Who has to serve in the army?

This question has gone backwards and forwards between the government and the High Court for several years now, and I thought it would be useful to put a halachic perspective in writing.

Firstly, it is important to differentiate between two parts of the question:

1) Who should the army be made up of ideally? (a question that the court should not deal with)

2) After the government have decided the rules (even in an unideal way), how should an individual act?

Without a king

                                                                                                                     

The first question is not an easy one to answer, as we are anyway in an unideal situation. Ideally the king is the one in charge of leading the army and deciding who is fit to serve, and has special powers for doing so.[1]

Nevertheless, it is fair to assume that we can to a great extent model what the army should look like without a king on the ideal situation with a king. The lack of a king raises questions of where the authority lies, but it should be obvious that there needs to be someone who has the power to do what it is necessary to protect the country from its enemies.

Before discussing who if anyone is supposed to have a special exemption from serving, a major decision that needs to be made is who should be included in the draft in the first place. Clearly only a small percentage of the population need be in the army at any given time, and the question is what should decide who these people should be.

One obvious factor involved is physical and mental ability. It goes without saying that we wouldn’t want to draft someone into a job that he is incapable of performing effectively, but to what extent we measure this ability is not clear-cut. One extreme would be to select only the most able-bodied (and able-minded where appropriate) for the army, in order to maximise our ability to defeat enemies.[2] However this extreme is impractical to implement, and how much testing of abilities is something to be decided by those who know best what works.

The current system is that with the exception of those who have various exemptions, all are drafted at the age of eighteen[3] for three years. At twenty-one soldiers are released, but still have to do reserve duty for a few weeks a year depending on what is needed. Those who want to can apply to serve longer or to take a permanent job in the army, and if they are suitable and there is a need they will be accepted.

In principle, this system is based on an estimate of how many soldiers are needed at any one time, and a calculation of how long eighteen-year-olds need to serve to reach these numbers. However, the reality is that there is not really a need for so many soldiers. Only a minority of those drafted are fit to serve as combat soldiers, and the three-year term is necessary to ensure that there are enough of these.[4] This results in a surplus of non-combat soldiers, one drawback of this system.

The obvious alternative is the system used by most countries, where there is no compulsory draft. Ensuring the necessary numbers is achieved by paying a salary high enough to draw people to serve voluntarily, and generally those who do serve will make this their job for life.[5]

The major advantages of this alternative system are the increased professionalism of a permanent army, and the alleviation of the necessity to force people to serve against their will. The major disadvantages are the cost to the taxpayer, and the almost inevitable deprivation of family life from those who choose to be soldiers.[6]

Does the Torah tell us how to decide on this question? R’ Yosef Carmel, Rosh Kolel of Eretz Chemda, suggests that it does. He sees the prohibition on the king from having too many horses as a way of preventing the establishment of a permanent army.[7] However, he also agrees that not all understood this prohibition in the same way.[8] At most this is a favoured direction given by the Torah, and not an obligation. As such, the decision depends on the circumstances and the judgement of those responsible.

Exemptions

The Torah exempts various people from going to war, due to tasks they have started but not yet completed or because of fear.[9] However, these exemptions do not apply to a milchemes mitzvah.[10] I explained the definition of milchemes mitzvah in War and Peace, and it should be clear that virtually all activity of the Israeli army nowadays falls into this category.[11]

There is one group who seem to be exempt even from milchemes mitzvah. The Rambam writes that the tribe of Levi do not wage war, and does not distinguish between milchemes mitzvah and milchemes reshus.[12] This exemption was given in order to allow the levi’im to be free to serve in the Beis Hamikdash, as well as (most of their time) teaching Torah.[13]

Ideally we may have wanted to apply this exemption for levi’im (and kohanim) today as well, although one could argue that it does not apply when there is no Beis Hamikdash. But I doubt discrimination of this kind would be possible under international law, and in any case it would not be practical to suddenly expect all levi’im to spend all their time teaching Torah.

Due to this impracticality, some would like to exempt all those who are learning Torah from serving in the army. This may well be a meritorious idea, but there certainly is no obligation to give such an exemption.[14] Obviously, such an idea would only be praiseworthy if those exempted actually learned seriously.

