I broke my substack fast to comment on how excellent and balanced this article is.
Good work!
I think one point worth mentioning is that since Israel is going after all chareidim they get pushback on all fronts....nuance is lost when both sides get tribal.
Great job, I really like this. However, I disagree with the conclusion. It appears in that conclusion, that in your opinion, we really would in principle send 70% of our boys straight to the army, but we refrain from doing so for the sake of the 30% Torasam Um'nasom who will also be drafted if the rules were changed. I don't think this is true, because we wouldn't need to get the government involved to make this change ourselves. We could simply send the bottom 70% to the army without getting the government involved in our selection (obviously, we would make sure that the army accommodates their religious needs). So clearly our Rabbinic leaders don't want to do this. They feel most boys should be in yeshiva, not just the 30%.
As for hilchos shecheinim, I'm not sure at all that we are bound to the rules legislated by a non-Torah government, if they contradict a Torah lifestyle. In this case, it's drafting 18 yr olds instead of having them attend yeshiva. Who says hilchos shecheinim obligates us to agree to this anti-Torah arrangement? If they had more reasonable demands, I'm sure we could work something out. I like pointing out that it used to be normal for post-yeshiva chareidim to get army training. This was true as late as the 90s. But recently, when 4,000 post-yeshiva chareidim signed up, the army rejected them because of "health issues". It's obvious that there is no genuine desire for a reasonable arrangement.
Thank you for this clarification, and I hope my response won't take too long. In truth, I didn't really "conclude," and i agree with some of your concerns. My main objective here wasn't to give practical suggestions, but to delineate these other concerns ("not giving up on our values") from shmad. Shmad is halachic sugya with its specific rules, and although not discussed too much in SA, it is discussed in the Rambam and in the rishonim in Sanhedrin (74).
The seeming consensus is that shmad is based on intent (see rashi end of 74a, and chidushei haran at length - although the Rambam seems to disagree, and perhaps it's based on the two answers in the Gemara regarding Esther (74b), the Ran is pretty adamant and many achronim side with the Ran on this). If so, all the other concerns, while important, aren't shmad questions, rather they are "preservation of torah in general" questions which isn't as intense as shmad.
That said, preservation of torah values, which includes many of the things you mentioned, is significant and in turn has its own rules. I would refer to these things as "מגדר מילתא," that the chachmei hatorah have a right (and an obligation) to upkeep the torah's laws and values against the tidal waves of the time. To this end, they are supposed to forgo what is says in SA (!) after tremendous care and deliberation, to make sure things don't get out of hand. This is also an explicit siman in SA that beis din are מכין ועונשין against the classic SA halachos, שלא כהלכה, for purposes of general torah upkeep. This requires the greatest sages of the day to deliberate and conclude what goes and what doesn't. So while hilchos shecheinim may require 70%+ to go, other important (should we call it non-halachic?) considerations are most definitely to be taken into account.
But once it's not shmad, to do this requires a strong appreciation of hilchos shecheinim to realize what we are going against halachically (as opposed to a shmad concern which is cut and dry: no army. Period.), to take shecheinim into account and try to come up with the best solutions to accommodate the charedi concerns, ones which are real and important for the very future of klal yisroel, alongside the classic SA laws. That was my main point.
You're correct that we obviously can't just send the bottom 70% without destroying our yeshiva system. As having the yeshiva system more or less the way it is is integral to our values (which we will discuss in the next post beH). We can't just play around with our system either. We need to find the right balance.
But I specifically didn't give eitzos of what to do and how specifically to compromise because that's already a job for the politicians. Meanwhile, I did link Haviv Retteg Gur's podcast for this very reason - some of the solutions he discusses (taking over the army's entire medical wing, or working remotely on data and infrastructure, as well as making some completely charedi units in the army) will - IMO - accommodate most charedi concerns. It would have to be done in a way that the yeshivos still stand and it would have to be done without everyone going at once and probably not for the 18 year olds specifically (except a few?).
As far as a non torah government, for the laws of dina d'malchusa, strong arguments of this nature are indeed made (sourced in the Gemara in bk). But for hilchos shecheinim, as far as I know, we don't find such a thing. It's a communal responsibility to help out. Sure, not necessarily in the way *they* (who don't respect our values) deem fit, but not either to ignore our civic-protection duties. As far as shecheinim goes, we need to find the right compromise.
Finally, to your last point, right now there really is a need for now manpower and assuming they're willing to make compromises (they mostly are), our help would be of service. They are currently redrafting and extending the length of the drafts and even talking about bringing back 40 year old veterans under certain circumstances (like commanders etc). The argument that they're not interested won't hold up forever, and discussions are underway to figure it out.
An important point to mention is that the age 18 has nothing to do with the best age to join the army (a twenty/twenty five year old will have much more maturity to deal with the challenges it brings) . its simply that any later will ruin the progression in life professionally and marriage-wise. Well, 18 is the worst time for a Yeshiva bachur to leave yeshiva even if he's from the other 70%, and שוים בנטל would not apply to the age at all.
True, get them young and dumb. I just don't think that's the only reason.
Interesting, the Ramban Basically gives that reason why the Torah does NOT allow army service before 20. I believe there is another Rishon (cant remember this second) who says it's because before 20 one is not a bar onshin so even Beis Din has no right to force him to risk himself even for milchemes mitzva.
Being a secular state is not grounds to invalidate dina dmalchusa.
The typical grounds for invalidating dina dmalchusa are by classifying it as dina dgazlunusa. However, I don't think the grounds for this are strong. It is primarily based on statements from the Chazon Ish when the state was in its infancy.
However, re the army there may be stronger grounds to classify it as dina dgazlanusa. And while you are right that hilchos shecheinim is in effect even without dina dmalchusa the implementation of hilchos shecheinim may require some recognition of dina dmalchusa, if the state does not allow one to discharge one's responsibilities independently ( This obviously does not exempt one completely from hilchos scheinim. To the contrary, as NS and his friends always note the debt to the rest of society is very high. However, one can argue that Charedim fulfill this debt through tgeri high fertility (which gets to the root of the crisis. Additionally, as a commenter pointed out, when it comes to volunteer services the Charedim far outnumber the secular.)
What are the grounds to consider the army to be dina dgazlanusa?.
I know very little about this topic but for some conjecture.
First, th fact that 60% of the casualties in this war were unfortunately among those from a religious background. If Charedim were to suddenly convert to Religious Zionism, I guess that may jump to 120% (i.e., if the army has more cannon fodder it may take more risks).
This is especially egregious given that (a) no religious people are allowed in the top brass (רמטכ"ל- Hertzi Halevi stopped wearing a yarmulke for this reason), (b) at least to some extent the army supports not just being a melting pot but dropping frumkeit (the army has support groups for chozrim bishe'eilah), (c) as I keep reiterating, the core of the crisis is demographics and only the religious are doing anything to solve it, and the army is destroying the geese that lay the golden eggs.
I think the last point touches on a broader issue (which I keep hammering and in fact the entire world keeps hammering) which is that while in the short run they may be doing a great job killing rodfim in the long run they don't seem to have a plan. (This is especially relevant to me as I believe that Charedim may have a viable plan. I firmly believe that demgraphics are the key to the future and only frum Jews maintain demographic growth in a modern environment. If we don't drop the ball it shouldn;t take too long for Jews to be most of the population of the globe, outside of Africa.) Who knows if much of the battles in Gaza may end only inspiring a new generation of ever more determined terrorists ch"v? (On the other hand, if Charedim really have such concerns why are they in the government? I guess the left is still even worse for the country.)
I don't think the fact that the army drafts 18-year-olds is at all relevant for 25-year-olds (especially considering the fact that the chiyuv doesn't stem from dina dmalchusa but rather from hilchos scheinim). However, the open question is whether the army is interested in 25-year-olds. Slifkin claims that the reason the army turned down so many of them is because they only registered for shelav beis (and because Charedim aren't physically fit, which may be somewhat of a valid complaint in hilchos scheinim). Perhaps. Does anyone outside the army really know?
But that then again, why are so few Charedim over the age of 24 registering for full army service? Is this too much to ask from heads of family? If so, how can we claim to be on principle against yeshiva bochurim enlisting? Perhaps we would design the army to be more family friendly?
These are just some basic questions which I have no idea how to answer.
However, it does seem clear that the only thing the army is really lacking is more front-line soldiers, and it appears that the frum community (if we can consider the DL and the Charedim to both be part of the 'frum community') has already sacrificed far more than its fair share in this.
I don't have time to respond to all your points, but this line, "while in the short run they may be doing a great job killing rodfim in the long run they don't seem to have a plan," that is not my impression at all. Most people are very impatient and waiting a year+ for results is hard, but we are doing it. Because we want to limit our civilian casualties, we are doing a more organized, pointed precision war, which is slow and drawn out, but block by block, slowly dismantling Hamas and Hesbollah and, if we need Rl, we can beat Iran. We are strong and we are doing great bH. The long term plan is keep fighting and keep winning because we are winning.
b"I hear, and bH the last few months have certainly shown many victories re dsimantling the terrorist organizations and fighting Iran, but it still is very unclear to me what a long-term solution looks like. The Arab street still seems to be very resolute and Israel cannot annex Gaza beccause of the demographic problem.
"Any Jewish woman who, as far as it depends on her, does not bring into the world at least four healthy children is shirking her duty to the nation, like a soldier who evades military service."
I think it is time to make a שוויון בנטל movement. האחותיכם תבואו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה?
"Who says hilchos shecheinim obligates us to agree to this anti-Torah arrangement?"
I don't think the suggestion is to do this tomorrow. The suggestion is to change the system from the bottom up (kitta alef) in terms of the brainwashing and both in the army so in 20 years time a decent structure exists such that charedim can share the burden and interact properly, minimising the risk to their ruchniyos. But the chareidi 'leadership' say nein to any such heretical thoughts.
The same way they interact with women, however dressed, when they need to make money. As I previously wrote - show me a chossid who refused to take the subway to Manhatten in the height of the summer when he needs to 'do business' there. Somehow, the spiritual dangers cease to be a problem.
Uh...no. We don't send our 18 year olds to take the subway in Manhattan everyday to do business. What planet are you from? Maybe some chassidim do, we're obviously not talking about them. And this is a good example of why we entrust great talmidei chachamim with our chinuch decisions, rather than cynical, depressed lawyers who are wholly devoid of Torah knowledge.
Typical. You create the arbitrary age of 18, build your whole response around that, and totally ignore the main gist of my point.
No reason why both parties cannot set up a role (or part role) in the army, for 18 year old battlonishe chareidim (even a part time role so they can help the army for half a day and drei around charedi streets outside 'their yeshiva' with friends and a ciggy for the other half), where the presence of women can be minimised. Not tomorrow, true, but start now, and the structure can be there in 15 years. But as I wrote, there is no will from the chareidi side to even start discussion over that.
