Introduction

Israel is still in the middle of fighting a war on seven fronts. Tens of thousands of reserve soldiers have served for more than 100 days, and hundreds have broken the 200 mark. Thousands have been injured; hundreds have been killed. A few weeks ago, close to 100 children became orphans over the span of seven days. The strain and pressure on the soldiers themselves, and their spouses, parents and children, is crushing.

This context is important to remember for the forthcoming response. We don’t have the luxury of treating this question as a sugya that might arise in the beis medrash, which can be analyzed, poked for possible holes or novel interpretations, and then left without a concrete resolution. The enemy is at the door, and they are attacking; the current reality is unsustainable and something needs to change. Therefore, while the halachic analysis is of course paramount, it needs to be undertaken with an eye to the reality on the ground as part of the question itself—rather than from “within the beis medrash.”

Rabbi Shulman suggested three areas of halacha that are relevant to this discussion, as well as a hashkafic component. I want to respond to each point, as well as add some new elements to consider. First, though, it is important to state that my intention here is not to cause people to become even more frustrated with the chareidi community, providing people with extra “ammunition” in the form of Torah sources to bolster accusations of selfishness or lack of brotherhood. There are many reasons that most of the chareidi community does not serve in the army, relating to both Torah and sociology. My argument is that the Torah sources support them joining the army—but the other roadblocks still remain. Those challenges are legitimate and need to be worked out, but the Torah should not be used as a shield to avoid confronting those issues.

Additionally, rather than expressing anger at the chareidi community, I suggest adopting Rabbi Tamir Granot’s perspective: they have much to contribute to the nation—both through army service and by bringing their prioritization of Torah into Israeli civil life—and we are calling to them to rise to the occasion of serving Klal Yisrael, rather than shielding themselves behind their protective walls.

Milchemes Mitzvah

Rabbi Shulman chose not to get into the specifics of the sugya of “milchemes mitzvah,” implying that the arguments for are stronger than those against (it would be worthwhile to spend an article dedicated to this topic alone, but in a single line, the Rambam includes “saving Jews from enemies trying to attack them” in his description of a milchemes mitzvah, and the response that a king is needed to define something as a milchemes mitzvah is, ultimately, unconvincing). Instead, he highlighted one point: He’s not aware of an exemption of those living outside the city under attack, so why aren’t those calling for charedim to draft also calling for Jews in the diaspora to draft? He concludes from this that milchemes mitzvah isn’t the primary focus.

There are two responses to this: First, the point is actually irrelevant. If our situation is considered a milchemes mitzvah (and I find it much more convincing to say that the answer is yes), then everyone is obligated to join. The fact that the diaspora is not being called to join doesn’t at all exempt the charedi community from joining. As an analogy, if there was someone collecting money for pidyon shevuyim (redeeming captives), and a certain community refuses to contribute to the cause, that doesn’t allow a second community to refuse to give as well; their obligation is just as much in force, notwithstanding the inappropriate behavior of the first community. In the same way, even if you accept that the obligation is the same for Jews in the diaspora, it doesn’t practically matter—the obligation stands with just as much force for the chareidi community to draft.

Second, there is a strong case to be made that there is a halachic difference at play for those in the diaspora versus the chareidi community in Israel. Rav Hershel Schachter, shlita, has pointed out (I don’t know if he has it in writing, I’ve heard it from him orally) the fairly intuitive point that the idea of “everyone joining” for a milchemes mitzvah does not mean that every single person should grab a pointy stick and run to the front lines; that would be chaos and totally self-defeating. There obviously needs to be some form of organization—including a chain of command—and they decide who is needed for the war effort. “Hakol yotzin” (the Mishna in Sotah’s phrase describing the unique obligation of participation in a milchemes mitzvah) then, means that “there are no exemptions in a war like this; whoever is called must join.” If so, it is eminently reasonable that those who live here should be first in line to defend Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael, before calling on those in the diaspora to join the fight as well. (A student of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein reported that he made this distinction as well, on the basis of the moral obligation upon those who benefit from the protection offered by the IDF. One can adduce Choshen Mishpat 163 to support this position.)

