Do Rabbis Need Protection? A Halachic Analysis of the Draft Exemption

Within the discussion of enlisting yeshiva students during this difficult time, a halachic discussion is required, one that is not dependent on political or ideological justification. The halachic discussion includes two main arguments often raised by members of the Charedi community. The first is that Torah study is equivalent to military service, and even superior to it. The second argument is that military service might undermine the character of the Charedi youth.

In this article, I will focus solely on the first argument – the status of Torah study and its scholars in Jewish law. I will elaborate on a frequently cited Talmudic passage: “Rabbis do not require protection.” The central discussion will analyze the view of the Chazon Ish on this matter. The halachic discussion of this Talmudic statement is based on an economic foundation, and our question is whether it is possible to expand the discussion to include the issue of the protection of life, which is the relevant issue in connection to army service.

The State of Israel is not merely a community, nor is it a monarchy; it is a democratic state that derives its authority from its citizens. […] Its decisions on moral issues are political decisions that serve as a focal point of its identity

Indeed, two primary sources should be discussed in this matter. One is based on the laws of the community and asserts that sages do not need protection and, therefore, are exempt from security taxes. The other is based on the laws of the Jewish monarchy, dealing with the idea of a milchemes mitzvah (a mitzvah war) and concluding that even a groom on his wedding day must go out to fight. The discussion of these two matters should begin with a review of the Talmudic issues themselves, but it cannot remain there. It is necessary to examine their implications for our times. The State of Israel is not merely a community, nor is it a monarchy. It is a democratic state that draws its authority from its citizens, many of whom are not observant of the commandments. Indeed, not all are part of the covenant. Its decisions on moral issues are political decisions that form the core of its identity. A state does not preserve just one value alone; every government decision is a compromise between principles and needs. The same applies to such lofty values such as saving lives and Torah study.

 

Do Rabbis Need Protection?

Let us begin with the community discussion. The Talmud in Bava Batra addresses the exemption of Torah scholars from paying the security tax. In the course of the discussion, Reish Lakish justifies the exemption by explaining that sages do not need protection for the city: “Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi imposed a security tax on Torah scholars. Reish Lakish said: Torah scholars do not need protection” (Bava Batra 7b). This Talmudic passage is not just a historical account, and it has been codified in halachic law by both the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch:

All things necessary for the protection of the city are taken from all the people of the city, even from orphans, except for Torah scholars, who do not require protection, because the Torah protects them. But for the repair of roads and streets, even Torah scholars must contribute. If the entire community goes out to make repairs, Torah scholars do not go with them, for it is not the way of Torah scholars to engage in menial work. But anything that is necessary for the protection of the city, such as the city walls and its towers, and the payment for the guards, they were not obligated to pay anything, as they do not need protection, for their Torah protects them. Therefore, they were exempt from all kinds of taxes, whether taxes imposed on all the residents of the city, or taxes imposed on each individual, whether fixed or not. The residents of the city are required to pay for them, even for the fixed taxes on each person. (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah, 243:3).

[I]t seems that the statement “Rabbis do not need protection” is to be understood literally. According to the sages, Torah scholars do not require human protection

From these words, it seems that the statement “Rabbis do not need protection” is to be understood literally. According to the sages, Torah scholars do not require human protection. Hashem protects them, and therefore they do not need to pay for their protection, as the Talmud states: “The Torah, whether a person is engaged in it or not, protects and saves” (Sotah 21a). Notably, this protection is not only from sin but even from any danger.

However, the Chazon Ish (Rabbi Abraham Yeshayahu Karelitz) understood this passage differently. He argued that the reasoning behind “Rabbis do not need protection” should not be taken literally. Behind this statement, he saw a political argument: the community must share the financial burden of supporting the Torah scholars.