I'm not going to get to drawn on your diversionary age 18 point, but for what it is worth, tachana merkazit, in the heat of the summer, has 18 year old bochurim travelling for shabbos.
Wait, before you go on to the next thing, I would like you to admit your error on the first. It's not etiquette to make one false statement after another with no accountability and no acknowledgment. You said that the yeshivish world has no problem sending their 18-yr olds on trains to Manhattan to do business, and therefore should have no problem sending them to the army. This is false. Please acknowledge your error.
I didn't say "the yeshivish world has no problem sending their 18-yr olds on trains to Manhattan ". I said "show me a chossid who refused to take the subway to Manhatten in the height of the summer when he needs to 'do business' there."
You twisted my words in your usual style, no doubt the quality of your learning debates are the same.
Uh, no. You don't get to state one lie after another. You were clearly referring to the yeshivish world when you said "The same way they interact with women, however dressed, when they need to make money. As I previously wrote - show me a chossid..." You were talking about 18-yr olds, conflating the yeshivish world with the chassidish, and saying that they interact with women in the train to manhattan. Good bye, gmar chasima tova!
אשרי העם שככה לו - that we are part of such a people after all the confusion in the world (I was just on Reddit r/exjew) makes me think we'll be okay somehow:)
There may be only 5 members on that subreddit (idk), but there are many, many out there that feel the same. I know more than enough of them unfortunately.
The beginning of your comment is good, but: "But the chareidi 'leadership' say nein to any such heretical thoughts" - well ya, but only the ones who say there's a real shmad. Figures like Reb Moshe Hillel Hirsch are very much involved in negotiations.
Btw, how's my "bullet point presentation" which you always ask for? ;)
I need to read more carefully before making any substantial contributions (if I have any), but for now, two items:
1. The presentation is excellent. I particularly like the shecheinim addition, which is rarely discussed, and even more rarely in such a clear and meaningful way.
2. Your article does an impressive job (though perhaps it should be emphasized more) in explaining that there isn't a single monolithic stance within daas Torah. Many people parrot the shmad issue as "daas Torah" without realizing it's a minority perspective. I was doing the same until recently when hocking with a יודע ידע (about the recent Lakewood atzeres tfilah)
I just noticed this post yesterday evening. I am very impressed both with the post and your subsequent comments. Clearly you are quite a lamdan and all your comments about learning Biyun are very real. I think I need to apologize for being upset at one point that you were seemingly focused only on a zoharic perspective. I can only hope that you will make to continue to write on such a high level.
I especially liked this line " I'd humbly suggest that everyone who does go through the sugya, should do so trying to come out not like your specific community's priors in order to reach the most objective conclusion."
Now for my comments.
I don't think the idea of Talimidei Chachamim being exempt from an actual war is at all clear in the poskim. Reb Isser Zalman and Reb Moshe do seem to say that (though Reb Moshe perhaps limits it to when the government extends the Petur) but I don't know of an earlier halachic source. The famous gemara about doing אנגריא בתלמידי חכמים may actually be a ראיה להיפך, ע' ערוך ערך אנגריא.
I think this is case even when there is no Sakana at all, even לו יצוייר it would be clear that they are only coming על עסקי ממון and would never kill. The point is that we only find that Talmidei Chachamim are exempt from shmira not from an active threat.
However, if you have sources that indicate the opposite (as you indicated in a comment) please let me know).
Additionally, the Rema in Yoreh Deah סי' רמ"ג סעיף ב' gives a very high bar for the exemption from שמירת העיר. מוחזק לתלמיד חכם בדורו שיודע לישא וליתן בתורה ומבין מדעתו ברוב מקומות התלמוד ופירושיו ובפסקי הגאונים ותורתו אומנתו (and even with this he adds that not all places have actually practice this exemption אפשר משום דסבירא להו דהאידנא אין לנו מי שתורתו אומנתו משום דצריך דקדוק יפה שיחזיר תמיד לתלמודו כשיפנה מעסקיו ואין נזהרין יפה האידנא- מתרומת הדשן, מקורו של הרמ"א).
(I can't resist adding that I often fell that current Charedi and yeshivish society distinguishes little between a Talmid Chacham as described above and a regular 25 year old Kollel yungerman, and in some ways seems to show ore respect to the young Kollel yungerman.)
At the very least, I think the chiyuv on an average Charedi to serve is certainly stronger than the chiyuv on the tzibur to exempt a large portion of Charedi society.
Re Shas Hashmad
Do you have any source that shas hashmad can turn a mitzvah into an aveirah?
Either way I think your conclusion should indicate that this whole discussion is moot. You admit that probably at least 2 thirds of Charedim should serve in the army. If so what is the heter for them not to serve?
I believe the only heter is the one you mentioned in a comment: למיגדר מילתא.
Once we reached the conclusion that the heter is למיגדר מילתא it seems to me a bit silly to be so focused on the issue of תלמידי חכמים. If the main focus would be Talmidei Chachamim it would seem counterintuitive to have those who are not Talmidei Chachamim be exempt. What is more effective at causing שנאת עמי הארץ לתלמידי חכמים than the claim that anyone born Charedi is automatically a Talmid Chacham for life?
Put it this way. Opposing 18-year-olds in the army should need no explanation. What does warrant explanation is the fact that we ave nit see a Kol Koreh from all Charedi Rbbonim telling all 25 year olds who are not completely engrossed in learning that they must enlist in the army.
Moreover, prior to October 7 the greater issue with Charedim was their fight against academia. Does Slifkin not have a point that holding all men back (even those in their older 20s with children to feed) from a proper college education can be against the dictum of לעולם ילמד את בנו אומנות?
I think the obvious conclusion is that Charedim feel that למיגדר מילתא they must keep a great distance from the rest of society. Once that is established this alone may possibly be a heter as a commenter noted, as the army itself is holding the Charedim back in the way that they feel they can without risk to their Yiddishkeit. The Charedim aren't abstaining from service, but rather the army is (so far) abstaining from providing the Charedim with the ability to serve.
(It is still צע"ג to me how this applies to 25-year-olds. I wrote a letter to a major Charedi Baal Hashkafa and a mechaber of many sefarim in Shematsa and hashkafa and he responded that to him to these questions are a צע"ג. Then again, perhaps the army really just isn't that interested in them.)
And I believe the only way this can possibly change is if the DL or the Chardal can show lasting success remaining frum in a large community. Until that happens it seems Charedim will just dig in their heels and be stubborn. Hopefully it won't take too much longer, as Klal Yisroel really needs Charedim to be able to take part in a functioning society.
I would like to add that I think currently the greatest tragedy is the breakdown in dialogue. It is heartbreaking to see how the different sectors of Israeli society, often even among frum Jews, seem to not even share a common language in these issues, due to the fact that their values are so vastly different.
I think that what is most needed today is for people who are capable of explaining to non-Charedim the importance of the Charedi contribution to society, and on the other hand, to explain to Charedim the need to acknowledge the contribution which non-Charedim contribute. I believe there are convincing aarguments to be made about the contribution of Charedim even from a secular perspective, but they can only be argued if we can find someone from the other side (e.g., a respected DL figure) to work with us.
On the other hand, perhaps this is a lost cause, as the values are so vastly different. Perhaps we can only help through doing traditional kiruv, and as more people will understand our values, they will come to appreciate our contributions.
However, I worry that focusing on "halachic" exemptions backfires in this regard, as it gives the impression that Halacha goes again core human values and/or perhaps is being used as a way for lazy people to circumvent their most basic duties. What is needed most this conversation is people who can say to the other side "I fully agree with your concern however this… is h olding me back. I don’t think we from America are capable of making such statements, and we can only wonder why few Charedim are.
Thank you for your long and thoughtful response, and for taking the time to read a simple man's thoughts (- my main reason for adding that humility which probably sounds more haughty than anything else is because I am not sharing any daas torah or objective halacha. Rather I am sharing my personal thoughts which are open to revision, modification and complete retraction if shown to be wrong).
1. Your objection that the petur of talmidei Chachamim from an actual war is not clear – I don’t object. In fact, it is for this reason that it’s important to distinguish between the chiyuvim of war and the chiyuvim of hilchos shecheinim. As far as hilchos war are concerned - i.e. milchemes mitzvah - the chiyuv to fight would be much stronger. I was very shallow in the article as to why we do or don’t have milchemes mitzvah above, since it’s a complex sugya and deserves it’s own write-up. Most people who responded via email were primarily concerned with this and I hashed it out with some of them and even learned some new perspectives. Perhaps I’ll organize a separate post just on that topic. However once we conclude with the possibility that there may be no milchemes mitzvah in the stricter sense today, what chiyuvim are we left with? Hatzolas nefashos, Rodef (these I almost completely ignored) and hilchos shecheinim.
As far as hatzolas nefashos, it’s pretty clear to me that we aren’t mechuyav to go joining Hatzolah or Zaka or to become doctors or even veterinarians (a vet would have hashovas aveida). It seems that hatzolas nefashos does not apply to those not in the path. I’d imagine this comes from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 73a regarding hashavas gufo (assuming “mitrach” doesn’t include anything and everything, even if "meigar igurei" means absolutely all money, simply because someone not in the path is definitionally not included in the situation of "standing on his friend's blood"), but it would have to be a longer discussion. The facts are that those who join these organizations are incredible but not everyone is mechuyav so long as it’s taken care of. (I’d imagine that even if it wasn’t taken care of by these tzaddikim, it would fall back to hilchos shecheinim and there would be rotations or taxes towards these areas.) So even though these groups can undoubtedly use our help, it’s not incumbent of every single person to join. If so, the same should apply to army service where (if not for hilchos shecheinim) there is no chiyuv m’tzad lo sa’amod.
This is all besides for the discussion of safek pikuach nefesh on the side of the saver, which is a whole separate sugya in CM 421 and after going through the Sugya, see Aruch Hashulchan there.
The idea of Rodef is a bit more complex, and the simple answer is that no civilian is able to kill Sinwar; that needs a special operation. That’s exactly what an army is for. The question of if everyone should be joining the army, however, (to me) just goes back to hilchos shecheinim. Many people in the army are just there to serve food and they are not killing any rodfim. The army needs all kinds of roles to keep its machine running and the chiyuv to join that machine is from shecheinim IMO.
(Just for clarity's sake, another reason to join the army would be Dina D’malchusa, but that is only once the law is such, and even if the law were such, we all know the peturim of Dina D'malchusa in EY and by a non-Torah Jewish governmentamongst other discussions on that topicc which are all debatable.)
2. The chiyuv of active threat is a sugya brought in OC 329, see there, where everyone is obligated, including Talmidei Chachamim, and this surely applies today (unlike milchemes mitzvah which may not), but again, that halacha is about hatzolas nefashos, and presumably would abide by that set of rules, which we briefly discussed above.