Even if the situation was tolerable until now, it has not been since October 7, 2023. As I wrote above, thousands of soldiers are breaking under the burden of extended service; the situation is not “under control from a hishtadlus perspective,” as it is now. The chareidi community/leadership does not seem to have recognized that yet.

(To weave in a hashkafic point, see Shoftim 8:1 and 12:1 for the attitude expressed by Bnei Efrayim in their proactive desire to participate in protecting the Jewish people. Similarly, see Shiras Devorah (Shoftim 5), where she praises those tribes who came to defend the Jewish people and severely castigates—and even curses—those who shied away from coming to fight. These are nevuos (prophecies) recorded for posterity, which we’re supposed to learn from.)

If it is correct that the current situation qualifies as a milchemes mitzvah, it is important to highlight that the question is emphatically not whether the current government has the halachic imprimatur to draft people. Participation in a milchemes mitzvah is a chiyuv (obligation) that rests on every individual who is determined to be needed for the war effort, and as such, should be embraced by those who are halachically observant with the same zeal and commitment as Shabbos and tefillin.

Pikuach Nefesh (Hilchos Shabbos 2:23/Orach Chaim 329:6-7)

Before moving to Rabbi Shulman’s second point, I want to add a related halachic source—pikuach nefesh/hatzalas nefashos. The Rambam writes in Hilchos Shabbos 2:23—based on the Gemara in Eruvin 45—that when non-Jews come to kill Jews, or wage a war against them, we should desecrate Shabbos to defend against the attack, “and there’s a mitzvah on the entire Jewish people that can come and help their brothers under attack and save them from the non-Jews.” As the Ritva, Rashba and Tosfos point out in Eruvin, this is not only a point about breaking Shabbos; this highlights the importance of getting involved in defending the Jewish people, which is so important that it even warrants breaking Shabbos. Did this happen on Simchas Torah? Why not? There’s no need for a king here, or the urim vetumim or a mashuach milchamah (all possible theoretical concerns in declaring a milchemes mitzvah).

In fact—according to the Gemara in Eruvin—this halacha is true even outside of Israel; a city that is mostly Jewish that separates between a Jewish area and a non-Jewish area has the status of a “border city” for this halacha. This should be just as much a mechayev for the chareidi community to join the army. Note that this is brought down in Shulchan Aruch 329 (although my impression is the Bach is referencing it, as well in his comments to siman 249—calling it milchemes mitzvah—by which he must mean the Rambam’s “ezras Yisrael miyad tzar”), and see the amazing line by the Mishna Berura 17: “Even if non-Jews are attacking a mainly non-Jewish city for money, not to kill, ‘obviously Jews would be chayiv to take up arms on Shabbos and go fight, in accordance with dina d’malchusa … for we break Shabbos in a case where the inhabitants of the country will get upset at us.’” In other words, halacha expects us to break Shabbos not only to save other Jews, but even to fight non-Jews coming to plunder—not kill—in a non-Jewish city, so that the locals don’t get upset at the Jewish inhabitants. To me, this sounds like a self-evident kal vachomer. (Tangentially, this halacha—as well as the Bach cited above extending milchemes mitzvah to a case of Jews joining with non-Jews to fighting against attackers in order to save Jewish lives—refutes those who protest joining the army on account of the fact that it is led by generals who don’t take halacha and Jewish values into account. The same is true in these two cases, yet the overwhelming obligation of saving Jewish lives clearly takes precedence).

(And before you respond that pikuach nefesh is different because it doesn’t obligate a person to take on a safek sakana (possible danger), that doesn’t fit at all with the Rambam’s presentation of this halacha—where there is clearly at least a safek sakana involved in going out to war—yet, he still writes that, “everyone who can come must come and help.” (See also the Chazon Ish, חזון איש אורח חיים, מועד הלכות עירובין – ליקוטים – סימן קיד (ו) אות ג—invoking pikuach nefesh to obligate even those who have an exemption from milchemes reshus to join if the army needs them, specifically once the war has already gotten underway; again, the reality of war entails at least safek sakana, yet the Chazon Ish uses this chiyuv of pikuach nefesh to obligate their joining the war).

