Charedi Enlistment: A Torah Conversation?

The past year and a half have been deeply painful for the Jewish People. Every sector and community, both in Israel and the Diaspora, has been affected, though in different ways.

One of the most striking consequences of the war in Israel has been the widening gulf between the mainstream Charedi community and broader Israeli society. While individuals and groups are working nobly to bridge the divide, the underlying status quo persists: a rift between those who accept the obligation to defend their country and their fellow Jews, and those who remain in the beis midrash (study hall)—or worse, remain on yeshiva rolls without actually spending their days learning, as if nothing has changed.

It is true that the yeshiva world and the Charedi public more broadly are under attack, both from the Supreme Court and the political far-left. However, for the majority of Israelis—especially traditional and Dati Leumi (national-religious) Jews—their only grievance with the Charedi world is the issue of military service. And this majority does not advocate a “melting pot” approach; most would be perfectly content for Charedim to preserve their distinct identity even after army service. The IDF has taken active steps to facilitate appropriate accommodations for Charedi recruits and to reach workable arrangements with Charedi leadership. No less a figure than Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, shlita, acknowledged this himself in a recent interview with Mishpacha Magazine’s Pesach edition.

For independent-minded individuals within the Charedi community—and for many in the Dati Leumi world, themselves products of years of study in Yeshivot Hesder and Yeshivot Gevohot—there is a deeper layer of frustration

Still, for independent-minded individuals within the Charedi community—and for many in the Dati Leumi world, themselves products of years of study in Yeshivot Hesder and Yeshivot Gevohot—there is a deeper layer of frustration. That frustration lies in the Torah-based justifications the Charedi mainstream has employed to explain its avoidance of army service. A closer examination of the sources cited reveals that many of them do not say what they are claimed to say. They neither prescribe nor permit that able-bodied men forgo the physical protection of fellow Jews in favor of uninterrupted Torah study.

To many in Israeli society, this sounds like using the Torah as a kardom lachpor bah—a tool for self-serving ends, in this case, avoiding the dangers of military service. But to those who see themselves as members of the Torah study hall, this is a grave misrepresentation of the Torah, one that must be called out and corrected.

The argument here is not that one must serve in the IDF. The argument is that even those who maintain that Charedim should not serve in the IDF must refrain from inaccurately employing Torah sources to defend that position. Other arguments, sociological and political, can be made. But sadly, inaccurate Torah arguments are often marshalled in their service, creating a distortion that can be deeply damaging.

Below, we examine three of the most frequently cited slogans or halachic positions used to support this exemption—and take a closer look at what the sources actually say.

 

1. Shevet Levi

A central halachic argument advanced during the current war—used by figures such as Rav Yitzhak Yosef (in his role as Chief Rabbi) and by Agudath Israel’s spokesperson—is that all Charedi youth are to be considered as members of Shevet Levi (the Tribe of Levi), whom the Rambam ostensibly exempts from military service (see Hilchot Shemittah v’Yovel 13:13). As Rav Aharon Lichtenstein explains in Leaves of Faith: The World of Jewish Learning, this claim is unfounded.

First, the Rambam describes a rare individual—someone entirely detached from material life and wholly devoted to spiritual pursuits:

“Not only the Tribe of Levi, but any individual from among all humanity whose spirit moves him, and whose intellect guides him, to separate himself to stand before Hashem, to serve Him and minister to Him, and to know Hashem… and who removes from his neck the yoke of many worldly considerations sought by most people—such a person is sanctified as kodesh kodashim (most holy). Hashem will be his portion and inheritance forever… just as He granted to the kohanim and the Levites.” (Hilchot Shemittah v’Yovel 13:13)

Engaging in routine hishtadlut (pragmatic effort) such as voting or applying for government aid would likely disqualify one from this exalted category

This passage describes a spiritual ideal—not a blanket exemption. One can readily support exempting a small group of truly dedicated Torah scholars based on this standard. But it is well known that thousands of Charedi young men are not learning full-time, and that even among those who are, few attain the level of spiritual detachment the Rambam describes. Engaging in routine hishtadlut (pragmatic effort) such as voting or applying for government aid would likely disqualify one from this exalted category.

Second, halachic methodology provides further evidence against this interpretation. The Rambam’s categorization of halachot is famously precise. If this were a law about military exemption, it should appear in Hilchot Melachim (Laws of Kings), not at the end of Sefer Zera’im. More likely, this is a closing ethical or spiritual exhortation, in line with the Rambam’s common practice.

Third, reading this as a legal exemption from military service contradicts the Rambam’s strong positions elsewhere. In Hilchot Talmud Torah 3:10 and in his Peirush Hamishnayot to Avot 4:5, the Rambam denounces Torah scholars who rely on others for financial support, calling it a chillul Hashem. It is difficult to imagine he would promote reliance on others to bear mortal danger while one remains in the beis midrash. Even more strikingly, in Hilchot Melachim 7:4, the Rambam states that only optional wars carry exemptions for newlyweds or the fainthearted; in a milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war), all are obligated.