3. As far as who qualifies as a Talmid Chacham, I was very, very generous, but at the same time it wouldn’t surprise me if my numbers are correct. I live in America and I know plenty of good, fine Talmidei Chachamim who are on their way to becoming true scholars, and although the Rema seems very strict, the Ritva includes ehrliche students. Granted, even with the students, the numbers are the same and not everyone who is “officially” a student qualifies, but there are a lot of baalei Aliya and again, I wouldn’t be surprised if the number were as high as 30%. But I also understand that number may be as low as 5%, depending on what qualifications are necessary to be called Toraso Umnuso, and what standard of ובכל שעה שהוא פנוי מעסקו מחזר על דברי תורה ולומד דברי תורה (quote from the Rosh) we need.
4. While shaas hashmad cannot turn a mitzvah into an aveira, it can define our chiyuvim of hilchos shecheinim differently. So while without shmad we would need to serve and that would be a mitzvah, our issue of shmad would exclude anyone from being part of this societal system. (Is that what your question was?)
5. If it’s shaas hashmad (I didn’t get involved in אביזרייהו דעריות וחשש עריות ממש, which is a similar but distinct concern which doesn’t require ill intent on the part of the lawmakers - that was my mistake) absolutely no one should serve at all until that issue is corrected. My heter of the 30% was only when dealing with shecheinim exclusively.
6. Last, regarding l’migdar milsa (SA CM siman 2), I think that the Rabonim who hold that it no longer is a shaas hashmad and arayos (Reb Moshe Hillel Hirsch, and I assume Reb Dov Lando, Reb Dovid Cohen etc. – basically the UTJ constituents), are working toward bringing charedi society back to normal. Reb Moshe Hillel has been the most vocal, and he has already spearheaded the movement towards normalizing going to work and joining to the IDF. L’migdar milsa used to require much more intense isolation, where the fight was stronger both from the other side and from ours, as we weren’t as built up like we are today (unfortunately many leaders today can’t bring themselves to see that things changed or that even if they have changed, they have no power to go “against” the previous gedolim who were fighting a different generation’s battle – surely these people don’t qualify to be the referees of what’s called l‘migdar milsa today, pardon my rant), but now it truly has cooled down and compromise is possible from both sides, which - I keep stressing - is happening! Only on Slifkin’s blog and with extreme ideologues does it seem like there is tons of hate and no understanding. Most Israelis are more centered and appreciate the religious and societal concerns of charedim in the IDF, and most charedim would now be okay with joining within the proper frameworks. (Listen to the link I posted from Haviv Reteg Gur, a secular journalist-analyst.)
I think where there may be some confusion here is that I understand (unless you have a ראיה להיפך) that the exemption from hilchos scheinim itself is limited to cases that are similar to the protection of a wall (אני חומה) not to cases where the wall has been breached. In such a scenario whatever is necessary to be done falls on everyone, מדין הלכות שכנים, including joining an army.
There is an important point here, which is that one doesn't general have to train to become a doctor in order to have the capabilities to save life. לא תעמוד על דם רעך only applies when the sakana is לפניו. With regard to hilchos shcheinim it may be trickier. However, generally a situation of a breached wall arises unexpectedly and doesn't last too long, so those who never trained (due to being Talmidei Chachamim) are exempt. The question currently is if the unresolved situation in Gaza (due to demographics as I always repeat) may change this dynamic.
Either way, I think this is all very theoretical and therefore hard to discuss practically.
The burning question now is re the non-Talmidei Chachamim.
I would love to your source re Reb Moshe Hillel Hirsch as this is the issue that concerns me greatly. I know about his comments re Charedim working. He spoke about this when he came to Lakewood, stating that the Israelis have what to learn from the Americans re molding working Bnei Torah. This is certainly the greatest issue of the next generation (whereas for us the greatest issue is the opposite; how to maintain a sizeable nucleus of completely dedicated yeshivaleit). However, re the army I have only seen silence. I assumed that this was some sort of (weird?) political strategy but I don't know. (On this note, it seems to me that the Charedi opposition to academia is also mostly political. On the private level I assume they understand that people must do what is necessary for their family.)
Perhaps you can provide me with a better source than one in which Reb Moshe Hillel agreed grudgingly to a gvir in exchange for NIS 5 million- after a full year of the war.
That's all I have on paper, but to me it's a window... Meanwhile in the Chassidishe circles they are much more open even politically, which is also something. Check out Goldknopf's recent statements.
The Chassidim are in general much more organized about these things.
The Litvaks generally have an official strict stans but on the individual level often will be very flexible (depending on the Rav asked).
However, on the army issue (at least for below 25) they seem pretty resolute.
I assume this is basically what the gevir wanted to pull out of Reb Moshe HIllel Hirsh. A statement made in that context is quite obviously not a olicy statement, but at least it indicates that one who joins the army is not מחוץ למחנה.
The truth is that the change in Charedi community in the last 70 years has not been to be more liberal in these issues. To the contrary, it used to be more accepted to serve in the army, and the policy of the Gedolim (Rav Shach, the Steipler) always was that the petur is only for bnei yeshiva.
"Personally, I do not share this belief, and to my knowledge, most charedim align with my view. "
Er... I dunno. Those most vocal about drafting the haredim (Anshel Pfeffer, Yossi Klein-Halevi, Nehemia Shtrasler, Israeli Democracy Institute, Shalom Hartmann Institutue, ect.) are explicit that the reason they want the haredim in the army is to end haredi separatism and change haredi hashkafa. It's not that they want the haredim to become non observant, but they absolutely do want to haredim to disappear as a distinct sector. They are VERY clear on this point.
"They believe the army genuinely seeks their manpower rather than attempting to shmad them."
No, that's the thing: the IDF really, really, really doesn't want the haredim to join. The IDF is so politicized that you have to read between the lines with what they say but the IDF absolutely does not want an influx of haredi soldiers. It's just that they can't come out and say that due to political reasons. I promise you that the entire IDF brass would give every haredi a no fuss exemption if it were up to them.
This whole thing is such a manufactured issue. The IDF doesn't want haredi soldiers and the general public doesn't want them either. If you ever see "man on the street" interviews with Israeli chilonim, they never say that they want the haredim in the IDF, they just want the state to stop subsidizing yeshiva study. This whole faux controversy is not about the haredim or the IDF, it is fully for the purposes of bringing down Bibi. If Bibi is replaced by Lapid or Gantz, all the calls for a haredi draft will instantly cease outside of Sifkin's blog.
The question of distinguishing between loud voices and actual public opinion, as reflected in polls, is complex and touches on how political decisions are made—determining whom to trust. This is the focus of my third post, which I’ve found too technical and meta-ethical to address in one post, so I’m setting it aside for now.
In response to your specifics: besides that I disagree with some of your examples, more so, while these voices are loud, it doesn’t mean they represent the majority or general public opinion. A few vocal journalists or institutions aiming to improve Israel by raising concerns about the Haredi community don’t provide a representative sample. Furthermore, the IDI, to my knowledge, isn’t particularly "anti-Haredi," and even if they were (as some might argue about the Shalom Hartman Institute), again, that doesn’t make their views the majority opinion.
Well it sounds like you are just agreeing with me. I am saying that the majority do not want to shmad the haredim and don't even want them in the army. What I am saying is that the draft haredi movement as a whole is driven by a desire to end haredi separatism.
90% of the Israelis who want the haredim drafted just want a framework that they view as more fair and want to give some relief to those currently serving, it isn't a anti haredi thing for them. But it also isn't something they are passionate about either way or spend to much time dwelling on. It's more a case of, "sounds good".
I'll give you an analogy using American politics: if you ask Americans, "should we legalize all the undocumented immigrants currently in America who grew up here?", the response would be something ridiculous like 85% in favor. However, such legislation will never pass because the public's support for it is very casual. It's a case of "yeah, sure, why not?" as opposed to, "Yeah! Let's do it right now!"
Similarly, most Israelis would like the haredim to serve but it isn't a big deal to them either way. However, for those who it is a big deal for, absolutely it is because they want to break down haredi society and they themselves even admit as much.
But don't you think that the fact that those most gung ho about drafting the haredim clearly have nefarious motives should give us pause?
"It's a good place to clarify the distinction between the proposal for a full draft vs. some kind of שוויון בנטל compromise "
My belief is that the status quo *is* the compromise because I simply don't think the IDF wants the haredim. Inducting anymore than a handful of haredim would require that the IDF make changes that it simply isn't prepared to make. The IDF already has far more religious soldiers than it is comfortable with. All of this controversy is over a state of affairs that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews are actually okay with.
A real compromise would be for the state to reduce (not eliminate) funding that goes to sectors that don't serve in the IDF (i.e. the Arabs and the haredim). However even that can't happen because it would require a government without either the haredi or Arab parties which is something that has already proven impossible, at least not without an Ariel Sharon type figure to lead the putative "right".
I don't think so. If my above analysis is correct that charedim have a halachic civic duty to help out, and on their side they need more manpower (they are expanding the time served for the current draftees amongst other changes), the right compromise would be to find a way (a) for charedim to help out (b) without changing who they are, which is a compromise for both sides. And both sides currently have actors who are willing to come and are coming to the table.
I mean, you do understand that the IDF will never, under any circumstances, agree to any sort of gender segregation, right? Nor will they agree to implement haredi standards of kashrut.
Any type of compromise would inevitably involve the creation of homogeneous and semi autonomous haredi units. This is something the IDF won't ever allow. The IDF already deeply regrets the formation of Nahal Haredi and would love to abolish it.
If the haredim need to contribute more to the state and the war effort, fine. But not every person or every sector is capable of contributing in the same fashion. Large numbers of haredi soldiers simply isn't going to work and the IDF will never allow it regardless.
Any RZ's here who have served will back me up on this
I wonder what your opinion would be if Hamas surrounded Bnei Brak? Hmmm? Would you say then that Talmedei Chachamim are exempt? If you answer is “yes” then you are very off the mark if your answer is no , then tell us all what is the difference between Hamas surrounding Kibbutz Beeri or Bne Brak ?
When actual lives are at stake, may we rely on miracles? In 1929 at Hebron... didn't young students of the yeshiva, whose holiness shone like stars in the sky, fall before the malicious enemy? Please, did these martyrs need protection or not?... If you understand that the scholars don't need protection in relatively peaceful times and are exempt from building the protective walls, what consequence has this when compared to a life-and-death struggle, a war which is a mitzvah and in which all are obligated? The defense authorities ordered everyone to cover all windows as protection against shattering glass in case of an air raid. Would anyone think that some rabbis will not do so, claiming, "Rabbis do not need protection?" ...Why did rabbis leave areas under enemy fire along with the rest of the general population? Why did they not rely on this maxim?