After the rules have been made

Communities have the right to force individuals to pay their share of the needs of the community.[15] The needs of an entire country are no different, and those chosen by the country to decide on these issues have the authority to do so when there is no conflict with the Torah.[16]

Thus unless going to the army involved some kind of Torah violation, it should be clear that those who illegally dodge the army are in the wrong. On the other hand, those who keep to the rules and use the exemptions given by the government cannot be called transgressors. Often the most productive thing for them to do may be to serve in the army, but this should be decided case by case.[17]

The spiritual dangers of the army

It seems to me that the main reason why certain sections of the community are strongly against serving in the army is the fear of spiritual deterioration. Citing the numbers that have stopped adhering to the Torah in the army, they claim that serving inevitably leads to Torah violations and thus the law of the land is pushed aside.

I do not want to discuss statistics here, or to study what the spiritual effects of the army are in depth. I will just say that the spiritual danger is real, and in fact inevitable in any army. The Torah recognises this, and for the purposes of damage limitation allowed (under certain circumstances and with many restrictions) a soldier to enter a relationship with a non-Jewish woman.[18]

Anyone going to the army should be aware of this, and prepare for the challenge to stay strong both physically and spiritually. For someone who is not legally obliged to serve, this should certainly be one of the factors that affect his decision. Although he should also bear in mind that there has to be an army, and the fact that he will likely do a better job than someone less concerned.

I am saddened to have to write this, but for someone who is legally obligated to serve the claim that this is against the Torah is completely incorrect. When there is no alternative way to carrying out a certain task (even one that is not mitzvah related), a person is never obligated to refrain because of the potential pitfalls on the way.[19]

---

[1] See Rambam Melachim 4:1-2

[2] This is probably what happened in ancient times, as the Rambam writes that the king takes the strong and the men of valour for his chariots and horsemen (Melachim 4:2).

[3] The age of eighteen is chosen for practical reasons, as this is when compulsory education ends. Some claim that according to the Torah the age should be twenty, as indicated many times (e.g. Bamidbar 1:3). While I do agree that there are advantages of drafting at a more mature age, and of having more time to learn before serving in the army, I do not believe that the age of twenty is something that was meant to be set in stone. I am aware of no halachic source that forbids drafting those under twenty.

[4] Some claim that even for this it is unnecessary to have such a long term, but this is a question for the army to decide.

[5] It is also possible to have a combination of the two systems, shortening mandatory service and increasing the salary of those who continue voluntarily.

[6] This also carries with it a lowering of moral standards within the army.

[7] Devarim 17:16

[8] See his shiur on this topic here.

[9] Devarim 20:5-8

[10] Mishna Sotah 44a-b

[11] As they are defending against enemy attacks. Even though the majority of the time the army are training, planning or even sitting idly rather than engaging in actual combat, it should be obvious that no-one can exempt himself because of this. The nature of modern warfare requires an army to be ready at all times, and one who abstains from these parts of army service will not be able to fight at the crucial time.

[12] Shmita v’Yovel 13:12. See also Derech Emunah there, who points out that many levi’im did serve in the army voluntarily.

[13] See Ma'aser- religious income tax

[14] Although the Rambam continues that even non-levi’im who dedicate their life to Torah and don’t worry about earning a living are holy and inherit Olam Haba, he does not say that they are exempt from going to war.

[15] See Bava Basra 7b

[16] See The right to resist the abuse of power where I wrote about the limits of such power. See also Amud Hayemini siman 7 (the whole book is available here) for an extensive proof of the halachic authority of a democratically elected government. There is enough there to prove that the government have the right not just to collect taxes, but also to force people to serve in the army and other positions. Although even if this was not the case, few would be able to pay for another soldier to replace them.

[17] If the person involved is learning Torah seriously, the general rule is that he does not have to stop in order to do a mitzvah that can be done by others (Rambam Talmud Torah 3:4). However, whether this principle should be used by the government to exempt learners from the army against the will of the majority is extremely questionable. It seems logical that relying on others to do the mitzvah only makes sense when the others are willing, and when this is not the case it is hard to define the mitzvah as something that can be done by others.

[18] See Devarim 21:10-14, Kidushin 21b-22a

[19] See Bava Basra 57b. See also Tosfos Avoda Zara 48b (ד"ה אי)