Q&A: Exemption from Military Service Because “Rabbis Do Not Require Protection” — A Response to the Court Ruling
Exemption from Military Service Because "Rabbis Do Not Require Protection" — A Response to the Court Ruling
Question
Hello Michi, I’m referring to your remarks in the court ruling about this rationale, and I didn’t see a sufficient rebuttal. Most of your arguments are just whataboutism and nothing more. You argued that: “It is not clear why the Haredim call the police when a thief arrives; why secular people participate in paying taxes for Haredi needs, etc.” So what? Granted, that too needs fixing; you don’t correct one injustice with another.
You also argued that: “Apparently this is mainly about protection from thieves and not about life-and-death matters.” First, it should be noted that Tosafot says this there as well. However, the plain sense of Rashi’s words in Bava Metzia 108 (which you cited) indicates that it does indeed also refer to danger to life. In my opinion, the intent is to a marauding soldier who plunders and kills; usually, even if his main intent is theft, there is no reason he would refrain from murder, and this requires further examination.
You further argued: “This is speaking of a war that is already underway.” My response: there is no doubt that if there are no soldiers to fight, those who study Torah are obligated to go out and fight themselves, by analogy to paying taxes, for example in a society made up entirely of Torah scholars, where the scholars are obligated to pay, as the Chazon Ish writes on Bava Batra 5:18. However, the reality is that there are soldiers who will fight; they just need to have their service extended, which the High Court opposes.
You further argued: “In saving Israel from an oppressor there is no exemption for Torah scholars.” My response: only when the Jews cannot defend themselves. But when they can, there is no reason that someone who does not need protection should help others who do need it.
I’d be glad to hear your response to these arguments.
P.S. Personally, I do not think this argument is correct, though for a different reason.
Answer
This is a common mistake in understanding arguments of this kind. This is not whataboutism, but rather proof of my claim. I claim that the Haredim themselves do not believe what they are saying, and that it is merely lip service. The proof is that they themselves behave in the way I describe when they do not have other interests at stake.
In our case, we do not have soldiers who can fight. And this has nothing to do with the High Court. A pointless argument.
In our case, everyone needs protection, and these are matters of saving life, not an obligatory war. And in any case, Torah scholars have no exemption even when they are not needed. They simply have no exemption any more than anyone else does. And that is even in a state run according to Jewish law, which does not exist here.
Discussion on Answer
And regarding the state: they are not obligated to the state as a state (that is a different topic).
We’re wasting our time. There is no point in dealing with such nonsense.
(I don’t agree regarding excluding this from whataboutism, but that’s an etymological-semantic argument that doesn’t have much significance.) 1. You can’t say the Haredim don’t believe this — after all, they believe in the Talmud. You can argue that they are not logically consistent and discuss the psychological explanation for that, that they want to gain from all sides, etc., but it is not plausible that the explanation for the paradox is their lack of commitment to the Talmud.
2. There are; it is possible (technically) to extend their service even to 10 years, so why not?
3. Same here — there are soldiers. And regarding the second part, the Talmud in Bava Batra disagrees with you and holds that they do have such an exemption, and I again point to the Chazon Ish (after all, the father of Haredism), Bava Batra 5:18 (https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14332&st=&pgnum=311&hilite).