It may be stated... that such a claim (that since rabbis "don't need protection" they should be exempt from military service) raises a very serious moral issue. Can anyone whose life is not otherwise patterned after this degree of trust and bitahon argues for exemption on this ground? Is it possible to worry about one's economic future - in evident disregard of Rabbi Eliezer's statement that "whoever has bread in his basket and says 'What shall I eat tomorrow?' is but of little faith" - and yet not enter the army because one is presumably safe without it?
Question for Reb Shulman: Rabbi Lichtenstein follows up in the second to next paragraph:
"The situation is radically different, however, with respect to an obligation precisely rooted in the responsibility to help others qua others. Does anyone suppose that one’s duty to engage in a defensive milhemet mizvah “to help save [the people of] Israel from a foe who has descended upon them” is based solely upon the fact that one is presently or potentially in danger? In the context of the egocentric ethic of a Mandeville or an Adam Smith, possibly. From a Torah perspective, however, this would be strange doctrine, the more so to the extent that we correctly perceive that such action is mandated by the general norm of gemilut hasadim and not just the specific commandment of defensive war. Consequently, the gemara in Bava Batra provides no rationale whatsoever for totally exempting talmidei hakhamim from military service. They may not require protection but others do; and their duty to defend those who have no built-in armor remains."
Reb Shulman, do find this refutation of your analysis convincing? Why or why not?
It sounds like a big chiddush. My main argument would be: why is there only an obligation of gemilas chessed for military service, but not for the other protective measures discussed in the Gemara, where the Gemara clearly says they’re patur, even though they’re not sharing the burden of helping everyone else? Why not make the same argument—that even if they’re protected by the Torah, they should help out because of chessed?
To answer his question about why it’s not selfish, I’d suspect it’s because their Torah truly does protect, not just for themselves but for everyone. As long as they have the petur mentioned in halacha, they’re fulfilling their role in providing protection. (See R’ Akiva Eiger on that Gemara in Bava Basra, where he points to Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos that their Torah protects everyone. I assumed R’ Akiva Eiger’s point was along these lines.)
Thank you, this is a very important distinction to clarify: When does protection fall under "civic duty" (like hilchos shecheinim), and when does it become a case of hatzalas nefashos, lo saamod al dam rei’echa, or rodef?
In my understanding (there is backing in rishonim to this effect), if someone is coming to kill a specific person or group, this is not an issue for the army—it’s a random threat. In such a case, while there might be a civic police force in place to respond, the primary responsibility lies with the individuals to defend themselves, and for nearby bystanders to step in. This is not merely a civic duty but a direct obligation to prevent harm which is currently present, invoking lo saamod, rodef, and hatzalas nefashos. No law exempts a talmid chochom in such a case, and he of course must interrupt his studies to intervine (as with any mitzvah that's א"א ע"י אחרים).
This is true even if the threat is larger—say a gang attacking a crowd—it still wouldn’t be seen as a matter of civic responsibility. It remains a case of personal and communal defense, where the focus is saving lives, not fulfilling a broader civic role.
On the other hand, the role of an army is different. An army’s purpose is to provide protection for the country as a whole, which is a civic duty, similar to hilchos shecheinim. This duty requires participation to safeguard the community at large, especially to prevent attacks before they occur - which is proof that it has nothing to do with the specific danger at hand; there is no specific danger during times of peace. So during peacetime, this "just in case" obligation exists, and in wartime this aspect of the obligation continues to exist, where those who are already serving continue to fulfill their roles in active combat. This is about communal responsibility, not the immediate obligation to save lives in a specific moment of danger, which falls under hatzalas nefashos.
So if Hamas were surrounding bnei brak and those inside could do something about it, that wouldn't fall under civic duty, rather under lo saamod etc. and would have no exemptions, while the idea of serving in general is a civic duty which falls under hilchos shecheinim.
What if Hamas was 10 miles from Benei Berak? 20m? 30m? Where is the line?
How do you know that in a tiny country like Israel surrounded externally by fanatical bloodthirsty enemies and containing internally the same fanatical bloodthirsty enemies, halochoh would make the same distinction between 'country' and 'specific groups' as you do?
Just because there is grey area which I may not be able to define (although in most given circumstances we could probably figure it out), doesn't mean the distinction is obsolete. The distinction stands, and those grey areas remain grey.
It could be you're right that this war is a matzav of rodef mamash, something I didn't think I needed to go into because it doesn't seem that way to me. If someone disagrees with me on this and backs it up, I'm willing to have such a conversation. My current take is that this is an unlikely take and an unreasonable (mechudash) position, to think that this is different than any war ever, but I'm open to hearing clear sevaros otherwise.
"My current take is that this is an unlikely take and an unreasonable (mechudash) position, to think that this is different than any war ever, "
That is a faulty comparison. You don't compare to any war "ever". Meaningless to compare to Vietnam or Pearl harobour - you need to company to any war in EY with much smaller distances. And quite frankly, this war, with internal arabs joining in, is far more 'townlike' than ever before.
"Just because there is grey area which I may not be able to define (although in most given circumstances we could probably figure it out)"
That's a word salad. We know the given circumstances in EY right now, so go figure it out!
You flipped my two paragraphs. My original second paragraph was anticipating the question you asked just now at the end. (If that's confusing, I can explain myself better lol...)
As for the "faulty comparison," I don’t see it as faulty at all. In my view, this situation feels more like a war than a random gang fight. You’re welcome to present other options, but as it stands, that’s how I see the status quo. I don’t find your distinctions particularly compelling, and I imagine many would agree with me. But again, that’s just my opinion, and you’re entitled to disagree if you feel strongly about it.
"random gang fight" - throwing in yet another phrase. You started well, but now as typical you keep adding in more and more undefined phrases and obscucficiate yourself..
Anyway, the avreich that was killed in Hadera was very much killed in a 'random gang fight' manner.
Excellent article, and I'm going to read part 2 now. One idea I had would be to offer a form of National Service to Charedi men, and they could be assigned to war effort positions that are for men-only. I haven't worked out all the details, but my idea is based on the fact that not everyone in the armed forces is on the battleground. There are many jobs, some more useful than others, that could accommodate Charedi men.
Do the right thing. It is the law of the land and thus halacha requires you to follow it with certain exceptions. Second, terrible chillull hashem if you don't contribute to Israel defense in a meaningful way. Third, charedim are not entitled to special entitlements cash or otherwise.
Do the right thing. It is the law of the land and thus halacha requires you to follow it with certain exceptions. Second, terrible chillull hashem if you don't contribute to Israel defense in a meaningful way. Third, charedim are not entitled to special entitlements cash or otherwise.
I like everything you have written. And I couldn't agree more.
However, the conclusion that you drew based on your lomdus is insufficient reason alone.
You are basically positing that the government compelling a universal draft will have a pragmatic problem of being mechayev the 30% that they can't figure out, who are the genuine article.
There is always someone who is an arbiter of these laws to determine who is torso umnoso and who is not. This arbiter should be authorised to recruit anyone who doesn't clearly fall under the correct definition. If that were not the case, then you have fregged up the entire hilchos shechenim. Cos in every generation the same could be said. One could always in every generation hide as a talmid chochom from taxes. The obvious answer to that is, there is someone who has the authority to determine whether that's an accurate claim or just a false excuse.
Secondly even if you are correct that a draft would not be halachicly based. Nevertheless Mitzad the hilchos shechenim, the remaining 70% are mechuyav mitzad themselves to enlist. There is no petur for that!? Unless you claim that even amongst these 70% themselves they cannot determine in their own hearts if they are torosom umnosom, which is absurd.
This whole issue only arises when there are laws by other governances. When yidden are in charge and the chachmei ha'ir and the beis din rule the town ע"פ תורה והלכה, this is not an issue at all. Those chachamim will decide who is exempt and who is not. What complicates things here is that there is an outside force who is drafting and enforcing the laws. If we want to invoke our laws within this broader context (and if there is no dina d'malchusa with the Israeli government, we should be trying to keep our SA's laws), we need to work with them. If we'd okay a draft, they won't be able to distinguish between who and who, and of they don't, we're left with not being מקיים הלכות שכנים. As far as shecheinim goes, yes, those 70% have an obligation to either become תורתם אומנותם or share the burden.
What your saying is that the only enforcers of hilchos shechenim are the chachmei hoir and the beis din. So then there is no hilchos shechenim today. No need for your whole article.
If there are 70% of people who are clearly not torosom umnosom is nobody at all nowadays qualified to point that out besides for a beis din according to a shulchan oruch. That doesn't seem very likely. Surely anyone can see a batlan a mile away. You don't need a beis din. Now obviously we agree that there is some nuance where someone is learning somewhat and may not be considered umnosom. But for the others... Clearly if a working charedi-lite businessman who hasn't stepped foot into yeshiva for 5 yrs would claim exemption under hilchos shechenim cos his Torah protects, we would laugh at him and drag him straight off to help. It's not like gender theory where a fat middle aged man can "identify" as a teenage black gender fluid. So you don't need a beis din to enforce shechenim when there is nothing questionable just laughable. Unless you are willing to do away with hilchos shechenim completely in every which aspect until the country is run by bes din. In which case your whole article is superfluous.
I don't think w need beis din to define the 70% who don't make the cut. W need them to define who exactly does. As far as hilchos shecheinim goes, anyone who is not toraso umnuso and doesn't fulfill his civic duties is in violation of a clear psak halacha in SA. Though, as mentioned, there are other cheshbonos to be made.
Yes, these Lakewooders don't appreciate that in Israel there are are tens or maybe the odd hundreds of small 'yeshivos' mostly full of batlonim. Merely to get chareidim out of the army. They are not on the radar of chutznim, who only know about mir, ponovez the top yeshivos.
How do you know what actually goes on in the Yeshivos? Did you take the time to actually investigate, or are you bloviating? Stop the Lashon Hara and rechilus!
I broke my substack fast to comment on how excellent and balanced this article is.
Good work!
I think one point worth mentioning is that since Israel is going after all chareidim they get pushback on all fronts....nuance is lost when both sides get tribal.
Great job, I really like this. However, I disagree with the conclusion. It appears in that conclusion, that in your opinion, we really would in principle send 70% of our boys straight to the army, but we refrain from doing so for the sake of the 30% Torasam Um'nasom who will also be drafted if the rules were changed. I don't think this is true, because we wouldn't need to get the government involved to make this change ourselves. We could simply send the bottom 70% to the army without getting the government involved in our selection (obviously, we would make sure that the army accommodates their religious needs). So clearly our Rabbinic leaders don't want to do this. They feel most boys should be in yeshiva, not just the 30%.
As for hilchos shecheinim, I'm not sure at all that we are bound to the rules legislated by a non-Torah government, if they contradict a Torah lifestyle. In this case, it's drafting 18 yr olds instead of having them attend yeshiva. Who says hilchos shecheinim obligates us to agree to this anti-Torah arrangement? If they had more reasonable demands, I'm sure we could work something out. I like pointing out that it used to be normal for post-yeshiva chareidim to get army training. This was true as late as the 90s. But recently, when 4,000 post-yeshiva chareidim signed up, the army rejected them because of "health issues". It's obvious that there is no genuine desire for a reasonable arrangement.
