Amid the unstopping clamor over the draft of Charedi yeshiva students, a remarkable declaration of staunch opposition by a group of respected Sephardi Rabbis and Yeshiva heads justifiably captured public attention. The signatories emphasized that not only should full-time Yeshiva students be exempt from any future draft law, but exemptions must include those who are not enrolled in any Yeshiva learning framework. Anyone associated with the Charedi fold, however broadly defined, should keep his distance from the military—a distance that the State of Israel needs to recognize.
The second paragraph of the declaration states:
The great Torah sages, led by Maran Harav Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory (in a letter dated Tishrei 5761), have already instructed that even young men outside of learning frameworks are forbidden to enter the army or any alternative tracks. This Torah shall not be replaced.[1]
These sharp remarks, alongside the designation of the current situation as a “period of religious persecution (shmad),” align with the most extreme factions within Charedi society. By contrast, the official Charedi position leans towards limiting the exemption for serious Torah students. A letter penned by R. Yehoshua Eichenstein and endorsed by R. Moshe Hillel Hirsch explicitly stated that the primary reason for opposing the draft is Torah study and not the threat of secularism:
In contrast to the commonly perceived image of the Sephardi public as a more moderate version of Charedi Judaism, leading rabbis of this sector seem to present a more extremist and vehement position than their Ashkenazi counterparts
Many believe that Yeshiva students do not enlist in the army due to our opposition to the state and the army, or because we do not appreciate the need for active measures (hishtadlus) and military intervention. Indeed, it is true that the army does not operate according to Torah principles; its foundations are heretical and it functions as a melting pot for the youth of Israel, integrating them into secular culture and distancing them from our Heavenly Father. But the truth is that this is not the main issue. The real reason is that Yeshiva students, who are the “tribe of Levi,” are not supposed to go to war, as explicitly stated by the Rambam.
In contrast to the commonly perceived image of the Sephardi public as a more moderate version of Charedi Judaism, leading rabbis of this sector seem to present a more extremist and vehement position than their Ashkenazi counterparts. In this article, I wish to delve into this phenomenon, highlight its roots, and warn against the division it creates among the Sephardi community in particular and within the Jewish people more broadly.
Shas’ Turning Point
The Shas party represents the official electoral voice of the Sephardi observant community. It started out as a party without a distinct Charedi identity, appealing to the general Sephardi public irrespective of its level of religious observance. However, in recent years, it has undergone a deliberate process of drawing closer to its Charedi base, who have always constituted its inner circle. Non-Charedim were floating votes, shifting between different right-wing parties among which Shas was only one option. In recent years, Shas chose to focus on its hardline Charedi core, competing with Degel HaTorah for the hearts of the expanding Sephardi Yeshiva community.
As part of this process, rabbis who were not integral parts of the original leadership acquiesced and aligned themselves with its new direction. This alignment was not spontaneous, of course, but rather the result of a dedicated effort by Aryeh Deri, the founding chairman of Shas, which has met with great success. Illustrations of the shift are the respective constituencies of Rabbis Moshe Zadka and Shlomo Zaphrani.
Moshe Zadka represents a faction that was known as the “Sephardi Edah Chareidis,” closely associated with alumni of Yeshivat Porat Yosef (students of R. Yehuda Zadka and R. Abba Shaul, of blessed memory, in the past). Many traditionally refrained from participating in elections, as common among the Ashkenazi Edah Charedis. In the last election cycle, however, R. Moshe Zadka called his followers (for the first time) to vote for Shas.
In recent years, Shas chose to focus on its hardline Charedi core, competing with Degel HaTorah for the hearts of the expanding Sephardi Yeshiva community
R. Shlomo Zaphrani’s followers are a not dissimilar case in point. Representing a Yeshiva-style community closely aligned with the Lithuanian educational system, these were not natural Shas voters in the movement’s early years when R. Ovadia Yosef was its public face. Over the years, however, a combination of factors led to a growing closeness between these Sephardic factions and the Shas movement. The leadership passed on to R. Shalom Cohen, who served as the Rosh Yeshiva of Porat Yosef Yeshiva was an integral part of the Sephardic Torah world. At the same time, the difficulties that Sephardic families encountered in sending children from Ashkenazi educational institutions pushed them toward Shas.