Fourth, if Shevet Levi were categorically exempt from war, it would contradict a straightforward, non-Aggadic Gemara. Kiddushin 21b discusses whether a kohen may marry a yefat to’ar (a woman captured in battle). The Rambam rules on this in Hilchot Melachim 8:4—proof that he holds Kohanim, and by extension Shevet Levi, do indeed serve in war.

Fifth, the Rambam describes this group not just as Torah learners but as those preparing to serve the Jewish People—teachers, judges, rabbis. While many Charedi students aspire to such roles, many do not.

Sixth, the Rambam writes in Hilchot Shabbat 2:23 that if enemies come intending to kill, it is not only permitted but obligatory for all Jews to fight—even if doing so entails Shabbat desecration. Surely Torah study, valuable as it is, cannot outweigh pikuach nefesh or override Shabbat in this context.

 

2. Torah Magna U’Matzla

Torah protects. The success of Israel’s military efforts is due to Divine Providence—miraculous assistance from Hashem. This is a belief held by all religious Jews. Indeed, Tanach itself attests to this, most famously in the tochachah and the second paragraph of Shema, as well as in numerous pesukim, such as Shemot 15:26, Devarim 30:15–20, and Yechezkel 5:6–12.

The problem arises when the contemporary Charedi world applies this principle in a particular way: that one group of Torah learners, namely Charedi yeshiva bochurim, are the ones whose Torah study protects the IDF soldiers on the battlefield

The problem arises when the contemporary Charedi world applies this principle—Torah magna u’matzla (“Torah protects and saves”)—in a particular way: that one group of Torah learners, namely Charedi yeshiva bochurim, are the ones whose Torah study protects the IDF soldiers on the battlefield. Why is this problematic? Because when we open Sotah 21a, the source of this teaching, the Gemara says nothing of the kind.

The Gemara there teaches that a person who learns Torah or performs mitzvot, and later finds himself in a dangerous situation, receives spiritual protection as a result of his earlier Torah study or mitzvah observance.

There is a machloket (dispute) in the Gemara about whether it is specifically Torah learning that offers this protection, or whether mitzvah performance also provides it. There is also debate over whether the protection is active, as in rescuing a person from present danger, or passive, as in preventing a person from falling into danger in the first place. However, according to all opinions, the protection applies specifically to the individual who performed the mitzvah or studied Torah. The protection is personal, not communal or vicarious.

In short, both the Torah itself and the understanding of much of the Dati Leumi community is that mitzvah observance in general, and limmud haTorah in particular, are crucial for the Jewish People to merit military success. But whose Torah study fulfills this function? That of those facing danger—namely, the soldiers risking their lives to defend the Jewish People.

The vast amount of Torah learned by others—whether by Charedim, by Dati Leumi students before or after their army service in Yeshivot Hesder or Yeshivot Gevohot (advanced yeshivot), or by Jews in the Diaspora—is of immense spiritual value in shaping the ideal character of the Jewish nation. But it does not appear to relate to the statement Torah magna u’matzla as explained by the Gemara.[1]

 

3. Rabbanan Lo Tzrichi Netirusa

The Gemara (Bava Batra 7b/8a, Bava Metzia 108a) establishes that certain Torah scholars are exempt from paying taxes for communal defense infrastructure, such as the construction of a protective wall around a city. The reasoning is that such individuals do not require this kind of protection, for their Torah learning serves as their safeguard:

“Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah imposed a tax for the building of a wall upon the rabbis [together with the rest of the townspeople]. Reish Lakish objected: ‘The rabbis do not require guarding.’”

Unlike earlier aggadic statements, this one is codified in halacha, appearing in both the Rambam (Hilchot Shecheinim 6:6) and the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 243; Choshen Mishpat 163):

“All matters related to the protection of the city are collected from all residents, including orphans—but not from Torah scholars. Torah scholars do not require protection, for their Torah protects them.”

This has led to the argument that just as Torah scholars were exempt from financial contributions to physical defense in the past, so too today: the Charedi community, broadly described as “Torah scholars,” should be exempt from military service, for they do not require protection by the army.

Why did the rabbis evacuate danger zones together with the rest of the population? Why did they not invoke this maamar Chazal? Is this daas Torah?