Thank you for this clarification, and I hope my response won't take too long. In truth, I didn't really "conclude," and i agree with some of your concerns. My main objective here wasn't to give practical suggestions, but to delineate these other concerns ("not giving up on our values") from shmad. Shmad is halachic sugya with its specific rules, and although not discussed too much in SA, it is discussed in the Rambam and in the rishonim in Sanhedrin (74).
The seeming consensus is that shmad is based on intent (see rashi end of 74a, and chidushei haran at length - although the Rambam seems to disagree, and perhaps it's based on the two answers in the Gemara regarding Esther (74b), the Ran is pretty adamant and many achronim side with the Ran on this). If so, all the other concerns, while important, aren't shmad questions, rather they are "preservation of torah in general" questions which isn't as intense as shmad.
That said, preservation of torah values, which includes many of the things you mentioned, is significant and in turn has its own rules. I would refer to these things as "מגדר מילתא," that the chachmei hatorah have a right (and an obligation) to upkeep the torah's laws and values against the tidal waves of the time. To this end, they are supposed to forgo what is says in SA (!) after tremendous care and deliberation, to make sure things don't get out of hand. This is also an explicit siman in SA that beis din are מכין ועונשין against the classic SA halachos, שלא כהלכה, for purposes of general torah upkeep. This requires the greatest sages of the day to deliberate and conclude what goes and what doesn't. So while hilchos shecheinim may require 70%+ to go, other important (should we call it non-halachic?) considerations are most definitely to be taken into account.
But once it's not shmad, to do this requires a strong appreciation of hilchos shecheinim to realize what we are going against halachically (as opposed to a shmad concern which is cut and dry: no army. Period.), to take shecheinim into account and try to come up with the best solutions to accommodate the charedi concerns, ones which are real and important for the very future of klal yisroel, alongside the classic SA laws. That was my main point.
You're correct that we obviously can't just send the bottom 70% without destroying our yeshiva system. As having the yeshiva system more or less the way it is is integral to our values (which we will discuss in the next post beH). We can't just play around with our system either. We need to find the right balance.
But I specifically didn't give eitzos of what to do and how specifically to compromise because that's already a job for the politicians. Meanwhile, I did link Haviv Retteg Gur's podcast for this very reason - some of the solutions he discusses (taking over the army's entire medical wing, or working remotely on data and infrastructure, as well as making some completely charedi units in the army) will - IMO - accommodate most charedi concerns. It would have to be done in a way that the yeshivos still stand and it would have to be done without everyone going at once and probably not for the 18 year olds specifically (except a few?).
As far as a non torah government, for the laws of dina d'malchusa, strong arguments of this nature are indeed made (sourced in the Gemara in bk). But for hilchos shecheinim, as far as I know, we don't find such a thing. It's a communal responsibility to help out. Sure, not necessarily in the way *they* (who don't respect our values) deem fit, but not either to ignore our civic-protection duties. As far as shecheinim goes, we need to find the right compromise.
Finally, to your last point, right now there really is a need for now manpower and assuming they're willing to make compromises (they mostly are), our help would be of service. They are currently redrafting and extending the length of the drafts and even talking about bringing back 40 year old veterans under certain circumstances (like commanders etc). The argument that they're not interested won't hold up forever, and discussions are underway to figure it out.
Appreciate that this blog posts that are across the frum spectrum.
An important point to mention is that the age 18 has nothing to do with the best age to join the army (a twenty/twenty five year old will have much more maturity to deal with the challenges it brings) . its simply that any later will ruin the progression in life professionally and marriage-wise. Well, 18 is the worst time for a Yeshiva bachur to leave yeshiva even if he's from the other 70%, and שוים בנטל would not apply to the age at all.
Actually, they pick 18 year olds precisely because their prefrontal cortex isn't fully developed. Later, they might not risk their lives.
Indeed, and for exactly the same reason Chareidi cult leaders wishes to keep hold of them at that age.
True, get them young and dumb. I just don't think that's the only reason.
Interesting, the Ramban Basically gives that reason why the Torah does NOT allow army service before 20. I believe there is another Rishon (cant remember this second) who says it's because before 20 one is not a bar onshin so even Beis Din has no right to force him to risk himself even for milchemes mitzva.
Being a secular state is not grounds to invalidate dina dmalchusa.
The typical grounds for invalidating dina dmalchusa are by classifying it as dina dgazlunusa. However, I don't think the grounds for this are strong. It is primarily based on statements from the Chazon Ish when the state was in its infancy.
However, re the army there may be stronger grounds to classify it as dina dgazlanusa. And while you are right that hilchos shecheinim is in effect even without dina dmalchusa the implementation of hilchos shecheinim may require some recognition of dina dmalchusa, if the state does not allow one to discharge one's responsibilities independently ( This obviously does not exempt one completely from hilchos scheinim. To the contrary, as NS and his friends always note the debt to the rest of society is very high. However, one can argue that Charedim fulfill this debt through tgeri high fertility (which gets to the root of the crisis. Additionally, as a commenter pointed out, when it comes to volunteer services the Charedim far outnumber the secular.)
What are the grounds to consider the army to be dina dgazlanusa?.
I know very little about this topic but for some conjecture.
First, th fact that 60% of the casualties in this war were unfortunately among those from a religious background. If Charedim were to suddenly convert to Religious Zionism, I guess that may jump to 120% (i.e., if the army has more cannon fodder it may take more risks).
This is especially egregious given that (a) no religious people are allowed in the top brass (רמטכ"ל- Hertzi Halevi stopped wearing a yarmulke for this reason), (b) at least to some extent the army supports not just being a melting pot but dropping frumkeit (the army has support groups for chozrim bishe'eilah), (c) as I keep reiterating, the core of the crisis is demographics and only the religious are doing anything to solve it, and the army is destroying the geese that lay the golden eggs.
I think the last point touches on a broader issue (which I keep hammering and in fact the entire world keeps hammering) which is that while in the short run they may be doing a great job killing rodfim in the long run they don't seem to have a plan. (This is especially relevant to me as I believe that Charedim may have a viable plan. I firmly believe that demgraphics are the key to the future and only frum Jews maintain demographic growth in a modern environment. If we don't drop the ball it shouldn;t take too long for Jews to be most of the population of the globe, outside of Africa.) Who knows if much of the battles in Gaza may end only inspiring a new generation of ever more determined terrorists ch"v? (On the other hand, if Charedim really have such concerns why are they in the government? I guess the left is still even worse for the country.)
I don't think the fact that the army drafts 18-year-olds is at all relevant for 25-year-olds (especially considering the fact that the chiyuv doesn't stem from dina dmalchusa but rather from hilchos scheinim). However, the open question is whether the army is interested in 25-year-olds. Slifkin claims that the reason the army turned down so many of them is because they only registered for shelav beis (and because Charedim aren't physically fit, which may be somewhat of a valid complaint in hilchos scheinim). Perhaps. Does anyone outside the army really know?
But that then again, why are so few Charedim over the age of 24 registering for full army service? Is this too much to ask from heads of family? If so, how can we claim to be on principle against yeshiva bochurim enlisting? Perhaps we would design the army to be more family friendly?
These are just some basic questions which I have no idea how to answer.
However, it does seem clear that the only thing the army is really lacking is more front-line soldiers, and it appears that the frum community (if we can consider the DL and the Charedim to both be part of the 'frum community') has already sacrificed far more than its fair share in this.
I don't have time to respond to all your points, but this line, "while in the short run they may be doing a great job killing rodfim in the long run they don't seem to have a plan," that is not my impression at all. Most people are very impatient and waiting a year+ for results is hard, but we are doing it. Because we want to limit our civilian casualties, we are doing a more organized, pointed precision war, which is slow and drawn out, but block by block, slowly dismantling Hamas and Hesbollah and, if we need Rl, we can beat Iran. We are strong and we are doing great bH. The long term plan is keep fighting and keep winning because we are winning.
b"I hear, and bH the last few months have certainly shown many victories re dsimantling the terrorist organizations and fighting Iran, but it still is very unclear to me what a long-term solution looks like. The Arab street still seems to be very resolute and Israel cannot annex Gaza beccause of the demographic problem.
I just came across a quote from Ben Gurion:
"Any Jewish woman who, as far as it depends on her, does not bring into the world at least four healthy children is shirking her duty to the nation, like a soldier who evades military service."
I think it is time to make a שוויון בנטל movement. האחותיכם תבואו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה?
You have some good points and some not, but regarding the main issue I was never refering to dina dimalchusa but the moral aspect of שוים בנטל.
"Who says hilchos shecheinim obligates us to agree to this anti-Torah arrangement?"
I don't think the suggestion is to do this tomorrow. The suggestion is to change the system from the bottom up (kitta alef) in terms of the brainwashing and both in the army so in 20 years time a decent structure exists such that charedim can share the burden and interact properly, minimising the risk to their ruchniyos. But the chareidi 'leadership' say nein to any such heretical thoughts.
The same way they interact with women, however dressed, when they need to make money. As I previously wrote - show me a chossid who refused to take the subway to Manhatten in the height of the summer when he needs to 'do business' there. Somehow, the spiritual dangers cease to be a problem.
Uh...no. We don't send our 18 year olds to take the subway in Manhattan everyday to do business. What planet are you from? Maybe some chassidim do, we're obviously not talking about them. And this is a good example of why we entrust great talmidei chachamim with our chinuch decisions, rather than cynical, depressed lawyers who are wholly devoid of Torah knowledge.
Typical. You create the arbitrary age of 18, build your whole response around that, and totally ignore the main gist of my point.
No reason why both parties cannot set up a role (or part role) in the army, for 18 year old battlonishe chareidim (even a part time role so they can help the army for half a day and drei around charedi streets outside 'their yeshiva' with friends and a ciggy for the other half), where the presence of women can be minimised. Not tomorrow, true, but start now, and the structure can be there in 15 years. But as I wrote, there is no will from the chareidi side to even start discussion over that.
I'm not going to get to drawn on your diversionary age 18 point, but for what it is worth, tachana merkazit, in the heat of the summer, has 18 year old bochurim travelling for shabbos.
Wait, before you go on to the next thing, I would like you to admit your error on the first. It's not etiquette to make one false statement after another with no accountability and no acknowledgment. You said that the yeshivish world has no problem sending their 18-yr olds on trains to Manhattan to do business, and therefore should have no problem sending them to the army. This is false. Please acknowledge your error.
I didn't say "the yeshivish world has no problem sending their 18-yr olds on trains to Manhattan ". I said "show me a chossid who refused to take the subway to Manhatten in the height of the summer when he needs to 'do business' there."
You twisted my words in your usual style, no doubt the quality of your learning debates are the same.
