Question

To Dr. Michael Abraham,
I read your article, and I saw in it a number of points that were not clarified sufficiently. I would be glad if you would address them.
The distinction between the duty to fight and the duty of equality
First, it should be noted that your article discussed two different issues that got mixed together despite their difference.

• The question of “equality in bearing the burden,” namely whether it is proper for a certain group in the population (the Haredim and/or Torah students) to be exempt from military service, even though others are forced to serve (and perhaps because they are not drafted, others are forced to serve longer or in more dangerous roles).
• If, hypothetically, we assume for whatever reason that it is indeed proper for this group to receive an exemption at others’ expense (or if we reach the conclusion that they are not obligated in that burden at all), we would still need to discuss whether those same people are obligated, on their own account, to go and serve, just as they are obligated in other commandments and moral matters.

The status of the State of Israel and the IDF with respect to the duty to fight
Let me explain. The State of Israel is not in a situation that requires a universal draft (“let the bridegroom go out from his chamber and the bride from her canopy”), in which every person who is fully or partially fit is handed a weapon and goes out to fight.
I am not an expert in the army’s condition and needs (and presumably neither are you), but from what I hear in the media and from certain public figures, the question today (insofar as there is a question whether the Haredim will be drafted) is whether the Haredim will be drafted, or whether the service of all those already serving will have to be extended, and reserve duty will be imposed on reservists who have already been called up several times recently.
And even if this claim is incorrect, and drafting yeshiva students is needed even if service is extended and the current reserve-call policy continues, still from the standpoint of the duty to fight (what you called in your article “the obligation to save the pursued from the pursuer” and “the law of an obligatory war”), there is no distinction between someone who has already served in the past and someone who has not, nor between an 18-year-old and a 35-year-old man, etc., for all are obligated in this commandment. Just think: if a person sees his fellow in danger, is it conceivable for him to exempt himself by claiming that he has already saved many people in his life?
And as to the issue itself—why indeed not every man who is fit for combat to some degree or another goes to fight—the answer is obviously that there is no need. And if so, then obviously there is no claim that Torah students are obligated to enlist because of the “duty to fight,” but only because of the question of equality.
The war of Sisera and those who participated in it
And the matter you brought from the Book of Judges regarding the war of Sisera proves this very point, for Deborah cursed only the inhabitants of Meroz (of course, all this does not even begin according to the opinion in the Talmud that it refers to a star), even though only ten thousand men from Naphtali and Zebulun participated in the war. And the medieval authorities there explained that she cursed them because they were close to the war zone, or because they were especially mighty men and nevertheless did not come to help.
But regarding the issue of drafting the Haredim and Torah students, certainly one cannot learn from there that it is possible to demand of them to train themselves in basic training so that if and when there is a war they will be able to help in it.
The obligation to save lives
In any case, although as we have explained this question does not relate specifically to Haredim and Torah students, let us discuss what you brought from the words of Maimonides and the halakhic decisors regarding saving the pursued from the pursuer and saving lives, from which you claimed that Haredim and Torah students must enlist.
And I do not know what this has to do with us, for certainly every person who can save the pursued should save him, but it would never enter one’s mind that a person should be obligated to study medicine and then be available in the hospital 24/7 so that he can save every person who needs it (even if without him there would not be enough doctors).
And enlistment in the IDF, which means a long period of basic training and dedicating time to being prepared for war and attack, is similar to the picture we have just described.
Clarifying the details of the obligation of equality in bearing the burden
Now that we have explained that the claims based on the duty to fight are not claims at all, we are left to discuss the second and main issue, namely equality in bearing the burden. In other words, since the State of Israel needs soldiers, what reason is there that “the general public” should have to serve, whereas the Torah-studying public and/or the Haredi public should be exempt?
In addition, you argued that the Haredim should be required to enlist because the state has obligated them in this just as in everything else, and you argued that it has the authority to do so for three reasons, which will be explained below.
Now, the issue of the obligation of equality divides into two branches, as you already noted in your article.

• The obligation to defend the land, which is the matter of municipal taxes, where every person is obligated to participate in paying the tax (and it is explained in the Talmud that this is by virtue of partnership), and tax payment also includes guarding the city. The same would seemingly apply to enlistment in the IDF: apparently one could obligate people on the basis of tax payment.
• When there is already a war on the ground, and a “law of war” is created that does not require fighting by the entire public but only by part of it, one has to decide who will be drafted and who will be exempt, and at first glance the proper thing is that everyone should do their share.

