Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig: The Haredim and IDF Service: Hoist Them With Their Own Petard
Israel’s Supreme Court finally had enough: until the Knesset passes legislation to free ultra-Orthodox from army service, not only are they now draft eligible, but yeshivas that don’t meet minimum draftee numbers will no longer receive government subsidies.
Why do I say the court “had enough”? Because the Secular vs. Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) divide has been Israel’s longest-running domestic controversy, incorporating two related issues: refusal to be drafted for army service because “toratam emunatam” (loosely translated as: “their profession is lifelong, full-day, Torah learning”), and concomitantly not seeking gainful employment.
Each side offers arguments from their own value-laden perspective. Non-haredi Zionists (secular and religious) see IDF service as critical for the survival of the state, and productive work as the epitome of what Zionism stands for. Haredim view exclusive, lifetime Torah study as the salvation of the Jewish People – throughout Jewish history, today as well.
The problem here is that the “debate” is akin to a conversation between two people speaking in completely different foreign languages. In order to close the gap, and perhaps even provide the haredim with a face-saving way to climb down from their tall tree, a different approach is needed when addressing haredi arguments.
In the field of Communications (especially Journalism, but not only there), the concept of “Framing” is central to understanding social persuasion. This is not “setting up someone falsely” (e.g., “I framed her for adultery so I could easily get a divorce”), but rather how one presents a position or argument i.e., the words employed, or the evidence produced. Put simply, if you want to convince someone that they are wrong, you have to speak in their “language,” using the sources that they are most comfortable with.
By “language” I mean value positions emanating from the sources they consider sacred. And indeed, it turns out that the Torah and Talmudic evidence overwhelmingly undercuts their own stance, supporting the Zionist position instead!
Let’s first take what the Torah says about fighting in the Jewish People’s wars. When the Children of Israel were preparing to cross the Jordan River (from the east) to enter and conquer the Promised Land, the tribes of Reuven and Gad came to Moses and basically said that they liked the land on that eastern side of the Jordan and wished to settle there. Moses’ response (Numbers 32: 6): “Shall your brethren go to the war, and you’ll just sit here?” Their reply (verses 26-27): “Our children, our wives, our flocks, and all our cattle, shall stay here in the cities of Gilead; but your servants will cross [the river], every man that is armed for war before the LORD to battle, as you [Moses] have instructed us.” In short, every “tribe” had to pull its military weight.
That’s the macro-story. The Torah also addresses the micro issue of the individual. In Deuteronomy, almost all able-bodied men are commanded to join the army in times of war. There are only four, very specific exceptions (Deuteronomy 20: 5-8): 1- a man who has built a new house but not yet dedicated it; 2- planted a vineyard but not yet tasted its fruit (in the fourth year); 3- is engaged to a woman but not yet married her; or 4- someone who’s congenitally a coward. The first three are clearly temporary, leaving only the cowardly to be permanently exempted (few would admit to this highly “unmanly” character). In short, for ancient Jews army service was virtually universal when the nation was at war.
Today’s haredim use their claim of perpetual Torah study not only to avoid army service but also to avoid joining the workforce (the cause and effect might be otherwise correlated: in Israel, to avoid the army they need to show that they’re studying Torah all day). This does not include their wives who work at the same proportion (82%) as non-haredi Israeli women (83%). Haredi men, however, don’t even reach 50%.
Here too we find a travesty of the Jewish ethos. Here’s but one statement among a wide array of aphorisms and even strictures throughout the Jewish halakhic tradition. This from the Talmud (Tractate Avot 2:2): “Excellent is the study of Torah combined with some worldly occupation… . But all Torah study without some labor in the end leads to nothing and brings sin in its wake.”
Indeed, over the several centuries that the Talmud evolved, hundreds of rabbis were mentioned, but among them, only one – Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai – did not work but devoted all his time to Torah study (Brakhot 35b; also Shabbat 33b). Even the greatest, such as Rabbi Akiva, had a profession; he was a carpenter. Such work was what we call today “self-employed” and not “salaried.” The reason: in rendering halakhic rulings the rabbi should feel independent and not unduly influenced by anyone else. Compare that to present-day government subsidies for Torah studies, not to mention the governmental institution called the Chief Rabbinate.
None of this is to suggest that Torah study is not a very important value in the Jewish tradition. The central prayer of Shema Yisrael, including the command to teach one’s sons at all times, is the first of a long list that can be brought to bear on the centrality of Jewish learning. “Centrality,” however is not the same as “exclusivity.” Judaism holds self-defense and work employment in the highest regard as well. In the ongoing debate between the State of Israel and its haredi communities over military service and gainful employment, it would be more useful – and perhaps even more effective – for the former to frame the argument in terms that the latter can’t easily ignore.