Good bye.
Uh, no. You don't get to state one lie after another. You were clearly referring to the yeshivish world when you said "The same way they interact with women, however dressed, when they need to make money. As I previously wrote - show me a chossid..." You were talking about 18-yr olds, conflating the yeshivish world with the chassidish, and saying that they interact with women in the train to manhattan. Good bye, gmar chasima tova!
I know many such chasidim. And litvish people. There are many who take Uber's every day because of shemiras eyneyim
אשרי העם שככה לו - that we are part of such a people after all the confusion in the world (I was just on Reddit r/exjew) makes me think we'll be okay somehow:)
there are like 5 members of that subreddit
Looks like there are 11k...
active
There may be only 5 members on that subreddit (idk), but there are many, many out there that feel the same. I know more than enough of them unfortunately.
Yes, and many don't.
The beginning of your comment is good, but: "But the chareidi 'leadership' say nein to any such heretical thoughts" - well ya, but only the ones who say there's a real shmad. Figures like Reb Moshe Hillel Hirsch are very much involved in negotiations.
Btw, how's my "bullet point presentation" which you always ask for? ;)
It's great. A great balanced piece which of course draws the wrath of 'Happy'. Careful, you may get banned if you keep going along those lines :)
I need to read more carefully before making any substantial contributions (if I have any), but for now, two items:
1. The presentation is excellent. I particularly like the shecheinim addition, which is rarely discussed, and even more rarely in such a clear and meaningful way.
2. Your article does an impressive job (though perhaps it should be emphasized more) in explaining that there isn't a single monolithic stance within daas Torah. Many people parrot the shmad issue as "daas Torah" without realizing it's a minority perspective. I was doing the same until recently when hocking with a יודע ידע (about the recent Lakewood atzeres tfilah)
Lichvod Reb Shulman,
I just noticed this post yesterday evening. I am very impressed both with the post and your subsequent comments. Clearly you are quite a lamdan and all your comments about learning Biyun are very real. I think I need to apologize for being upset at one point that you were seemingly focused only on a zoharic perspective. I can only hope that you will make to continue to write on such a high level.
I especially liked this line " I'd humbly suggest that everyone who does go through the sugya, should do so trying to come out not like your specific community's priors in order to reach the most objective conclusion."
Now for my comments.
I don't think the idea of Talimidei Chachamim being exempt from an actual war is at all clear in the poskim. Reb Isser Zalman and Reb Moshe do seem to say that (though Reb Moshe perhaps limits it to when the government extends the Petur) but I don't know of an earlier halachic source. The famous gemara about doing אנגריא בתלמידי חכמים may actually be a ראיה להיפך, ע' ערוך ערך אנגריא.
I think this is case even when there is no Sakana at all, even לו יצוייר it would be clear that they are only coming על עסקי ממון and would never kill. The point is that we only find that Talmidei Chachamim are exempt from shmira not from an active threat.
However, if you have sources that indicate the opposite (as you indicated in a comment) please let me know).
Additionally, the Rema in Yoreh Deah סי' רמ"ג סעיף ב' gives a very high bar for the exemption from שמירת העיר. מוחזק לתלמיד חכם בדורו שיודע לישא וליתן בתורה ומבין מדעתו ברוב מקומות התלמוד ופירושיו ובפסקי הגאונים ותורתו אומנתו (and even with this he adds that not all places have actually practice this exemption אפשר משום דסבירא להו דהאידנא אין לנו מי שתורתו אומנתו משום דצריך דקדוק יפה שיחזיר תמיד לתלמודו כשיפנה מעסקיו ואין נזהרין יפה האידנא- מתרומת הדשן, מקורו של הרמ"א).
(I can't resist adding that I often fell that current Charedi and yeshivish society distinguishes little between a Talmid Chacham as described above and a regular 25 year old Kollel yungerman, and in some ways seems to show ore respect to the young Kollel yungerman.)
At the very least, I think the chiyuv on an average Charedi to serve is certainly stronger than the chiyuv on the tzibur to exempt a large portion of Charedi society.
Re Shas Hashmad
Do you have any source that shas hashmad can turn a mitzvah into an aveirah?
Either way I think your conclusion should indicate that this whole discussion is moot. You admit that probably at least 2 thirds of Charedim should serve in the army. If so what is the heter for them not to serve?
I believe the only heter is the one you mentioned in a comment: למיגדר מילתא.
Once we reached the conclusion that the heter is למיגדר מילתא it seems to me a bit silly to be so focused on the issue of תלמידי חכמים. If the main focus would be Talmidei Chachamim it would seem counterintuitive to have those who are not Talmidei Chachamim be exempt. What is more effective at causing שנאת עמי הארץ לתלמידי חכמים than the claim that anyone born Charedi is automatically a Talmid Chacham for life?
Put it this way. Opposing 18-year-olds in the army should need no explanation. What does warrant explanation is the fact that we ave nit see a Kol Koreh from all Charedi Rbbonim telling all 25 year olds who are not completely engrossed in learning that they must enlist in the army.
Moreover, prior to October 7 the greater issue with Charedim was their fight against academia. Does Slifkin not have a point that holding all men back (even those in their older 20s with children to feed) from a proper college education can be against the dictum of לעולם ילמד את בנו אומנות?
I think the obvious conclusion is that Charedim feel that למיגדר מילתא they must keep a great distance from the rest of society. Once that is established this alone may possibly be a heter as a commenter noted, as the army itself is holding the Charedim back in the way that they feel they can without risk to their Yiddishkeit. The Charedim aren't abstaining from service, but rather the army is (so far) abstaining from providing the Charedim with the ability to serve.
(It is still צע"ג to me how this applies to 25-year-olds. I wrote a letter to a major Charedi Baal Hashkafa and a mechaber of many sefarim in Shematsa and hashkafa and he responded that to him to these questions are a צע"ג. Then again, perhaps the army really just isn't that interested in them.)
And I believe the only way this can possibly change is if the DL or the Chardal can show lasting success remaining frum in a large community. Until that happens it seems Charedim will just dig in their heels and be stubborn. Hopefully it won't take too much longer, as Klal Yisroel really needs Charedim to be able to take part in a functioning society.
I would like to add that I think currently the greatest tragedy is the breakdown in dialogue. It is heartbreaking to see how the different sectors of Israeli society, often even among frum Jews, seem to not even share a common language in these issues, due to the fact that their values are so vastly different.
I think that what is most needed today is for people who are capable of explaining to non-Charedim the importance of the Charedi contribution to society, and on the other hand, to explain to Charedim the need to acknowledge the contribution which non-Charedim contribute. I believe there are convincing aarguments to be made about the contribution of Charedim even from a secular perspective, but they can only be argued if we can find someone from the other side (e.g., a respected DL figure) to work with us.
On the other hand, perhaps this is a lost cause, as the values are so vastly different. Perhaps we can only help through doing traditional kiruv, and as more people will understand our values, they will come to appreciate our contributions.
However, I worry that focusing on "halachic" exemptions backfires in this regard, as it gives the impression that Halacha goes again core human values and/or perhaps is being used as a way for lazy people to circumvent their most basic duties. What is needed most this conversation is people who can say to the other side "I fully agree with your concern however this… is h olding me back. I don’t think we from America are capable of making such statements, and we can only wonder why few Charedim are.
Thank you for your long and thoughtful response, and for taking the time to read a simple man's thoughts (- my main reason for adding that humility which probably sounds more haughty than anything else is because I am not sharing any daas torah or objective halacha. Rather I am sharing my personal thoughts which are open to revision, modification and complete retraction if shown to be wrong).
1. Your objection that the petur of talmidei Chachamim from an actual war is not clear – I don’t object. In fact, it is for this reason that it’s important to distinguish between the chiyuvim of war and the chiyuvim of hilchos shecheinim. As far as hilchos war are concerned - i.e. milchemes mitzvah - the chiyuv to fight would be much stronger. I was very shallow in the article as to why we do or don’t have milchemes mitzvah above, since it’s a complex sugya and deserves it’s own write-up. Most people who responded via email were primarily concerned with this and I hashed it out with some of them and even learned some new perspectives. Perhaps I’ll organize a separate post just on that topic. However once we conclude with the possibility that there may be no milchemes mitzvah in the stricter sense today, what chiyuvim are we left with? Hatzolas nefashos, Rodef (these I almost completely ignored) and hilchos shecheinim.
As far as hatzolas nefashos, it’s pretty clear to me that we aren’t mechuyav to go joining Hatzolah or Zaka or to become doctors or even veterinarians (a vet would have hashovas aveida). It seems that hatzolas nefashos does not apply to those not in the path. I’d imagine this comes from the Gemara in Sanhedrin 73a regarding hashavas gufo (assuming “mitrach” doesn’t include anything and everything, even if "meigar igurei" means absolutely all money, simply because someone not in the path is definitionally not included in the situation of "standing on his friend's blood"), but it would have to be a longer discussion. The facts are that those who join these organizations are incredible but not everyone is mechuyav so long as it’s taken care of. (I’d imagine that even if it wasn’t taken care of by these tzaddikim, it would fall back to hilchos shecheinim and there would be rotations or taxes towards these areas.) So even though these groups can undoubtedly use our help, it’s not incumbent of every single person to join. If so, the same should apply to army service where (if not for hilchos shecheinim) there is no chiyuv m’tzad lo sa’amod.
This is all besides for the discussion of safek pikuach nefesh on the side of the saver, which is a whole separate sugya in CM 421 and after going through the Sugya, see Aruch Hashulchan there.
The idea of Rodef is a bit more complex, and the simple answer is that no civilian is able to kill Sinwar; that needs a special operation. That’s exactly what an army is for. The question of if everyone should be joining the army, however, (to me) just goes back to hilchos shecheinim. Many people in the army are just there to serve food and they are not killing any rodfim. The army needs all kinds of roles to keep its machine running and the chiyuv to join that machine is from shecheinim IMO.
(Just for clarity's sake, another reason to join the army would be Dina D’malchusa, but that is only once the law is such, and even if the law were such, we all know the peturim of Dina D'malchusa in EY and by a non-Torah Jewish governmentamongst other discussions on that topicc which are all debatable.)
2. The chiyuv of active threat is a sugya brought in OC 329, see there, where everyone is obligated, including Talmidei Chachamim, and this surely applies today (unlike milchemes mitzvah which may not), but again, that halacha is about hatzolas nefashos, and presumably would abide by that set of rules, which we briefly discussed above.
3. As far as who qualifies as a Talmid Chacham, I was very, very generous, but at the same time it wouldn’t surprise me if my numbers are correct. I live in America and I know plenty of good, fine Talmidei Chachamim who are on their way to becoming true scholars, and although the Rema seems very strict, the Ritva includes ehrliche students. Granted, even with the students, the numbers are the same and not everyone who is “officially” a student qualifies, but there are a lot of baalei Aliya and again, I wouldn’t be surprised if the number were as high as 30%. But I also understand that number may be as low as 5%, depending on what qualifications are necessary to be called Toraso Umnuso, and what standard of ובכל שעה שהוא פנוי מעסקו מחזר על דברי תורה ולומד דברי תורה (quote from the Rosh) we need.