The Chazon Ish did not entirely dismiss the idea that Torah study provides protection to its practitioners, but he placed it within a more confined communal framework dealing with the allocation of the tax burden among city residents. He begins by emphasizing that being a Torah scholar is not an insurance policy and that even Torah scholars must take responsibility for their protection:

“We must consider that even Torah scholars need to follow the way of the world and not rely on miracles… In a city where all residents are Torah scholars, they might be obligated to build a wall together, but in a city where there are non-scholars, the tax is placed upon the majority of the population, and Torah scholars are exempt, just as they are exempt from the security tax because they are not involved in earning money for their livelihood through” (Chazon Ish, Choshen Mishpat, Baba Batra 5:18).

In other words, the Chazon Ish acknowledged that Torah scholars cannot rely on Divine intervention alone for protection and that it is dangerous (and forbidden) for them to live in a city without protective measures. The exemption from taxes, according to the Chazon Ish, is not due to a claim that Torah study itself offers complete protection from all forms of danger but rather a recognition of the value of Torah study in Jewish society. The exemption is an economic measure to support the Torah scholars, acknowledging that they cannot earn money in the conventional manner because of their dedication to Torah study. For this reason, in a city entirely made up of Torah scholars, the community would be obligated to ensure proper protection, and Torah scholars themselves would have to bear the responsibility for this, as they, too, have obligations within the community.

Thus, the reasoning behind “Rabbis do not need protection” serves as a symbolic justification for exemption from taxes to assist Torah scholars in sustaining their livelihoods rather than implying that Torah scholars do not need human protection. This exemption does not claim that Torah study protects others, nor does it assert that scholars can live without physical protection. The exemption is based on a recognition of the societal value of Torah study and should be understood as a practical adjustment in a community that values Torah, not a theological claim about Divine protection.

Military service is not a tax; it is a moral and civic duty tied to national defense, and the exemption from taxation does not imply a similar exemption from a moral duty to protect one’s country and people

Does this have direct implications for enlisting yeshiva students? In short, no. The concept of exemption from taxes or duties in relation to Torah study does not have a direct halachic equivalent when it comes to military service. Torah study, while seen as a fundamental value in Jewish law, does not equate to a blanket exemption from all societal obligations, particularly those related to defense.

The Chazon Ish’s approach to Torah scholars being exempt from security taxes reflects a particular understanding of communal responsibility rather than a broader theological stance on military service. Military service is not a tax; it is a moral and civic duty tied to national defense, and the exemption from taxation does not imply a similar exemption from a moral duty to protect one’s country and people. In conclusion, the Chazon Ish’s interpretation of the Talmudic statement “Rabbis do not need protection” is rooted in the communal and economic value of Torah study, not in an absolute theological claim about the need for Divine intervention or the refusal to take part in defense efforts.

 

Milchemet Mitzvah in Our Times

The source from which many derive the general obligation to serve in the military comes from the concept of a milchemes mitzvah (a war of commandment), which holds that all are obligated to fight, even a groom on his wedding day. Naturally, this obligation will apply even to Torah scholars. The universal obligation to fight in a “mitzvah war” is noted by the Mishnah, on which the Chazon Ish comments:

It seems that the case of a milchemes mitzvah where even a groom must leave his room is not a situation where there is an actual need for assistance to win the war, for in matters of life and death, it is obvious that all are obligated. Rather, even in times where only a specific number of soldiers are required, it was permitted to take the groom out of his room, for those who return from the battlefront are not entitled to exemption in a milchemet mitzvah (Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim, Laws of Eruvin, Likutim 114:6).

Even this source must also be carefully examined. The Chazon Ish’s argument concerning a battle that is “essential for Israel’s victory” is a theoretical argument that requires further investigation.

First, we must clarify what constitutes a milchemes mitzvah and its halachic status. This concept originates in the laws of monarchy and concerns the authority of the king and his standing relative to the Sanhedrin. The question is whether the executive authority (the king) has a greater standing than the judicial authority (the Sanhedrin). For example, the Rambam explains:

The king does not initially fight wars other than a milchemes mitzvah, such as the wars against the seven nations, the war against Amalek, or the battle to rescue Israel from an enemy. Only then does he fight optional wars, which are warms to expand the borders of Israel and to augment his greatness and his name (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 5:1-2).