You might respond that none of this is relevant to the charedi community, because they don’t know how to fight. First, that didn’t stop Shevet Yissachar in volunteering—without having been called—to join Barak in fighting against Yavin and Sisera (see Metzudas David to Shoftim 5:15, and note that this is Shevet Yissachar—those who are known as the lomdei Torah and dayanim/Sanhedrin). Second, there’s been more than enough time to get trained; the war has been going on for more than a year, and we’re not done yet. Third, the threat has been present for years, and it seems clear in the sugya that even the threat of attack is enough to generate this chiyuv of “pikuach nefesh shedoche Shabbos.” We’ve had that at least since 1948 (a point famously made by Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky about milchemes mitzvah in the context of ransoming Rav Hutner when his plane was hijacked), but let’s just say since the Disengagement and the rocket attacks that followed, and the clear preparations for an attack both in Lebanon and Gaza. The response may be, yes, but the army is shmad (religious persecution) and everyone will become irreligious; we’ll deal with that below.

Kivush V’Yishuv Eretz Yisrael

Without getting into it too much, a solid case can be made that a war like this qualifies for the Ramban’s mitzvah d’oraysa of “kivush v’yishuv Eretz Yisrael,” which he defines unquestionably as a milchemes mitzvah and notes that it applies for all generations and to every individual. Because the stated goal of Hamas/Iran is to drive us out of Eretz Yisrael, fighting to maintain our hold here is defined as part of kivush v’yishuv.

Hilchos Shecheinim

Rabbi Shulman’s second point was whether there should be a civic responsibility to join the army—as presented by hilchos shecheinim, the laws of neighbors—and the chiyuv to contribute to building a wall to protect against enemy invasion. This sugya—found in Bava Basra 7b—exempts talmidei chachamim from contributing to such a wall, as their Torah protects them and they don’t need the wall. First, I want to highlight that Rabbi Shulman accepts that a significant percentage of those in the charedi community—including even many of those presently learning in yeshiva—don’t qualify for this exemption based on the criteria in Yoreh Deah 243:2. As such, this sugya would actually obligate them to draft. However, there is no indication that the chareidi community or the leadership of the community is looking to encourage them to join the army. Why not, what about this clear chiyuv?

Relating to this issue itself, though: First of all, see Rav Zevin’s response to the attempt to use “Rabbanan don’t need shemira” to exempt yeshiva students from serving in the army:

רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא» (ב»ב, ז› ב›)? רבש»ע, כלום מותר לסמוך על הנס במקום של סכנת נפשות ממש ולומד שאין רבנן צריכים שמירה? וחברון של תרפ»ט (לא תקום פעמים צרה) תוכיח, כלום לא נפלו לפני בני עולה צעירים קדושים וטהורים, כזוהר הרקיע מזהירים, מבחירי הישיבה וחכמיה? במטותא מינייכו רבנן, הקדושים ההם היו «צריכי נטירותא», או לא היו «צריכי נטירותא»? והרי הם הם אותם האויבים-הערבים שפרעו ורצחו אז והם הם אותם הפורעים ורוצחים עכשיו! ואם אמרו על «נטירותא» של בנין חומה וכיוצא, ובזמנים רגילים, במטרת שמירה מפני שונאים העלולים לבוא (ראה רש»י, ב»מ ק»ח א›) מה זה עניין לזמן של סכנת נפשות ולחובה של מלחמת מצוה? הגיעו בעצמכם: הנה יצאה הוראה מ»משמר העם» להדביק את השמשות של כל החלונות בבד או נייר משום םסכנת הפצצה. כלום יעלה על הדעת שתלמידי חכמים לא יעשו כזאת בטענה ש»רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא»? כלום היה אף מי שהוא מהעוסקים בתורה שהשתמטו ממילוי הוראה זו? ולמה עזבו תלמידי-החכמים, יחד עם שאר אחינו בני ישראל, את שכונות-הספר הנפגעות מיריות הצלפים ולא השתמשו בסגולה זו של «רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא»? וכי רק בשביל זה בלבד שבמקרים אלה אי-אפשר לסמוך על אחרים? וכי זוהי דעת התורה? ולמה אפוא להשתמש שלא בזמנה ושלא במקומה באמרה זו של «נטירותא», שכשהיא לעצמה, בזמנה הנכון ובמקומה המתאים, היא פנינה נחמדה.