4. While shaas hashmad cannot turn a mitzvah into an aveira, it can define our chiyuvim of hilchos shecheinim differently. So while without shmad we would need to serve and that would be a mitzvah, our issue of shmad would exclude anyone from being part of this societal system. (Is that what your question was?)
5. If it’s shaas hashmad (I didn’t get involved in אביזרייהו דעריות וחשש עריות ממש, which is a similar but distinct concern which doesn’t require ill intent on the part of the lawmakers - that was my mistake) absolutely no one should serve at all until that issue is corrected. My heter of the 30% was only when dealing with shecheinim exclusively.
6. Last, regarding l’migdar milsa (SA CM siman 2), I think that the Rabonim who hold that it no longer is a shaas hashmad and arayos (Reb Moshe Hillel Hirsch, and I assume Reb Dov Lando, Reb Dovid Cohen etc. – basically the UTJ constituents), are working toward bringing charedi society back to normal. Reb Moshe Hillel has been the most vocal, and he has already spearheaded the movement towards normalizing going to work and joining to the IDF. L’migdar milsa used to require much more intense isolation, where the fight was stronger both from the other side and from ours, as we weren’t as built up like we are today (unfortunately many leaders today can’t bring themselves to see that things changed or that even if they have changed, they have no power to go “against” the previous gedolim who were fighting a different generation’s battle – surely these people don’t qualify to be the referees of what’s called l‘migdar milsa today, pardon my rant), but now it truly has cooled down and compromise is possible from both sides, which - I keep stressing - is happening! Only on Slifkin’s blog and with extreme ideologues does it seem like there is tons of hate and no understanding. Most Israelis are more centered and appreciate the religious and societal concerns of charedim in the IDF, and most charedim would now be okay with joining within the proper frameworks. (Listen to the link I posted from Haviv Reteg Gur, a secular journalist-analyst.)
Thanks for your clear and thoughtful response.
I think where there may be some confusion here is that I understand (unless you have a ראיה להיפך) that the exemption from hilchos scheinim itself is limited to cases that are similar to the protection of a wall (אני חומה) not to cases where the wall has been breached. In such a scenario whatever is necessary to be done falls on everyone, מדין הלכות שכנים, including joining an army.
There is an important point here, which is that one doesn't general have to train to become a doctor in order to have the capabilities to save life. לא תעמוד על דם רעך only applies when the sakana is לפניו. With regard to hilchos shcheinim it may be trickier. However, generally a situation of a breached wall arises unexpectedly and doesn't last too long, so those who never trained (due to being Talmidei Chachamim) are exempt. The question currently is if the unresolved situation in Gaza (due to demographics as I always repeat) may change this dynamic.
Either way, I think this is all very theoretical and therefore hard to discuss practically.
The burning question now is re the non-Talmidei Chachamim.
I would love to your source re Reb Moshe Hillel Hirsch as this is the issue that concerns me greatly. I know about his comments re Charedim working. He spoke about this when he came to Lakewood, stating that the Israelis have what to learn from the Americans re molding working Bnei Torah. This is certainly the greatest issue of the next generation (whereas for us the greatest issue is the opposite; how to maintain a sizeable nucleus of completely dedicated yeshivaleit). However, re the army I have only seen silence. I assumed that this was some sort of (weird?) political strategy but I don't know. (On this note, it seems to me that the Charedi opposition to academia is also mostly political. On the private level I assume they understand that people must do what is necessary for their family.)
Here's one source of many: https://vinnews.com/2024/10/01/rabbi-moshe-hillel-hirsch-charedi-youths-who-are-not-in-yeshiva-should-enlist-in-idf/
Additionally, If I understand correctly, this was in a private conversation and we only have the gvir's word for it.
Basically, from all the actions of the Charedi community it seems clear that they feel that the army poses a strong risk.
And why shouldn't they, given the study I keep posting which shows that the DL community barely had any demographic growth from 1990 to 2015.
Perhaps you can provide me with a better source than one in which Reb Moshe Hillel agreed grudgingly to a gvir in exchange for NIS 5 million- after a full year of the war.
I don't want to sound too cynical but still...
See this https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/h1ckr45zje
I'm not sure what your intention is.
You are proving me right?
That's all I have on paper, but to me it's a window... Meanwhile in the Chassidishe circles they are much more open even politically, which is also something. Check out Goldknopf's recent statements.
The Chassidim are in general much more organized about these things.
The Litvaks generally have an official strict stans but on the individual level often will be very flexible (depending on the Rav asked).
However, on the army issue (at least for below 25) they seem pretty resolute.
I assume this is basically what the gevir wanted to pull out of Reb Moshe HIllel Hirsh. A statement made in that context is quite obviously not a olicy statement, but at least it indicates that one who joins the army is not מחוץ למחנה.
The truth is that the change in Charedi community in the last 70 years has not been to be more liberal in these issues. To the contrary, it used to be more accepted to serve in the army, and the policy of the Gedolim (Rav Shach, the Steipler) always was that the petur is only for bnei yeshiva.
"Personally, I do not share this belief, and to my knowledge, most charedim align with my view. "
Er... I dunno. Those most vocal about drafting the haredim (Anshel Pfeffer, Yossi Klein-Halevi, Nehemia Shtrasler, Israeli Democracy Institute, Shalom Hartmann Institutue, ect.) are explicit that the reason they want the haredim in the army is to end haredi separatism and change haredi hashkafa. It's not that they want the haredim to become non observant, but they absolutely do want to haredim to disappear as a distinct sector. They are VERY clear on this point.
"They believe the army genuinely seeks their manpower rather than attempting to shmad them."
No, that's the thing: the IDF really, really, really doesn't want the haredim to join. The IDF is so politicized that you have to read between the lines with what they say but the IDF absolutely does not want an influx of haredi soldiers. It's just that they can't come out and say that due to political reasons. I promise you that the entire IDF brass would give every haredi a no fuss exemption if it were up to them.
This whole thing is such a manufactured issue. The IDF doesn't want haredi soldiers and the general public doesn't want them either. If you ever see "man on the street" interviews with Israeli chilonim, they never say that they want the haredim in the IDF, they just want the state to stop subsidizing yeshiva study. This whole faux controversy is not about the haredim or the IDF, it is fully for the purposes of bringing down Bibi. If Bibi is replaced by Lapid or Gantz, all the calls for a haredi draft will instantly cease outside of Sifkin's blog.
The question of distinguishing between loud voices and actual public opinion, as reflected in polls, is complex and touches on how political decisions are made—determining whom to trust. This is the focus of my third post, which I’ve found too technical and meta-ethical to address in one post, so I’m setting it aside for now.
In response to your specifics: besides that I disagree with some of your examples, more so, while these voices are loud, it doesn’t mean they represent the majority or general public opinion. A few vocal journalists or institutions aiming to improve Israel by raising concerns about the Haredi community don’t provide a representative sample. Furthermore, the IDI, to my knowledge, isn’t particularly "anti-Haredi," and even if they were (as some might argue about the Shalom Hartman Institute), again, that doesn’t make their views the majority opinion.
Well it sounds like you are just agreeing with me. I am saying that the majority do not want to shmad the haredim and don't even want them in the army. What I am saying is that the draft haredi movement as a whole is driven by a desire to end haredi separatism.
90% of the Israelis who want the haredim drafted just want a framework that they view as more fair and want to give some relief to those currently serving, it isn't a anti haredi thing for them. But it also isn't something they are passionate about either way or spend to much time dwelling on. It's more a case of, "sounds good".
I'll give you an analogy using American politics: if you ask Americans, "should we legalize all the undocumented immigrants currently in America who grew up here?", the response would be something ridiculous like 85% in favor. However, such legislation will never pass because the public's support for it is very casual. It's a case of "yeah, sure, why not?" as opposed to, "Yeah! Let's do it right now!"
Similarly, most Israelis would like the haredim to serve but it isn't a big deal to them either way. However, for those who it is a big deal for, absolutely it is because they want to break down haredi society and they themselves even admit as much.
Yep, looks like we're on the same page, sorry if I misunderstood you originally...
It's a good place to clarify the distinction between the proposal for a full draft vs. some kind of שוויון בנטל compromise ✔️
s'all good.
But don't you think that the fact that those most gung ho about drafting the haredim clearly have nefarious motives should give us pause?
"It's a good place to clarify the distinction between the proposal for a full draft vs. some kind of שוויון בנטל compromise "
My belief is that the status quo *is* the compromise because I simply don't think the IDF wants the haredim. Inducting anymore than a handful of haredim would require that the IDF make changes that it simply isn't prepared to make. The IDF already has far more religious soldiers than it is comfortable with. All of this controversy is over a state of affairs that the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews are actually okay with.
A real compromise would be for the state to reduce (not eliminate) funding that goes to sectors that don't serve in the IDF (i.e. the Arabs and the haredim). However even that can't happen because it would require a government without either the haredi or Arab parties which is something that has already proven impossible, at least not without an Ariel Sharon type figure to lead the putative "right".
I don't think so. If my above analysis is correct that charedim have a halachic civic duty to help out, and on their side they need more manpower (they are expanding the time served for the current draftees amongst other changes), the right compromise would be to find a way (a) for charedim to help out (b) without changing who they are, which is a compromise for both sides. And both sides currently have actors who are willing to come and are coming to the table.
I mean, you do understand that the IDF will never, under any circumstances, agree to any sort of gender segregation, right? Nor will they agree to implement haredi standards of kashrut.
Any type of compromise would inevitably involve the creation of homogeneous and semi autonomous haredi units. This is something the IDF won't ever allow. The IDF already deeply regrets the formation of Nahal Haredi and would love to abolish it.
If the haredim need to contribute more to the state and the war effort, fine. But not every person or every sector is capable of contributing in the same fashion. Large numbers of haredi soldiers simply isn't going to work and the IDF will never allow it regardless.
Any RZ's here who have served will back me up on this
I wonder what your opinion would be if Hamas surrounded Bnei Brak? Hmmm? Would you say then that Talmedei Chachamim are exempt? If you answer is “yes” then you are very off the mark if your answer is no , then tell us all what is the difference between Hamas surrounding Kibbutz Beeri or Bne Brak ?
Rav Zevin has a famous letter about this.