The king’s powers to recruit the nation are limited in the case of an optional war – as the Torah states, there is a long list that refrains from fighting in an optional war – and unlimited for a milchemes mitzvah

A king must obtain permission from the Sanhedrin to fight wars of reshus (optional wars), wars that are not a full mitzvah, but he does not require permission for mitzvah wars. In other words, the designation of a milchemes mitzvah serves to limit the king’s power in wars that are not deemed necessary by Divine commandment. This distinction is grounded in legal necessity and does not imply broader military or political obligations outside this context. The king’s powers to recruit the nation are limited in the case of an optional war – as the Torah states, there is a long list that refrains from fighting in an optional war – and unlimited for a milchemes mitzvah.

This, in fact, is the only special nature of a milchemes mitzvah. In the case of a milchemes mitzvah, the king has the authority to summon all of Israel to war, even without the approval of the Sanhedrin. However, it is important to note that even in a milchemes mitzvah, there is no obligation for the king to mobilize the entire population. It is his right to do so, but he can choose otherwise. When there is no king, the modern state – particularly a democratic state, where the people are sovereign – must decide on the rules for military service based on its own judgment. The concept of a milchemet mitzvah, as applied today, does not automatically mandate a full mobilization of every citizen. Rather, it gives the modern state the authority to set guidelines for who should be enlisted and who may be exempt according to its needs and values.

The wars we face should be considered as milchamos mitzvah. It is undoubtedly a national duty to defend the Jewish people, “to save Israel from the hand of the oppressor.” However, alongside the national duty to protect the state, there are also other national obligations, and the state is free to set its own rules regarding enlistment. It can determine when it will draft everyone and whom it will exempt from conscription based on its priorities and the values it upholds, all in agreement with its citizens. This is the point we will explore in the next section.

 

Considerations of the Modern State

The modern state predates the democratic state, and it has significant differences from the monarchical state, particularly in the distinction between subjects of the king and citizens of the state. In a monarchical regime, the king’s role is to fight the wars of the subjects; the laws of kings in the Rambam’s writings are referred to as “the laws of kings and wars.” In contrast, a modern state has a value system concerned with the welfare, education, and rights of its citizens. It operates with an ethical framework that includes a broad array of values, and in the case of the State of Israel, this ethical framework also reflects a national identity.

It is difficult for us, living in modern times, to imagine any other system. Yet, in the medieval period, the state did not take responsibility for the welfare or education of its subjects. Jews cared for the sick in their communities, and Christians did so in monasteries. Religious institutions provided education – Jews in yeshivot and Christians in monasteries – until the establishment of universities (which, even then, were independent institutions). Even the judicial system was largely independent in its functioning. It was only toward the beginning of the modern era that the state took on the responsibility for the welfare, education, and freedom of its citizens. This is the alliance of the modern state, even before it became democratic, with its people. The Talmudic sources did not recognize this governmental framework, and quoting them in this context is anachronistic. Talmudic sources focus on the narrow role of the state – ensuring the physical safety of its citizens. In contrast, the modern state cares for a much broader array of its citizens’ needs.

In a Jewish state, there is no doubt that Torah study should hold a central place. Just as in the Jewish community, where the value of Torah study was weighed against the need for taxation, so too, the state must weigh this value against other values – and for our purposes, against the value of military service. A Jewish state is one that preserves Jewish values, and there is no question that Torah study is one of its most important values. However, granting an automatic exemption to the entire Charedi sector remains a far stretch.

First, there is no justification for an exemption based solely on sector affiliation. A situation in which an entire society is relegated to Torah study alone (as if such a thing were practically possible) and detached from earthly affairs harms not only the defense capabilities of the State of Israel but also, first and foremost, the Charedi community itself. “Educate the child according to his way,” said Shlomo HaMelech: education must be tailored to each person according to his abilities and character. It is important to note that the sages already addressed this issue of focusing solely on Torah study as a way of life and the harm it causes to the broader society. The discussion on balancing the value of military service and Torah study must focus specifically on Torah scholars, those whose skills and character make them suited to a life of study.