I would add to Chevron of 1929, the murders of the students in Merkaz Harav and the Har Nof terrorist attack—the murder of not only talmidei chachamim, but talmidei chachamim while in the middle of Torah u’tefillah (Rav Lichtenstein has a similar response in his article, “The Ideology of Hesder”).

Second, this analogy is inherently flawed. The Gemara in Bava Basra is talking about people building a wall to protect against a theoretical attack; they are worried that non-Jews may attack, so they’re building a wall as a defensive measure. In that theoretical scenario, a talmid chacham can claim that he is not worried about an attack, as his Torah will protect him, and he can, therefore, not contribute to the tax collection dedicated to paying for the wall. That has nothing to do with the shared responsibility of defending against an actual invasion; in that case, we have the rule that applies throughout halacha, “ein somchin al hanes (we do not rely on miracles)” and the reality of shechicha hezeikah (danger is commonplace) overriding supernatural protection.

In other words, it would seem to be foolish and against halacha for a talmid chacham to learn during an invasion or rocket attack—rather than trying to take defensive or protective measures—claiming that his Torah will protect him. And in fact, every yeshiva has shelters that everyone runs to when rocket sirens go off; why do they do this, if these are the people who are supposed to be relying on the protection of their Torah to avoid fulfilling their civic responsibility along with everyone else in their community/country?

This is not my point; the Radvaz (2:752) makes it. He was asked about talmidei chachamim who were insisting that their community hire shomrim to protect against attack—yet, at the same time, claiming exemption from having to share in paying for those shomrim. The Radvaz ridicules this claim—saying that the exemption of talmidei chachamim exists only when they’re relying on that shemira. In this case, where they are asking for the shomrim, they’re clearly showing that they are not relying on the protective power of their Torah, so they, of course, have to contribute. In the same way, by running to bomb shelters or closing down yeshivos in danger zones and moving to safer areas of the country, people are showing that they are not relying on their Torah to protect them—in which case they’re obligated, “midin hilchos shecheinim,” to share in the defense of the community along with everyone else.

Thus, even if the cases were parallel and we can equate the question of contributing to a defensive wall in case of a theoretical future attack with an actual attack in real life, anyone not relying on their Torah’s protection should have to participate in defending the community.

Finally, Rabbi Shulman added that removing the talmidei chachamim from their “posts” would actually be a sakana to the city, quoting a Yerushalmi. This suggestion is in direct contradiction to the entire thrust of the sugya. The point of this sugya is that the Torah of these talmidei chachamim only protects themselves; there is no indication that their Torah protects the rest of the city (not to mention anyone outside of the city). The Yerushalmi quoted is an aggadic one specifically about teachers of children—relating to the maamar Chazal that “a city that doesn’t have children learning in it should be either put in cherem or destroyed.” I am not aware of any halachic source, the way the sugya in hilchos shechenim is a halachic discussion, that would advocate for talmidei chachamim not going out to defend a city because stopping their learning would endanger the city; adding it in here obfuscates a halachic discussion with divrei Aggadah.

Shmad

Rabbi Shulman’s third point is that even if you accept one of the previous two reasons for the chareidi community to join the army, they’re blocked from attending because the army wants to “shmad” them and make them not religious. He already notes that the majority of charedim recognize this is not the reality; it’s a holdover from 50 years ago, so this isn’t even a real claim. However, it’s worth noting that even then, when the concern was actually legitimate, many mainstream, leading charedi gedolim still stated that those charedim who were not learning should go to the army! Will you really claim to know better than them, and in a time when the situation is so much better for religious observance in the army?

But let’s even imagine that shmad is the reality. Let’s imagine that the chareidi community accepts the above arguments, that there is a chiyuv for them to join the army whether because of milchemes mitzvah, kivush veyishuv eretz Yisrael, ezras Yisrael miyad tzar, pikuach nefesh/hatzalas am Yisrael, hilchos shecheinim—take your pick, but the concern of shmad is holding them back. If this is true, the charedi community should have been insisting—for the past 75 years—on finding a way to fulfill their chiyuv in a way that doesn’t endanger their shemiras Torah u’mitzvos. After all, this is a community that prides itself on dikduk b’mitzvos and chumra b’halacha—Why isn’t that standard applied to this set of mitzvos?