And despite the great similarity between them, we will discuss them separately.
The way taxes are apportioned in military service
If we come to discuss the obligation to enlist in the IDF from the standpoint of tax law (which derives from partnership law), we will need to delve into the issue of this form of apportionment and whether it is kosher according to Jewish law in several respects.

• Is there such a thing as a tax rule where I pay my share for people who defended the land before I was born or before I arrived here?
• Can it be defined as an equal tax distribution even though one person is forced in his service into harsher or more dangerous service?

And there are several other issues of this kind, but this is not the place to elaborate.
Exemption from taxes for Torah scholars
In any case, even if these things are correct and there is indeed a tax obligation to serve in the army, after all according to the law of the Talmud Torah scholars are exempt from taxes, as you mentioned in your article.
And as for what you brought from the words of the Radbaz (part 2, responsum 752), from which you claim it is clear that Torah scholars have no exemption from tax unless they themselves have no need at all for the guarding, and you opened your mouth to say that anyone who demands tax exemption on this basis is nothing but a hypocrite—it seems you did not bother to read all his words, because afterward he explicitly explains that this is not his intention, and he writes:
In any case, do not be mistaken in my words, for I said this only when the householders argue, “We do not need guarding unless everyone helps,” and the scholars say, “At any rate, appoint guards.” In such a case I say that these compel those… But if it is clear that the householders too need guarding, and they make this claim only so that the scholars will help them, then the matter is clear that if the scholars claim, “We do not require guarding,” or even if they remain silent, they are not obligated to assist…
And to the best of my knowledge there was never any Haredi demand to establish the army, so you spoke gratuitously and disparagingly about Torah scholars.
As for your argument that in a state the division of taxes is not according to the benefit one receives from them but according to other calculations, and therefore likewise regarding army service it makes no sense to exempt someone who does not need guarding, such as Torah scholars—even if we assume that the state has the authority to collect taxes in that way and that this is not the law of robbery, still, if one were to imagine a person who has no connection whatsoever to benefiting from the state’s budgets, certainly the state would have no authority to obligate him in taxes. And if so, the same should apply to Torah scholars who have no connection at all to military matters (and it is far-fetched to say that since they are obligated in monetary payment, they are thereby considered connected to the state; these are two different matters). In any event, it is proven in the Talmud that the reason Torah scholars are exempt from taxes is not only because they do not benefit from them, but also because it is not fitting to obligate them, since Torah scholars are not people who go out [to such duties]. And it is explained in the above-mentioned responsum of the Radbaz that this applies also regarding going out to guard duty, and that is obvious. If so, certainly the state has no authority to determine that Torah scholars must go out with the army, for that would be like stipulating against what is written in the Torah.
As for the argument raised in your article—if such an exemption for Torah scholars still exists today, why are they not exempted also from the monetary expenses of security—this is no difficulty at all. According to what I wrote earlier, regarding monetary payment the reasoning that “they are not people who go out” does not apply, and therefore it was more important not to insist on that, especially since it is impossible to divide up the money paid and determine which amount goes to security and which to other things (especially since most Torah students in fact do not pay income tax).
However, this argument does not help exempt all yeshiva students, as the Radbaz already wrote briefly in the responsum mentioned above:
And although there is another reason, for I am doubtful whether nowadays there is anyone who truly does not require guarding, I do not enter into this inquiry now, because my words would sadden some of the scholars, and therefore silence is better than speech.
And in the glosses of the Rema on Shulchan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 243:2, it is explained which Torah scholar is exempt from taxes:
One who is recognized in his generation as a Torah scholar, who knows how to engage in Torah give-and-take, and understands on his own in most places of the Talmud and its commentaries and in the rulings of the Geonim, and whose Torah is his vocation, as explained there.
And one certainly cannot say that all yeshiva students fit this definition.
The state’s authority to determine who is drafted
In your article you wrote that the state has the authority to determine who is drafted, and that this is for three reasons.

• The law of the kingdom is law.
• Communal ordinances.
• A king who takes the people out to an obligatory war.