How should these matters be weighed up? As explained above, deferring military service for yeshiva students should be examined within the framework of rights and obligations in the modern democratic state, even according to halachic considerations. Just as the laws of neighbors are decided in courts based on the laws enacted in legislatures, both domestically and abroad, so too are conscription laws. It is certainly possible to draw inspiration from the words of the sages. If the sages believed that the value of Torah study should be affirmed within a Jewish community, it is permissible for the religious representatives of a Jewish state to strive for this to be a national value of the State of Israel. This is, indeed, what Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt”l, one of the greatest halachic authorities of recent generations, wrote:

Although military defense is a great matter, the matter of Torah study for those who are engaged in Torah study is even greater, as it is written in Bava Batra 8a: “The entire city is required to protect the walls, even orphans, but Torah scholars do not require protection.” Even the government recognizes this, so that yeshiva students are exempt from army service. Therefore, somebody who desires Torah study and to become great in Torah and fear of Heaven, should study in yeshiva, and this will bring great blessing and protection to the Jewish people. (Igrot Moshe, Yoreh De’ah, Vol. 4, Siman 38).

It is noteworthy that Rabbi Feinstein refers to Torah study as “a great matter,” and he supports this view based on the recognition of the Israeli government. This is not a mandate for study nor an interdiction on enlistment, but rather a matter that deserves respect, contingent upon the agreement of the government.

If the army were to enlist citizens at will, the economy of the state could be negatively affected, and other aspects of its security might suffer

Ultimately, the calculation of policy positions—security-related, medical, or other—is an economic-political balancing act. A good example of this is the national health insurance basket. Each year, the state re-evaluates the health care services covered in the national health insurance basket, and each year, there will be people who will suffer from the fact that certain treatments will not be included. It is impossible to invoke the mitzvah of saving lives and include all treatments in the basket. A government that is willing to pay any price to save every citizen’s life is likely to harm its other goals. Similarly, in the security budget, it is clear that the larger the military budget, the better the tools for protecting citizens. However, increasing the budget comes at the cost of the economy and the country’s survival. The same holds true when it comes to drafting citizens. If the army were to draft citizens at will, the state’s economy might suffer, and other aspects of security could be compromised. Therefore, every government decision requires thorough consideration. No single value outweighs all others, not even the saving of lives. Sources from the Talmud and the halachic authorities can provide inspiration for decision-making, but they do not replace political judgment, which must be made with moral and ethical responsibility.

 

Torah Study as a Civic Value

Studying in a yeshiva while other citizens shed their blood for the defense of the country raises a difficult moral dilemma. Moshe Rabbeinu rebuked the tribes of Gad and Reuven for asking to remain behind from the war: “Moshe said to the children of Gad and the children of Reuven: ‘Shall your brothers go forth to battle, while you will dwell here? Why will you discourage the hearts of the Children of Israel from crossing into the land which Hashem has given them?’” (Bamidbar 32:6-7). Likewise, the prophet Devorah rebuked the tribe of Reuven: “Why did you sit among the sheepfolds, to hear the whistling of the flocks? The divisions of Reuben have great searchings of heart” (Shoftim 5:16).

Many today avoid enlistment even when Torah study is not their profession, and the reason is simple: because they can. Laws that allow certain groups to avoid civic duties are always a gateway for corruption.

Military service is not something that everybody desires, and if there is a way to avoid it, many will take advantage of it and even find ways to justify it. The current situation, where the majority of Charedi youth avoid enlistment, did not exist in the early decades of the state. Moreover, many today avoid enlistment even when Torah study is not their profession, simply because they can. Laws that allow different groups to be exempt from civic duties are always susceptible to abuse, and therefore, tax authorities are reluctant to create exemptions. Any exemption is accompanied by enforcement measures to prevent misuse, but enforcement is never perfect.

I would like to focus on another issue that affects the legitimacy of the exemption as a whole. The justification for an exemption from military service on the basis of moral or ideological reasons depends on a deep ethical framework of responsibility to the state and its citizens. That is, if the value of Torah study grants an exemption from military service for yeshiva students, it must be considered a “national value” and, within the framework of the State of Israel, a “civic value.” Military service is a civic duty, and an exemption from it must be balanced by fulfilling another civic duty. It is not possible to grant an exemption from one civic duty for an individual activity, even if it is a noble value.