And the proof that this is possible is the hesder system—created by those who recognized the obligation, and were aware of the dangers and came up with an arrangement to try to deal with it. You can say that you don’t like their arrangement, you can say that you don’t think the product of the hesder yeshivos and yeshivot gevohot is frum enough, but that still doesn’t absolve the charedi community of coming up with their own arrangement that would allow for them to be mekayem their chiyuv in a way that doesn’t yield shmad. That attitude and attempt is clearly not the reality—showing that the concern is not shmad—and they just don’t see themselves as obligated to serve, but without any explanation as to why not.

Kiddush V’Chillul Hashem

There is an additional concern that I feel hasn’t received enough consideration, and that is the element of kiddush v’chillul Hashem. Regarding kiddush Hashem, the Rambam writes that sonei Yisrael attack us because they can’t attack Hashem directly (see his Iggeres Teiman, and Rabbi Mayer Twersky, shlita’s expansion of this idea in his 2014 TorahWeb article, “A Three Thousand Year War”). Our defending ourselves highlights Hashem’s strength as the Protector of His people and the clear Master of the world. This is something we should be proactively looking to get involved in—not being dragged into kicking and screaming. Even more importantly, the stance of the chareidi community, which brands itself as “the Torah community” (to the exclusion of literally thousands of God-fearing, Torah-learning individuals in the Charda”l, Dati Leumi and Modern Orthodox communities, as well as other Orthodox subcommunities), has generated and continues to generate widespread chillul Hashem—as they are seen by millions of Israelis as using the Torah as a “kardom lachpor bah—a spade to dig with,”—to exempt themselves from serving the nation while ignoring the rest of the country who are asking them to contribute. This constitutes a corruption of Torah and a chillul Hashem, which alone should be enough of a reason for the charedi community to find some way to contribute in a way that avoids that problem.

Hashkafa

Regarding Rabbi Shulman’s hashkafic point—the subtext of his presentation is that he is talking about an individual’s aspirations in avodas Hashem—in which case there is a need to balance single minded focus on yedias/ahavas/yiras Hashem with the responsibilities of daily life. This is, of course, true, but it also misses the point. Hashem didn’t give us a Torah to learn, He gave us a Torah to follow. He doesn’t want “bnei Torah;” He wants ovdei Hashem. (Don’t misconstrue this as a denigration of the importance of talmud Torah; learning is of course a juggernaut mitzvah and a linchpin for numerous central aspects of avodas Hashem. Learning Torah is a necessary and fundamental part of a person’s avodas Hashem and deserves years dedicated to it in a single minded way, as well as a continued investment later on in life. The point is the perspective; as the Rambam writes, “the reason for talmud torah keneged kulam is because of talmud gadol shemeivi lidei maaseh.”)

Part of that orientation is that it goes well beyond the individual’s avodas Hashem (which the chareidi community is admirably committed to); we’re also meant to be thinking about and creating—the ideal society Hashem wants us to build—both in the diaspora and especially in Eretz Yisrael, as described in the Torah and limned by the halachic system (see “Halachic Worldviews” for more). Part of that ideal community is an army; part of that ideal community is protecting other Jews and our hold on Eretz Yisrael; part of that ideal community is encouraging people to find the form of contributing to the nation that aligns with their interests and abilities. Limiting one’s field of vision in his avodas Hashem to talmud torah, ahavas Hashem and yiras Hashem seems to lead directly to the myopia that has been plaguing the charedi community, where crucial elements of avodas Hashem are ignored because of the interruption it would cause to their talmud Torah or way of life.

So, when members of the chareidi community say, “Hey, at least appreciate that we’re preserving the Torah,” the response from the rest of the nation is, “What are you talking about? You might be learning Torah, but what about living Torah?”

Tzvi Goldstein graduated from Yeshiva University with semicha and a degree in psychology. After making aliyah, he taught in Yeshivat HaKotel for five years and now edits sefarim for a number of publishers. He recently published a sefer with Mosaica Press called, “Halachic Worldviews,” exploring Rav Soloveitchik’s approach to developing hashkafa from halacha, and writes at tgb613.substack.com. You can reach him at [email protected].