Haredim F(l)ighting the Torah Instead of Israel’s Enemies

This week’s Torah portion is Shoftim (Judges) – the only one in which specific instructions are provided regarding who must fight the Israelite’s wars and who is exempt. A good time to understand how Israel’s contemporary ultra-Orthodox are not being merely hypocritical in their claims for “Torah Study” exemptions, but even blatantly contravening the Torah’s commandments that ostensibly they hold so dear.
The entire Book of Deuteronomy (Moses’s final peroration to his people) establishes a blueprint for a just society, including rules for going to war. Notwithstanding the brutality of warfare – or perhaps because of such brutality – the Torah adds a modicum of compassion, providing three situations that call for temporary exemption from army service. The exact language is important in assessing the present ultra-Orthodox position in Israel:

Deut. 20:5 — Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying: “Who is the man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another dedicate it.” 20:6 — “And who is the man that has planted a vineyard and has not eaten of it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another eat of it.” 20:7 — “And who is the man that has betrothed a woman and has not married her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another marry her.”

These verses outline very specific, narrow exemptions. The overall intent, however, is to demand participation in the defense of the nation i.e., a universal expectation. One other exemption makes this clear in a backhanded way: Deut. 20:8 — And the officers shall speak further to the people, and say: “Who is the man that is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go and return to his house, lest the heart of his brothers melt as his heart.” In short, it is only to ensure the success of the close-to-universal fighting force that a few “cowards” can stay at home in order not to infect the ranks.

There can be no mistaking the thrust of these commandments: the exemptions are individual and mostly temporary – in no way can they be understood as wholesale avoidance. In short, for the Torah war is a communal burden, shouldered by (almost) all.

How, then, do Israel’s ultra-Orthodox defend their stance? They claim a longstanding “tradition” that elevates Torah study above all else. However, such a tradition is based on the Jewish People’s 2000-year defenselessness in the face of anti-Semitism and assimilation. But today in Israel no one is “defenseless”; it is precisely service in the IDF that constitutes a bulwark (albeit not totally) of national defense against anti-Semitic attack. Moreover, in the past, Torah study day and night served as an indirect “answer” to anti-Semitism; after all, those who spend their whole life immersed in the Torah couldn’t be accused of harming Gentiles given that they had removed themselves from Gentile society and its economy.

But this too is disingenuous. Throughout the several centuries that the Mishnah and Talmud were being developed (and eventually written down), only a handful of the hundreds of rabbis quoted therein did not have some form of economic employment. Indeed, the Talmud often explicitly encouraged rabbis to support themselves through work: “it is better to skin a carcass than to depend on others” (Berakhot 35b; Baba Batra 110a). Thus, if there’s any “tradition” here, it’s that Torah study must be accompanied by practical work. The Talmud certainly did not believe in freeloaders!

Indeed, in the Babylonian Talmud (Sotah 43a), the sages connect the issue of army exemptions with economics: those few Jews who are free from fighting must still provide water and food to the troops, because they aren’t participating directly in combat. Thus, it is clear that the draft exempt had the economic means (mostly farming) to feed the troops. Compare this to the contemporary Israeli situation in which the ultra-Orthodox demand that the state subsidize their Torah studies, without any reciprocity in the other direction.
If all this weren’t enough to undermine the ultra-Orthodox case, the Talmud adds that these Torah exemptions don’t apply in obligatory wars against the Canaanites (milchemot mitzvah). In such wars, even a bridegroom was not exempted. Today’s Palestinians (Hamas especially) are certainly the modern incarnation of the Canaanites, the most dangerous foes given their proximity to, and widespread enmity regarding, the Jewish State.

A question remains: how do Israel’s ultra-Orthodox deal with Deuteronomy’s draft instructions? The answer: they don’t. Surprisingly, this is not as strange as it sounds, for the Torah has ceased to be the source of their “Jewishness” since the days of the Talmud. After basic 3rd or 4th grade bible story education, the rest of their (male) schooling – through high school and certainly in the “higher yeshivot” – is based completely on Talmud study. Other than perhaps a weekly, rabbinical homily, the Torah doesn’t exist as a source of halakha: religious law. As for the Talmud’s Sotah (mentioned above), the term actually means “perversion” – best left alone from intense study.

In sum, Shoftim does not grant blanket draft exemptions for the religiously studious. The Torah’s allowances here are quite narrow, certainly not communal. Thus, elevating religious learning above military duty constitutes selective reading at best, ignoring the plain sense of shared obligation. Shoftim’s war commandments don’t provide a pass to anyone because of their vocation, scholarly or economic; rather, the Torah demands a society where virtually everyone bears an equal load.