There are, however, a number of compelling responses to this claim. Rav Shlomo Yosef Zevin—musmach of both the Rogatchover Gaon and the Aruch HaShulchan and founding editor of the Encyclopedia Talmudit—addressed the issue during Israel’s War of Independence. In one particularly charged passage, he writes:

“Rabbis do not need guarding”? God Almighty! When actual lives are at stake, may we rely on miracles? In 1929 in Hebron (may such a calamity never recur!), did not young yeshiva students—whose sanctity shone like stars in the heavens—fall before the savage enemy? Did these martyrs not require protection? And those same murderous Arabs remain our enemies today! If Torah scholars may be exempt from contributing to protective walls in times of relative peace, how much more pressing is the need in a life-and-death struggle—a milchemet mitzvah in which all are commanded to participate?

The civil authorities ordered everyone to tape up their windows against the danger of flying glass from air raids. Would any rabbi claim exemption based on “rabbis do not require guarding”? Did anyone immersed in Torah study exempt himself from this? Why did the rabbis evacuate danger zones together with the rest of the population? Why did they not invoke this maamar Chazal? Is this daas Torah? They distorted this Torah principle, removing it from its proper context. Used appropriately, it would be a precious gem. Used improperly, it becomes a mockery.”[2]

Rav Zevin makes several key points that deserve unpacking:

First, the protection supposedly granted by Torah learning has, tragically, failed in times of need. While Rav Zevin points to the 1929 Hebron massacre, one might also cite more recent tragedies, such as the eight students murdered in Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav in 2008 or the four rabbis killed while davening in a Har Nof synagogue in 2014.

Second, the context of the Gemara is a time of “relative peace.” Torah scholars may be exempt from communal defense contributions when there is no present danger. But in a situation of sakanat nefashot (mortal danger), to invoke “Torah protects” is to rely on a miracle—a course halacha firmly rejects. Leading gedolim such as the Chazon Ish, Rav Moshe Feinstein, and Rav Elyashiv reiterated this principle.[3] Once danger arrives, invoking metaphysical protection is forbidden.

Third, Rav Zevin highlights the inconsistency of those claiming exemption while not actually relying on divine protection in practice. In his day, rabbis taped their windows and evacuated danger zones. In our time, yeshiva bochurim take cover in bomb shelters when sirens sound—even before the Iron Dome was effective. This duplicity was noted already by the Radvaz (2:752), who addressed a case where Torah scholars in Jerusalem insisted on hiring guards to protect their neighborhood while simultaneously claiming exemption from funding those guards on the basis that “Torah scholars do not need protection.” The Radvaz responds forcefully:

“If the scholars themselves admit they need protection, how can it be logical or lawful for them to compel their neighbors to pay for guards while they exempt themselves? No one has ever made such a claim—and if they did, we would not accept it. It would be a perversion of justice!”[4]

The Radvaz later adds that his ruling pertained to protection from theft; in life-threatening situations, the reasoning would all the more apply.[5]

Fourth, the Radvaz—who was the rebbi of the Arizal’s rebbi—doubts whether even in his time there existed a true talmid chacham who merited this exemption. If such was the case during the lifetime of the Mechaber, how much more so today? The Rema in Yoreh Deah 243 makes clear that such exemptions apply only to renowned scholars, not to every 20-year-old in yeshiva.

Even if a Torah scholar were truly protected by his merits, military service is not solely about self-protection. It is also a matter of gemilut chasadim, pikuach nefesh, and national responsibility

Fifth, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein offers a deeper moral critique. Even if a Torah scholar were truly protected by his merits, military service is not solely about self-protection. It is also a matter of gemilut chasadim, pikuach nefesh, and national responsibility:

Does anyone suppose that the duty to engage in a defensive milchemet mitzvah—“to save the people of Israel from a foe who has descended upon them”—depends on whether one personally faces danger? In the moral universe of Mandeville or Adam Smith, perhaps. But from a Torah perspective, this is a strange and impoverished doctrine.

The Gemara in Bava Batra provides no basis to exempt Torah scholars from military service. Even if they themselves do not require protection, others do. And their obligation to defend those without spiritual armor remains.[6]

Even granting the premise that some Torah scholars may merit supernatural protection, they are nonetheless obligated to protect others—whether under the rubric of milchemet mitzvah,[7] or as an expression of chessed, pikuach nefesh, and simple areivut (mutual responsibility).

 

Conclusion

A close examination of three core sources commonly invoked to justify the Charedi community’s broad exemption from military service reveals that these sources offer little support for such a sweeping claim. The sugyot regarding the Rambam’s portrayal of Shevet Levi, the concept of Torah as a metaphysical protector (Torah magna u’matzla), and the exemption of Torah scholars from civic duties in times of peace, all fail to justify the notion that an entire community—many of whom are not fully engaged in talmud Torah—should be exempt from bearing the burden of national defense for Am Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael.

A prominent and pressing question arises: How does this critique align with the well-known position of Rav Elyashiv zt”l, who was firmly opposed to yeshiva bochurim serving in the IDF? The answer, it seems, lies in his intellectual integrity. Rav Elyashiv’s opposition to army service was rooted not in a distortion of Torah sources, but in a sober concern for the secular culture that dominated the IDF, and the potentially corrosive effect it might have on religious life.[8] Yet, even as he objected in practice, he did not alter or manipulate Torah to support his view. On the contrary, he explicitly affirmed that Torah learning does not serve as a substitute for physical protection in times of danger.