We will discuss each of these, God willing.
The law of the kingdom is law
Aside from the issue you already mentioned of whether “the law of the kingdom is law” applies to state institutions, seemingly this rule does not apply here at all, for we find it stated only regarding legal acquisitions effective between one person and another and regarding the obligation to pay taxes.
But here it seemingly does not apply at all, for if there is someone who according to the law is required to enlist, there is no need for “the law of the kingdom”; and if according to the law he does not need to enlist, certainly “the law of the kingdom” will not help here at all. (As for the collection of tax money, what is said there is that since according to the law one must pay taxes, the government is permitted to collect them.)
Communal ordinances
In your article you referred to the fact that even if “the law of the kingdom is law” does not apply, this is at least no worse than communal ordinances, and since the Haredim receive money from the state, they are also obligated in its ordinances.
And I cannot understand the connection, because they receive that money due to the fact that they pay taxes like all other citizens (and this is unrelated to the question whether they pay less than they receive or not), and it has nothing to do with laws. (Nor is it known to me that criminals do not receive budgets.)
And these two claims require much study, because even if we imagine that “the law of the kingdom” does apply here, it must be discussed whether in our case—where the government is not drafting Torah students despite the ruling of the High Court—it makes sense to define the matter as though “the law of the kingdom” requires drafting, and I do not have the tools to discuss this question.
In addition, it should be noted that this exemption was given to the Haredim upon joining the state and as a kind of condition of their joining, and if so, seemingly there is no room to obligate them by virtue of “the law of the kingdom” or communal ordinances.
The law of a king who takes the people out to an obligatory war
First, it should be noted that this law (assuming that any of the state institutions has authority to launch an obligatory war) certainly belongs to the government and not to the Knesset or the High Court, and therefore as long as the government has not decided of its own accord to send the Torah-studying public out to war, they are not obligated in this.
And furthermore, we do not find that the king’s law in this matter is to say who will go to war and who will not, but only the very act of taking the people out. But as for who will actually go out (in a case where not everyone needs to go), here we return to discussing what is more proper according to the morality of our holy Torah.
Interim summary
In the matter of drafting Haredim and Torah students, the question of rescue and life-saving does not apply at all, since the question is not whether soldiers will be drafted for war, but who will be drafted. Therefore the question is whether there is room to exempt Torah students at the expense of the rest of the people.
And in this question, seemingly there is no room to exempt all Torah students by virtue of the tax exemption for Torah scholars, since not all of them meet the criteria for that, and in addition there is the claim raised in your article that perhaps once a war is already here this exemption does not apply.
And from here we come to the arguments for exemption that you listed in your article.
The Haredi public’s lack of connection to the state
In your article you wrote that even if we accept the argument that the Haredi public is not part of the state and of the problems created by it, they would still be obligated by the laws of saving lives, etc.
But certainly with respect to the question whether it is right to exempt the Haredi public at the expense of the rest of the public, this argument is relevant.
I emphasize: I do not agree with this argument; I have only come to answer your claims.
The value of Torah study
A second argument is that in a state like the State of Israel, where much of the public’s resources and money are invested in things important to all kinds of ideologies, the Haredi public has the right to demand that legislation also be passed that anchors their ideology. And insofar as such a law cannot be enacted because of High Court rulings, then the rights of the Haredim in the state have evaporated, and if so it is impossible to demand that they fulfill the obligations, for that would certainly be the law of robbery: one person can realize his ideology at the expense of general resources and another cannot.
I myself do not agree with the argument that “Torah protects and saves,” and therefore I am not addressing it.
Maintaining a high spiritual level in the army
A third and main argument is that in the army it is impossible to maintain the kind of spiritual level customary in the Haredi public, and in order to change this, a change would be needed in the entire hierarchy of the army—meaning that the military rabbi (the chief rabbi and the more junior rabbis) would be the final word in every question. In addition, the body that selects the military rabbis would need to be a Haredi body agreed upon by the entire Haredi public. And given the fact that until not long ago the senior command of the army would not even agree to make a general declaration that they would provide for all the religious needs of the Haredi public in the army, certainly these changes are not relevant.
And regarding the question whether it is proper therefore to exempt the Haredi public at the expense of the rest of the public, certainly the answer is yes. Because if you do not want to maintain high standards of spirituality (assuming that lower standards can indeed be maintained in the army), and you are not willing to allow us the conditions needed to do that in the army, then please be so kind as to serve in the army in our place. (And even if part of the Religious Zionist public also wants those same things and nevertheless enlists, that is no argument to obligate the Haredi public, only to exempt them.)
The form and methods of warfare
There is another important argument which, for understandable reasons, is not raised in the Haredi public. Namely, that the Torah has a way of waging war, and if the State of Israel has decided to give up “a people that dwells alone and is not reckoned among the nations” and to endanger soldiers for that purpose and prolong their military service immeasurably for the sake of its liberal values, then let those enlightened liberals please do so themselves. (And regarding the Religious Zionist public, some of whom do not support those values—granted, they too could in fact be exempt under the same law, and they do not do so by their own free choice.)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully,
xxx xxxxxxxxx
Hebron Yeshiva