Voice From the Front, About Machlokes

And its implications regarding the draft of Yeshiva students

I am pleased to announce that we have yet another essay from the author of several previous posts. The author, who shall continue to remain anonymous, has been serving in a combat unit in the current war. His son has been serving in combat as well. This individual has sent me several relevant pictures of himself and his son, such that I have no doubt as to his authenticity. Whether you wish to trust me or not is your own choice (keep in mind he submitted his first article before the war started, here). There is a list of several of his previous articles here, and see especially this one.

The following essay was inspired by a conversation that I had with a chardali young man with whom I am currently serving in the army. In a conversation that lasted less than 10 minutes, I was able to explain to him in a way that he understood and agreed with, what was the charedi position regarding giyus bnei hayeshivote.

Following our conversation he naively asked me if there was any way to publicize such views since he felt it might ameliorate some of the Chilul Hashem that was taking place in the village square. Of course he never heard of Natan Slifkin or Scott Khan, as he doesn't speak or read English, but I thought that it might be worthwhile to summarize the conversation in the context of some of their recent blog posts on this issue:

In recent blog posts by Slifkin and Khan, they set out what they believed to be the Torah's position on leaving the beit medrash to serve in the IDF. Essentially they make three arguments that they believe are the halachik basis for their point of view.

1. The current war is a milchemet mitzvah in which all are obligated to participate.

2. Piquach nefesh overrides all other obligations in the Torah, except for the three cardinal sins. Since leaving the beit medrash is not one of the cardinal sins, it should be overridden.

3. The prohibition of lo taamod al dam raecha does not allow anyone to stand by during this time.

They take it for granted that their understanding of these three obligations, not only obligates them to participate in the war, but obligates all others as well. They feel there is no legitimate point of view that does not accept their understanding of these sugyot.

Since neither of these gentlemen ever served in the IDF, they have a very idealized and unrealistic picture of exactly what goes on there. None the less, for the sake of this conversation, I will discuss the issue from their perspective, assuming that the IDF is indeed what they think that it is.

It is worth keeping in mind that there is a long stranding tradition of machloket in psak halacha among the Jewish people, in which various poskim may disagree about even the most fundamental issues in Judaism, but nonetheless respect the opinion of their opponents. For instance, there are things that one posek will decide is a melacha deorayta on Shabbat, while another will permit it altogether. If the followers of the first posek were to commit such an act because they forgot it was Shabbat, they would be obligated in a korban chatat. But that does not prevent them from respecting their neighbor who follows a different posek, and happily goes through his life performing this act every single Shabbat. No one would think it legitimate for those who permit this act on Shabbat to attempt to impose their view upon those who forbid it, demanding that they too perform this act on Shabbat, or vice versa.

Now let us assume for the sake of conversation, that Natan Slifkin understands the sugya of milchemet  mitzvah well enough to be considered a bar plugta with the Chazon Ish. Certainly that does not obligate those who follow the decisions of the Chazon Ish to accept Natan Slifkin's understanding of the sugya. Likewise, let us assume that Scott Khan is as great an expert on the concept of piquach nefesh as was Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach. Nonetheless, that would not obligate those who follow RSZA to abandon the opinion of their rebee and follow that of Scott Khaan.

The only possible counter argument that I can think of is that the current situation is somehow qualitatively different than those that faced the earlier Giants who paskened that the wars of the state of Israel are not milchemet  mitzvah, and that the obligation of piquach nefesh and/or lo taamod al dam raecha  it's not a reason for the bnei hayeshivote to abandon their full-time learning to enlist in the IDF. However this is factually not true, the state is not in greater danger today then it was during the war of independence, when the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish, and the Chibina Rav, felt that the bnei hayeshivote were not obligated to fight. The army's manpower needs are not currently greater than they were during the war of attrition, during which over a thousand soldiers died, thousands more were wounded, during a period when the overall population of the country was much smaller, and technology played a much smaller role, thereby requiring a larger army. Likewise, the army's current manpower needs are not greater than they were following the Yom Kippur war. Rav Shach was not less aware of the country's needs then Messieurs Slifkin or Khan, or their teachers. Yet nonetheless, he felt strongly that it was the obligation of the bnei hayeshivote to remain in the beit medrash studying with full-time dedication.

So even if Messieurs  Slifkin and Khan are thoroughly convinced that they or their teachers understood the sugya correctly, they should accept that that obligates them to act in accordance with their understanding, but does not obligate those of at least equal standing, and their followers, to abandon their own position in favor of theirs.

Even if they feel that they have a legitimate point, it is only one among many. And the appropriate thing to do would be, to respectfully accept the opinion of those great Torah Giants who understood things differently as being at least equally legitimate, and therefore binding upon their followers.

As my friend the young chardali soldier pointed out, if only everyone would accept that their own opinion, however strongly held, is not any more correct than those of other poskim, then we could all live respectfully side by side each doing what they felt they are obligated to do, and each respecting the other's commitment to their obligations.