When actual lives are at stake, may we rely on miracles? In 1929 at Hebron... didn't young students of the yeshiva, whose holiness shone like stars in the sky, fall before the malicious enemy? Please, did these martyrs need protection or not?... If you understand that the scholars don't need protection in relatively peaceful times and are exempt from building the protective walls, what consequence has this when compared to a life-and-death struggle, a war which is a mitzvah and in which all are obligated? The defense authorities ordered everyone to cover all windows as protection against shattering glass in case of an air raid. Would anyone think that some rabbis will not do so, claiming, "Rabbis do not need protection?" ...Why did rabbis leave areas under enemy fire along with the rest of the general population? Why did they not rely on this maxim?
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein wrote the following:
It may be stated... that such a claim (that since rabbis "don't need protection" they should be exempt from military service) raises a very serious moral issue. Can anyone whose life is not otherwise patterned after this degree of trust and bitahon argues for exemption on this ground? Is it possible to worry about one's economic future - in evident disregard of Rabbi Eliezer's statement that "whoever has bread in his basket and says 'What shall I eat tomorrow?' is but of little faith" - and yet not enter the army because one is presumably safe without it?
Question for Reb Shulman: Rabbi Lichtenstein follows up in the second to next paragraph:
"The situation is radically different, however, with respect to an obligation precisely rooted in the responsibility to help others qua others. Does anyone suppose that one’s duty to engage in a defensive milhemet mizvah “to help save [the people of] Israel from a foe who has descended upon them” is based solely upon the fact that one is presently or potentially in danger? In the context of the egocentric ethic of a Mandeville or an Adam Smith, possibly. From a Torah perspective, however, this would be strange doctrine, the more so to the extent that we correctly perceive that such action is mandated by the general norm of gemilut hasadim and not just the specific commandment of defensive war. Consequently, the gemara in Bava Batra provides no rationale whatsoever for totally exempting talmidei hakhamim from military service. They may not require protection but others do; and their duty to defend those who have no built-in armor remains."
Reb Shulman, do find this refutation of your analysis convincing? Why or why not?
It sounds like a big chiddush. My main argument would be: why is there only an obligation of gemilas chessed for military service, but not for the other protective measures discussed in the Gemara, where the Gemara clearly says they’re patur, even though they’re not sharing the burden of helping everyone else? Why not make the same argument—that even if they’re protected by the Torah, they should help out because of chessed?
To answer his question about why it’s not selfish, I’d suspect it’s because their Torah truly does protect, not just for themselves but for everyone. As long as they have the petur mentioned in halacha, they’re fulfilling their role in providing protection. (See R’ Akiva Eiger on that Gemara in Bava Basra, where he points to Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos that their Torah protects everyone. I assumed R’ Akiva Eiger’s point was along these lines.)
What's your take?
Thank you, this is a very important distinction to clarify: When does protection fall under "civic duty" (like hilchos shecheinim), and when does it become a case of hatzalas nefashos, lo saamod al dam rei’echa, or rodef?
In my understanding (there is backing in rishonim to this effect), if someone is coming to kill a specific person or group, this is not an issue for the army—it’s a random threat. In such a case, while there might be a civic police force in place to respond, the primary responsibility lies with the individuals to defend themselves, and for nearby bystanders to step in. This is not merely a civic duty but a direct obligation to prevent harm which is currently present, invoking lo saamod, rodef, and hatzalas nefashos. No law exempts a talmid chochom in such a case, and he of course must interrupt his studies to intervine (as with any mitzvah that's א"א ע"י אחרים).
This is true even if the threat is larger—say a gang attacking a crowd—it still wouldn’t be seen as a matter of civic responsibility. It remains a case of personal and communal defense, where the focus is saving lives, not fulfilling a broader civic role.
On the other hand, the role of an army is different. An army’s purpose is to provide protection for the country as a whole, which is a civic duty, similar to hilchos shecheinim. This duty requires participation to safeguard the community at large, especially to prevent attacks before they occur - which is proof that it has nothing to do with the specific danger at hand; there is no specific danger during times of peace. So during peacetime, this "just in case" obligation exists, and in wartime this aspect of the obligation continues to exist, where those who are already serving continue to fulfill their roles in active combat. This is about communal responsibility, not the immediate obligation to save lives in a specific moment of danger, which falls under hatzalas nefashos.
So if Hamas were surrounding bnei brak and those inside could do something about it, that wouldn't fall under civic duty, rather under lo saamod etc. and would have no exemptions, while the idea of serving in general is a civic duty which falls under hilchos shecheinim.
Let me know if this makes sense to you...
What if Hamas was 10 miles from Benei Berak? 20m? 30m? Where is the line?
How do you know that in a tiny country like Israel surrounded externally by fanatical bloodthirsty enemies and containing internally the same fanatical bloodthirsty enemies, halochoh would make the same distinction between 'country' and 'specific groups' as you do?
Just because there is grey area which I may not be able to define (although in most given circumstances we could probably figure it out), doesn't mean the distinction is obsolete. The distinction stands, and those grey areas remain grey.
It could be you're right that this war is a matzav of rodef mamash, something I didn't think I needed to go into because it doesn't seem that way to me. If someone disagrees with me on this and backs it up, I'm willing to have such a conversation. My current take is that this is an unlikely take and an unreasonable (mechudash) position, to think that this is different than any war ever, but I'm open to hearing clear sevaros otherwise.
Could you perhaps explain why Sinwar, Nasrallah and their chains of command would not be considered rodfim mamash?
These are all people with actual plans to attack and heavy arsenal to carry out these attacks.
At the very least I would say עליך להביא ראיה שאינו כן.
"My current take is that this is an unlikely take and an unreasonable (mechudash) position, to think that this is different than any war ever, "
That is a faulty comparison. You don't compare to any war "ever". Meaningless to compare to Vietnam or Pearl harobour - you need to company to any war in EY with much smaller distances. And quite frankly, this war, with internal arabs joining in, is far more 'townlike' than ever before.
"Just because there is grey area which I may not be able to define (although in most given circumstances we could probably figure it out)"
That's a word salad. We know the given circumstances in EY right now, so go figure it out!
You flipped my two paragraphs. My original second paragraph was anticipating the question you asked just now at the end. (If that's confusing, I can explain myself better lol...)
As for the "faulty comparison," I don’t see it as faulty at all. In my view, this situation feels more like a war than a random gang fight. You’re welcome to present other options, but as it stands, that’s how I see the status quo. I don’t find your distinctions particularly compelling, and I imagine many would agree with me. But again, that’s just my opinion, and you’re entitled to disagree if you feel strongly about it.
"random gang fight" - throwing in yet another phrase. You started well, but now as typical you keep adding in more and more undefined phrases and obscucficiate yourself..
Anyway, the avreich that was killed in Hadera was very much killed in a 'random gang fight' manner.
Excellent article, and I'm going to read part 2 now. One idea I had would be to offer a form of National Service to Charedi men, and they could be assigned to war effort positions that are for men-only. I haven't worked out all the details, but my idea is based on the fact that not everyone in the armed forces is on the battleground. There are many jobs, some more useful than others, that could accommodate Charedi men.
Do the right thing. It is the law of the land and thus halacha requires you to follow it with certain exceptions. Second, terrible chillull hashem if you don't contribute to Israel defense in a meaningful way. Third, charedim are not entitled to special entitlements cash or otherwise.
Do the right thing. It is the law of the land and thus halacha requires you to follow it with certain exceptions. Second, terrible chillull hashem if you don't contribute to Israel defense in a meaningful way. Third, charedim are not entitled to special entitlements cash or otherwise.
Nice and clear bro!
Yo😎
I like everything you have written. And I couldn't agree more.
However, the conclusion that you drew based on your lomdus is insufficient reason alone.
You are basically positing that the government compelling a universal draft will have a pragmatic problem of being mechayev the 30% that they can't figure out, who are the genuine article.
There is always someone who is an arbiter of these laws to determine who is torso umnoso and who is not. This arbiter should be authorised to recruit anyone who doesn't clearly fall under the correct definition. If that were not the case, then you have fregged up the entire hilchos shechenim. Cos in every generation the same could be said. One could always in every generation hide as a talmid chochom from taxes. The obvious answer to that is, there is someone who has the authority to determine whether that's an accurate claim or just a false excuse.
Secondly even if you are correct that a draft would not be halachicly based. Nevertheless Mitzad the hilchos shechenim, the remaining 70% are mechuyav mitzad themselves to enlist. There is no petur for that!? Unless you claim that even amongst these 70% themselves they cannot determine in their own hearts if they are torosom umnosom, which is absurd.
This whole issue only arises when there are laws by other governances. When yidden are in charge and the chachmei ha'ir and the beis din rule the town ע"פ תורה והלכה, this is not an issue at all. Those chachamim will decide who is exempt and who is not. What complicates things here is that there is an outside force who is drafting and enforcing the laws. If we want to invoke our laws within this broader context (and if there is no dina d'malchusa with the Israeli government, we should be trying to keep our SA's laws), we need to work with them. If we'd okay a draft, they won't be able to distinguish between who and who, and of they don't, we're left with not being מקיים הלכות שכנים. As far as shecheinim goes, yes, those 70% have an obligation to either become תורתם אומנותם or share the burden.
But, to answer your second point, that's all as far as hilchos shecheinim. However, see my comment to Happy that there are other halachic considerations to take into account https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/a-halachic-and-hashkafic-analysis/comment/72020168 and lmk if that helps
What your saying is that the only enforcers of hilchos shechenim are the chachmei hoir and the beis din. So then there is no hilchos shechenim today. No need for your whole article.
If there are 70% of people who are clearly not torosom umnosom is nobody at all nowadays qualified to point that out besides for a beis din according to a shulchan oruch. That doesn't seem very likely. Surely anyone can see a batlan a mile away. You don't need a beis din. Now obviously we agree that there is some nuance where someone is learning somewhat and may not be considered umnosom. But for the others... Clearly if a working charedi-lite businessman who hasn't stepped foot into yeshiva for 5 yrs would claim exemption under hilchos shechenim cos his Torah protects, we would laugh at him and drag him straight off to help. It's not like gender theory where a fat middle aged man can "identify" as a teenage black gender fluid. So you don't need a beis din to enforce shechenim when there is nothing questionable just laughable. Unless you are willing to do away with hilchos shechenim completely in every which aspect until the country is run by bes din. In which case your whole article is superfluous.
I don't think w need beis din to define the 70% who don't make the cut. W need them to define who exactly does. As far as hilchos shecheinim goes, anyone who is not toraso umnuso and doesn't fulfill his civic duties is in violation of a clear psak halacha in SA. Though, as mentioned, there are other cheshbonos to be made.
I think we are saying the same thing.
Yes, these Lakewooders don't appreciate that in Israel there are are tens or maybe the odd hundreds of small 'yeshivos' mostly full of batlonim. Merely to get chareidim out of the army. They are not on the radar of chutznim, who only know about mir, ponovez the top yeshivos.
How do you know what actually goes on in the Yeshivos? Did you take the time to actually investigate, or are you bloviating? Stop the Lashon Hara and rechilus!
If it's not אמת, it's הוצאת שם רע