiosk vendor. So what? Does that mean nobody should engage in culture and art, or run kiosks? That’s very shallow thinking.
Even in allocating budgets, you don’t assign all the money to medicine and, until everyone is healthy, not give a penny to entertainment and culture—or even to aid and welfare. That’s not how it works. A society has to address all fronts (again, in reasonable proportion), not finish the most important thing and only then move on to the next.
The point is that everyone is needed: it is very important that there be people who learn, and that there be Jews who fear Heaven and are attached to Torah, to which the yeshiva contributes greatly, and it is also important that there be fighters. Therefore, if some do this and others do that—everything seems perfectly fine to me, and there is no reason to make comparisons. Especially since most young people are not prepared to commit themselves to yeshiva study, so the task falls on those who are willing.
By the way, for this reason I have no problem at all with advanced yeshivot whose students do not serve in the army at all (with proper proportion and screening). The division of tasks is made among all the citizens in society, and not every individual has to do the most useful thing.
All this is, of course, even on the assumption that the army is the most useful thing—which I completely reject. Why? Because hesder students do both this and that and also give more years, whereas regular combat soldiers do only army service. Therefore, in principle, the contribution of the hesder student is much greater, in my opinion.
Discussion on Answer
Greetings to the innocent man, dweller of tents, who grinds them against one another to dust with his nostrils and with the rod of his tongue.
1. As for the name of the questioner, let my error rest with me (though I’ll reveal to you in secret that I have information about the questioners that is not available to you).
2. It’s not only hesder people who understand this, despite your having decided that with great certainty. It seems that only you understand that only hesder people understand it.
3. Even if only I understood this, like Abraham the Hebrew, and the whole world disagreed with me from the other side, this is what I think, and therefore this is how I act, make decisions, and form positions. Perhaps you expect me to act according to what you think (and not according to my own views). That is certainly an interesting approach in itself, but forgive me for finding it hard to identify with it (make a note: another one of my mistakes).
4. Your claim that a libertarian is not supposed to support investment in welfare, culture, and medicine is truly foolish, so I’m sure you’ll forgive me for seeing no point in addressing it.
5. The claim that I am talking about state investment in religion adds to the long list of previous problems yet another serious problem in reading comprehension. Here’s a tip: I wasn’t talking about state investment in yeshivot, but about an 18-year-old boy going to a hesder yeshiva. If you need an explanation of the difference between those two, please don’t hesitate to say so. That’s what I’m here for.
6. Beyond that, if in my opinion hesder yeshivot contribute to the state, then there is certainly justification for arguing that it should support them (which, as stated, I did not argue in my previous remarks). Not because it needs to uphold religion, but because of its own interests (it invests money in order to help itself). You may, of course, disagree that this helps the state, but if I think otherwise you should not be surprised that I also support financial support for yeshivot. If you are criticizing my position, it is not advisable to assume your own position, because that is begging the question (another free tip).
Thus are my words like fire, says the one embarrassed by the splendor of your bitter might, walking backward in awe of the majesty of the rod of your nose and clutching the hem of your cloak,
the local politician…
First, my sincere appreciation (also) for taking my attack (which was delivered with open rebuke and hidden love) sportingly.
1. It may be that my estimate of the percentage of support for hesder is mistaken, but like you, even if I were convinced that there is a real majority supporting this track, I would oppose it on moral grounds, since it is possible to do some of this and some of that as well. On the other hand, I think supporters of the track need the argument that it is consensual, because to place the burden on the shoulders of a public that does not want it is immoral.
2. I really would be glad for an explanation of why a libertarian supports government investment in places where there is no clear market failure.
3. If your answer had been directed to the eighteen-year-old who needs to decide whether to join an existing track or not, I would tend to agree that one should not burden him with all-civic decisions, but that is not the case.
4. Without the state’s almost full funding (I’d be happy to list the details if this is not agreed), I find it hard to believe that this track would exist. Maybe only for pampered rich kids who are really afraid of three years of greasing tanks, running in the hills, guard duty, and so on..
Going now into shelter for fear of the wrath of one who is wiser than a prophet,
Tom. (And we are not done)
1. Are you sure you read what I wrote? I argued that it does not fall on the shoulders of the public, because in my opinion it benefits the public (and not only himself).
2. Find me five libertarians who support no such investment whatsoever, and then we’ll get into explanations. You can of course define a hypothetical libertarian as someone who supports nothing, and then you’ll be brilliantly correct. I refer you to the heap paradox.
3. As I understood it, the question was about him (and not recommendations to the state on how to invest its money), and that is what I answered.
4. If we’re already talking about those who are afraid of greasing, it seems to me that the percentage of hesder students who do this is significantly higher than the percentage of secular people who do this. And if the state decided to fund it (among other things, in order to increase the number of tank-greasers), are you suggesting that the hesder student should not make use of it? And you insist on that even if he himself thinks that it benefits the state and not only himself? Do you know anyone to whom the state offers support (even directly into his pocket, not only funding for activity of public value, as is the case here) and who does not take it? I’d be happy for a few examples.
And finally, indeed, one who is wise is preferable to a prophet. About that I say what I say about Rav Kook’s words that it is better to fail through baseless love than through baseless hatred: best of all is not to fail in either. Consider this well.
1. Even someone who thinks he benefits the public ought to consider whether that benefit is indeed perceived as such; otherwise he will be seen (and justly so, in my opinion) as patronizing.
2. A libertarian supports minimum intervention; is culture an exceptional case? I doubt it.
3. The question did not speak about any individual.
4. Maybe secular people also think they are engaged in lofty matters that are more important than greasing?
5. What kind of benefit to the state are you talking about? Mystical-intrinsic? Because practically I don’t identify any such benefit in any area. Maybe the opposite. Many look to continue the opportunism (by your method: take whatever you can from the state, of course under an idealistic cover) in civilian life as well. They seek to enter the civil service, or nonprofits, or law, and not entrepreneurship or production..
Heaven arranged for you to make a mistake even in the questioner’s name, so that nothing in your answer would come out right..
Interesting why only hesder people understand why hesder is good. If not for the pathetic lack of governance here that gives enormous power to pressure groups, this track wouldn’t exist.
Fine, in your assumptions it’s obvious that the state should invest in medicine, culture, or welfare (surprising to hear from a declared libertarian); that’s something we’ll have trouble escaping, and it’s accepted by 99 percent of the people and 99 percent of the states—but in religion too the state should invest?
Unfortunately, in this answer you replied like a politician, not like a philosopher, rabbi, and man of spirit.