Aryeh Deri capitalized on this organic development, sidelining the less Yeshiva-oriented Shas representatives (Yigal Guetta would be a prime example) and ensuring a stable base independent of the more traditional (less Charedi) and less loyal Sephardi community. From a political perspective, it seems that this has been an expedient process. However, from a social and broader Jewish perspective, it has created a division between the Sephardi Torah-observant community and the broader, traditional community, as common in the Ashkenazi space. Identification with Shas used to draw traditional Jews closer to Judaism; today, this positive effect has been largely lost.
Moreover, the social divide has a significant impact on the political arena. The gap between the positions of strident Sephardic Rabbis who are today part of the Shas leadership and those represented by prominent Shas figures such as Moshe Arbel and Yaakov Margi is large and widening. While Arbel’s deep sense of civic responsibility has provided a refreshing Charedi political model, his continued presence as part of the Shas political leadership is cast into grave doubt.
The Jerusalem Faction and the Sephardi Council of Sages
The process I have described falls short of explaining the phenomenon noted at the outset of this piece. It explains why Shas has adopted traditional Charedi positions rather than more moderate positions that would attract traditional Sephardi Jews. But how has much of the Rabbinic Council gravitated as far as zealous positions that are more extreme even than mainstream Lithuanian society? What can explain this sharp turn?
Examining the picture more closely, one can discern the influence of the Jerusalem Faction, a radical movement that broke from the Ashkenazi (Lithuanian) mainstream to adopt positions more characteristic of the anti-Zionist Edah Charedis, on Sephardi rabbis. Nowhere has this influence been more prominent than on the draft issue.
The Faction found a fertile ground for growing its following among leaders of the Sephardi community. In contrast to their Lithuanian (Litvak) counterparts, Sephardi rabbis and Roshei Yeshivas never banned the Faction’s delegations, who have tried in every way possible to expand their limited influence in the Charedi space. They located the most sensitive spot amid the Sephardi community—discrimination and exclusion based on ethnic background—and played it to their advantage.
Under these circumstances, the narrative whereby Ashkenazi Charedi leaders are ready to “sacrifice Sephardi yeshiva students” to fill state army quotas (and ensure the continued state support for Yeshiva institutions) was born. The narrative is not without some factual basis; indeed, the percentage of religious dropouts in Sephardi communities is higher than that of the Ashkenazi-Lithuanian community, and the primary impact of future compromises on the conscription issue will be on the dropout population. However, there is no basis for this being an Ashkenazi scheme to send Sephardim to the army. It is, rather, a sad statistical reality.
While in cities, many Sephardi students excel in the Lithuanian yeshiva orbit, their integration into similar institutions in Israel’s periphery has not been a great success
This insight leads me to a somewhat sensitive yet significantly meaningful point. Anyone familiar with the world of Sephardi yeshivas in Israel’s periphery knows that a considerable portion of students struggle to endure the rigorous format of intensive Talmudic study. While in cities, many Sephardi students excel in the Lithuanian yeshiva orbit, their integration into similar institutions in Israel’s periphery has not been a great success. On the other hand, the emotional and cultural affinity of such Yeshiva students to traditional Israeli society makes the option of individualized conscription particularly attractive. The availability of such options thus poses a threat to the very existence of many Sephardi Yeshivas.
At the core of opposition to conscription by Sephardi rabbis lies a genuine concern for the future of these institutions. They understand well what is at stake. As the letter clarifies, enlistment in the army by graduates of the Shas educational system means a detachment from the Sephardi Torah world. Conscription, especially for graduates of Yeshivas in peripheral communities, means a renewed immersion in Israeli society and a return to the more traditional communities to which their parents belonged before Shas established their purpose-made institutions.