The only way they’ll stay and learn is if we elevate limmud haTorah to the highest possible level—so we tell them Torah magna u’matzla.

Sadly, that standard of intellectual honesty is eroding. In a conversation with the menahel of an elite yeshiva in Yerushalayim, one of the authors (Chaim) was told: “What can we do? The bochurim want to go out and actively help during the war… The only way they’ll stay and learn is if we elevate limmud haTorah to the highest possible level—so we tell them Torah magna u’matzla.”

This sentiment has not remained private. In the last year and a half, numerous public statements have echoed this strategy: emphasizing the protective power of Torah learning not as a carefully sourced halachic position, but as a rhetorical tool to retain the full cohort of yeshiva students. Ironically, such proclamations—meant to uphold the centrality of Torah—end up undermining it. When the Torah is misrepresented in the service of expedient messaging, Truth is the casualty.

It is precisely because this sugya is so important, and because the stakes are so high, that we appeal to all parties—regardless of their conclusions or commitments—to preserve the Torah’s integrity. Let us engage the sources with honesty and rigor and refuse to instrumentalize them for political or sociological ends. Only then will we merit a conversation about Torah, the army, and responsibility for Klal Yisrael that is truly rooted in Torah itself.

---

[1]  While other statements in Chazal are marshalled to justify a “learner’s division” to protect the soldiers going out to fight, such as the partnership between David Hamelech and his general Yoav (Sanhedrin 49) or the Gemara’s interpretation of Omdos hayu ragleinu bishaarayich Yerushalayim (Makkos 10a), this source is unique in that it is raised in a halachic context.

Regarding the partnership between David Hamelech and Yoav, one must keep in mind that David Hamelech fought Bnei Yisrael’s wars when he was able to do so. This Gemara appears to be speaking about his older years, when he was no longer able to lead the nation in fighting (see Shmuel II 21:17). It may also have been referring to a milchemet reshut (Pninei Halacha, Ha’am v’haaretz).

As we have argued here, these Gemarot clearly indicate that Torah study is a critical component of our worthiness of military success; however, they in no way suggest a blanket service exemption for able-bodied yeshiva students. After all, David Hamelech himself “did army service”!

[2] https://traditiononline.org/r-shelomo-yosef-zevin-on-the-drafting-of-yeshiva-students/.

[3] See Pesachim 8a; Chazon Ish to Choshen Mishpat, Bava Basra 5:18; Chashukei Chemed, Bava Metzia 108a in the name of Rav Elyashiv; Dibrot Moshe, Bava Batra 12:38).

[4] Radvaz adds that while he knows of some who disagree with his ruling, they are “seeking their own benefit and should not be heeded.”

[5] See also Rav Elyashiv’s He’arot to Bava Metzia (108a) about guard duty in communities near the border.

[6] https://etzion.org.il/en/philosophy/great-thinkers/harav-aharon-lichtenstein/ideology-hesder.

[7] Tzitz Eliezer (3:9:2:10 and 3:9:2: summary:16) says that the wars of the State of Israel to liberate and maintain control of the Land are milchamot mitzvah and (7:48: Kuntres Orchot Hamishpatim:12) that because Israel is under constant attack, Rambam would agree that Israel’s wars are milchamot mitzvah. Rav Elyashiv explicitly describes the Yom Kippur War as a milchemet mitzvah in a responsum addressed to then-soldier, now rosh yeshivah Rav Yitzchak Grinshpan (Kovetz Teshuvot, siman 243), with all of its associated halachot. Rav Feinstein also explicitly states that we go to a milchemet hatzala (analagous to Rambam’s ezras Yisrael mi’yad tzar), which characterizes modern Israel’s wars, even without the kohein gadol or urim v’tumim (Dibrot Moshe al Shabbat, Vol 1. 20:132).

[8] On the concern of secularization, I believe it is clear that the reality today is radically different than it was for most of Israel’s history. General David Zini, head (until his recent appointment at head of the Shin Bet) of the new Chativat Chashmonaim, has publicly acknowledged that previous promises to the Charedi community were not kept, alongside stating that the new unit is different; namely, that he intends to build trust by keeping all his promises, which are more expansive than those of previous units, and that he has no desire to change the religious affiliation of Charedim serving in his unit. See here for my firsthand perspective as to the accommodations and ethos of Charedi units today. I will note that a relative of mine is involved in the administration of Chashmonaim, and affirms that the accommodations I write about regarding Shlav Bet, plus additional ones, are also true of Chashmonaim.

 

In the picture: A Chashmonaim division at the Kotel