Torah vs. IDF: The Haredi Enlistment Debate

A critical debate has emerged over whether young Haredi men should enlist in the IDF to alleviate the burden on reservists or continue exclusive Torah study as a form of spiritual resistance against secularization pressures.

Should young Haredi men enlist in the IDF to possibly save lives or dedicate themselves exclusively to protective Torah study as spiritual resistance against secularization pressures?  This question resonates with centuries-old halachic debates on balancing Torah study’s protective power, pikuach nefesh, achdut (unity), and resisting pressure to abandon religious practices.

Like leaders during the Crusades and Holocaust, some Torah sages have prioritized communal action over Torah study in times of distress.  Some have ruled that following military orders can take precedence over Shabbat, even when the threat is plausible but not imminent.

Despite religious accommodations in the Haredi IDF Brigade, some Haredi sages distrust the government due to broader political and social factors. Debates further complicate whether Israel’s state authority is secondary to halacha, especially when laws conflict with Torah.

Respectful debate refines halachic (Orthodox law) understanding, emphasizing the importance of following the majority of local rabbinical sages. This principle fosters unity and respect for local authority, even when views differ. It highlights the wisdom of local leadership in guiding communities through unique challenges and norms. At times, local majority rule aligns with broader halachic consensus to avoid contradictions with accepted halacha. In significant cases, the broader majority may guide practices over local customs. The ‘local community,’ once defined by geography and customs, now encompasses specific congregational affiliations.

At times, achdut has taken priority over ideological purity during controversy.  Some leading Torah sages aligned contemporary rulings with historical precedent, considering immediate and long-term impacts of halachic debates. A powerful example of prioritizing achdut is Rabbi Yonah of Gerona. After burning of the Talmud in 13th century-Paris shook the Jewish world, Rabbi Yonah experienced a profound change of heart. Originally a staunch critic of Maimonides, he saw the destruction as a divine sign to reconsider his stance. He authored Shaarei Teshuvah (Gates of Repentance) as a retraction of his opposition, tirelessly working to restore achdut. Rabbi Yonah’s transformation shows achdut can outweigh deep convictions.

This conflict, marked by fierce opposition, shows the risks of ideological purity over achdut. Unity is achievable without compromising core values by stressing the importance of dialogue and respect.

The conflict within the Slabodka Yeshiva over integrating the Musar movement with traditional Torah study also reminds us of the dangers of ideological division and how ideological purity can threaten Jewish unity.

Balancing local rabbinical adherence with differing views while maintaining Jewish unity presents a significant challenge. Historically, rigid adherence to local majority rulings has often led to fragmentation, with communities strictly following their interpretations. Rabbi Yom Tov ben Abraham Ashvili (the Ritva) warned of the dangers of such rigidity, advocating for a more inclusive approach that considers the broader impact on communal cohesion.

Balancing Perceived Spiritual-Resistance with Suffering of IDF Reservists

Torah study as spiritual resistance is deeply rooted in our tradition, and Haredi rabbinic authorities distrust the secular courts and government overseeing the IDF.

This distrust does not negate the unprecedented burden on our limited IDF reserve forces, however. They are grappling with prolonged engagements and repeated deployments, stretching their physical, mental, and emotional resources well beyond what is reasonable for several months of emergency service.

Over 700 soldiers have died, and more than 10,000 have been injured, many suffering severe physical and psychological wounds.

This pressure limits our options in defending against Hezbollah. There is a prospect of prolonged conflicts with increasingly resilient militias on our borders.  IDF reservists are not an inexhaustible resource. The need for more reserve-power doesn’t solely target the Haredi community. Those reservists already in the IDF who were exempted from service but are still within the age range required for service are being called back to service. There are 15,000 previously exempted reservists who served in combat and are under 35 that are being called back. We are facing life-threatening shortages.  Whether this war is obligatory or permissive, the key issue is whether a plausible threat to reservists’ lives takes precedence over Torah study, even if there’s distrust in the government.

A Call for Reflection and Action

All Torah sages condemn the reprehensible act of attacking a grandmother whose grandson was wounded twice in battle by anti-Haredi draft protesters. Passive resistance to the Haredi draft never justifies breaking into IDF recruitment offices, attacking police, or breaching barricades. Even extreme Torah views calling for jail over the draft don’t excuse this, a desecration of Torah sanctity—most identifying as Haredi would never act this way. I trust community leaders will guide their followers toward more respectful engagement. No matter how challenging it is to hear Rabbis call for passive resistance or view Torah study as spiritual resistance against Zionism, I remind myself that divergent halachic opinions may still be valid within local communities, deserving respect. Respectful and humble challenge and debate are integral to refining halachic understanding. Even prominent Haredi rabbis have acknowledged the halachic expertise of those outside their community, even amid significant ideological differences. For example, Rabbi Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld expressed respect for Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook’s Torah scholarship despite their divergent views. Rabbi Chaim Ozer Grodzinski also engaged with Rav Kook’s halachic rulings despite ideological differences.  We can follow local halachic authority while recognizing that different halachic interpretations are valid in other communities.

I wish for more written opinions on this, so we don’t rely on hearsay about what Haredi sages are ruling. If there are none, maybe it is for a reason, but respectful disagreement that there should be more published rulings on this is also okay. Rav Moshe Feinstein emphasized the importance of documenting halachic decisions for future analysis, ensuring transparency and ongoing discussion. Similarly, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach recognized the value of written records in maintaining the accuracy of halachic rulings and providing a foundation for future scholars to study and critique them.  I would think this is even more important when a ruling is based on factual determinations that may be misunderstood.

The Jewish community faces a historic trial, requiring effort to prevent division.  We were better at this after Simchat Torah for a while.  One lesson from the IDF is how to defend our home as siblings, without letting differences divide us. We must consciously recognize our vulnerability to internal strife in our dedication to spiritual and physical survival. Those making the ultimate sacrifice, of themselves and their loved ones, deserve respect. So do our fallen soldiers. And so do those who dedicate their lives to learning and preserving Torah, which our tradition says generally remains the ultimate form of protection for the Jewish people. I urge us to do better—finding common ground, loving one another, and staying unified in our mission to repair the world for our People and all humankind.

May we find the strength to unite our People through Torah and acts of loving-kindness—relieving suffering and preserving life.