Herein lies one of the major problems. Education in civic responsibility is not among the values that the Charedi educational system emphasizes.[1] Unfortunately, the fact that so few were willing to enlist during wartime casts a heavy shadow on the legitimacy of the Torah study exemption. Harsh statements during wartime and the unwillingness to instruct boys to enlist, even those who do not study Torah, indicate that the value of Torah study has become disconnected from any other value – disconnected from the people. The focus on Torah study, Yiras Shamayim, and the observance of mitzvos alone has led to a lax attitude towards other values. In such a case, the sages say: “Anyone who says, ‘I have only Torah’ – he lacks even Torah” (Yerushalmi Yevamos 1:2).

This phenomenon has a long history that repeatedly required correction. Thus, Rabbi Yohanan responded to Rabbi Elazar ben Padda:

Rabbi Elazar said: “Amei Ha’aretz (ignoramuses) do not live, as it is written: ‘The dead shall not live.’ […] Rabbi Yohanan replied to him: “God is not content when you say this.

The harsh consequence of Torah study disconnected from responsibility for the broader Jewish public is the degradation of Torah study itself. This is why there is an increasing call today to prevent even true Torah scholars from solely engaging in Torah study

It is forbidden to disconnect from the people. This was the argument of the founders of the Chassidic movement,[2] and it was the argument of Rabbi Israel Salanter.[3] Torah words require reinforcement, and the reinforcement is not simply to strengthen our study of Torah but to ensure that we engage in study that leads to action. The harsh consequence of Torah study when disconnected from responsibility for the broader Jewish public is the degradation of Torah study itself. This is why there is an increasing call today to prevent even true Torah scholars from solely engaging in Torah study. When it is observed that many Torah scholars do not participate in the community’s suffering, do not visit the sick or attend funerals of fallen soldiers, and do not even pray for the well-being of IDF soldiers, not only does it increase anger toward those who do not study and do not serve, but it also leads to a rejection of the idea of torato umanuto (Torah is his profession). How can we not understand the anger of those who shed their blood and see others completely disavowing their suffering?

 

Conclusion

When we deal with public affairs, we must consider the values of Torah study and saving lives through compromise between them rather than in absolute and binary terms. Both Torah study and saving lives must coexist in a balanced and layered manner. On the one hand, a state that allows anyone who wishes to take refuge in the sanctified halls of yeshivas and evade military service will not be able to survive. The number of Charedi Jews continues to grow, and numbers make a difference. On the other hand, a state that does not allow a certain proportion of Torah students to study without interference and places Torah on the periphery will harm its very essence. It is fitting that most young people should enlist, whether for full service or through the Hesder yeshiva program, in order to fulfill the duty of striving to protect the Jewish people dwelling in Zion. Alongside them, a minority who are suited to Torah study should be allowed to study uninterrupted. I would also add that it is worth considering whether all citizens should be trained in basic firearm usage, which would allow them, if necessary, to defend the Jewish people. In this way, Torah students would understand that their study is part of a full partnership in the suffering of the public, and all would be responsible for each other. See also Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya, Iggeret HaKodesh Chapter 5.

---

[1] See my son Eli Lifschitz’s article: https://iyun.org.il/sedersheni/integration-without-responsibility/.

[2] See Rabbi Yehuda Leib Alter of Ger, in Sefat Emet, Bamidbar, Parashat Shelach, 5657 (1897):
“But Torah study must lead to action, which is called ‘the good end’ – as it was with the generation of the wilderness, where receiving the Torah was a preparation for entering the Land of Israel, which is an act of doing, as mentioned above. And as it is written, ‘Anyone who says, ‘I have only Torah’ – he even has no Torah.’ The spies erred in this, and therefore it is written about Caleb, ‘He followed Me fully.’ This means that his service was complete, all the way through to the end, which is action. But the spies did not complete the end; they only desired the beginning, which is Torah alone.”

[3] See Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, Seridei Eish, Vol. 4 (Jerusalem: Rabbi Kook Institute, 1977), p. 254.