The combination of these reasons leads the rabbinic leadership of Sephardi yeshivas to adopt a firmer stance than the Lithuanian leadership and lean towards the Jerusalem Faction. On the one hand, they feel their institutions will be the primary victims of any compromise on conscription, even one that the Ashkenazi leadership might be able to swallow. On the other hand, the Jerusalem Faction invites them to join their strident defensive line. The invitation is hard to resist.
Don’t Give Up on the Jewish People
The concerns of the Sephardi Torah leadership are eminently understandable. These are individuals who have devoted their entire lives to elevating the traditional Sephardi community, bringing them closer to Judaism and turning them into fully Torah-observant Jews. This endeavor has been remarkably successful, and the fact that the Shas party can now rely solely on products of the system is a testament to its achievement. Today, the rabbinic leadership senses that the entire enterprise is jeopardized by the threat of army conscription.
Yet, another perspective deserves to be voiced. For years, the uniqueness of the Shas movement was its appeal to traditional Jews in Israel’s periphery. The institutions Shas leaders are seeking to preserve were developed through a colossal investment on the part of an entire generation of rabbis who rejected the hardline positions of their Ashkenazi counterparts, thus allowing the entry of traditional Sephardi families. Today, however, the Sephardi leadership seems ready to alienate this large and dear community of Jews.
Sephardi communities continue to differ from their Ashkenazi counterparts. They remain far less homogeneous. There is hardly a Sephardi family in which everybody is a hat-wearing, card-carrying Charedi Jew, certainly not in the Lithuanian-yeshiva sense. In every extended family there are many boys who served in the IDF. Some hail from traditional homes, some went through the national-religious educational system, and some espoused a soft Charedi model.
Given this type of community dynamic, many within the Sephardi community expect that times of crisis will elicit a discourse steeped in compassion and solidarity with the pain and anguish that many households in Israel experience. Sephardim, such as members of my extended family, expect a kind of dialogue that looks into the eyes of parents who sent their children to the battlefield—in the Sephardi space, these are our own brothers and close friends—with deep sincerity, sensitivity, and understanding, and with a profound sense of gratitude. There are many issues, some of them quite thorny, that require discussion and resolution, but these feelings will set the tone.
The days when Rav Ovadia Yosef wandered tirelessly from one development town to another are long gone. Like the entire Charedi community, Shas is moving toward abandoning its connection with the broader population
The great innovation of Rav Ovadia Yosef, of blessed memory, was reaching out to the Jewish people in all its diversity. He was among the most influential figures in Israeli society and was greatly beloved notwithstanding taking positions that were not always popular. If there is some desire within us to walk in his footsteps and touch the entire nation, rather than confining ourselves to the fortified walls of our narrow sector, we cannot poke a finger in the eyes of those who give up their lives for the Jewish People. We are all familiar with the significant weight given to Mar’it ayin—how our actions are perceived—in Jewish law, and appearances are at their worst when the discourse is so rigid and harsh.
Over the years, Shas seems to be giving up on its broader reach among Sephardi Jews and its influence within the Israeli public. The days when Rav Ovadia Yosef wandered tirelessly from one development town to another are long gone. Like the entire Charedi community, Shas is moving toward abandoning its connection with the broader population. The project of bringing distant communities closer, which used to be the lion’s share of its activity, is regrettably fading.
Mishandling the hyper-sensitive conscription issue could cement the trend of Sephardi isolationism that will be detrimental to all parties, but most of all to huge numbers of traditional Jews along the Sephardi religious spectrum. The current policy choice of a counterculture movement creates a segregationist image that will further exacerbate the divide between Charedim and Jewish Israel at large. And who knows if the rift can be mended?
In their ideal world, the religious parties would lead Israel into a more Torah-observant future. To get from here to there, they really ought to consider developing leadership and management skills the nation could count on, and demonstrating such skills in areas wher they already have some control. Whining and pontificating about everybody else, and fighting among themselves, won’t do the job. Take the IDF, which has had significant management problems at the top. Which religious politicians could manage it better?