Sign in Subscribe

Are the Wars the State of Israel Fights Today Halachically Considered a Milchemes Mitzvah?

• 19 min read
Are the Wars the State of Israel Fights Today Halachically Considered a Milchemes Mitzvah?

In the Torah, war is a halachic category, not a nationalistic one: a milchemes mitzvah of obligation, and a milchemes reshus of discretion that requires a king, the Sanhedrin, and the Urim v'Tumim. Define the categories precisely and the contemporary debate looks very different from the slogans. The defense of Jewish life is real and binding — but it is the mitzvah of pikuach nefesh, which is not the same as the formal designation of milchemes mitzvah that the Religious Zionist world invokes to compel bnei Torah, override Shabbos, and clothe a secular state in the authority of a Jewish king. The Charedi position is sharper than its critics pretend: "all go out" removes the exemptions without mandating universal mobilization regardless of need, and a milchemes mitzvah that binds the Torah world is the Gedolim's to declare alone. They have not declared it — and so these wars cannot be called a milchemes mitzvah in the formal, binding sense that is claimed for them. The defense of life is pikuach nefesh; the designation marshaled to empty the batei medrash is something no one has the authority to confer.

In the Torah, the decision to go to war is not a matter of nationalism, politics, or even raw necessity alone. It is a halachic category — defined, conditioned, and bounded by Chazal and the Rishonim. The Rambam, in Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos, lays out the two fundamental types: milchemes mitzvah, a war that is a Torah obligation, and milchemes reshus, a discretionary war permitted only under strict conditions.

Understanding these categories precisely is not an academic exercise. The entire contemporary debate over whether Torah Jews are obligated to serve in the army turns on them — and an honest account of the halacha is at once more demanding and more liberating than the slogans heard on either side. We begin with the definitions, and then turn, carefully, to how they bear on the wars of our own day.

I. Milchemes Mitzvah — A War of Obligation

A milchemes mitzvah is a war that constitutes a Torah obligation. The Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 5:1) enumerates three:

First, the war of Yehoshua to conquer Eretz Yisrael from the seven nations — the original, Divinely commanded conquest of the Land. Second, the war against Amalek — the standing command to blot out the memory of Amalek (Shemos 17; Devarim 25). These two are reflected in the Gemara's teaching that three mitzvos were commanded to Israel upon entering the Land: to appoint a king, to wipe out Amalek, and to build the Beis HaMikdash (Sanhedrin 20b). And third — the category most relevant to every later generation — "ezras Yisrael miyad tzar shebaa aleihem," assisting Israel against an enemy that has come upon them: a war of defense. In the Rambam's words, a war fought to save the Jewish people from an enemy that attacks them is a milchemes mitzvah.

A crucial point about this category is frequently misunderstood. A milchemes mitzvah does not require the approval of the Sanhedrin, nor a king's special authorization, nor the Urim v'Tumim. As the Rambam makes clear, the king goes out to a milchemes mitzvah on his own authority — indeed he is obligated to fight such wars first, before any other. The stringent conditions that many associate with "war in halacha" belong, as we will now see, specifically to the other category — the milchemes reshus — and it is a mistake to import them into the law of obligatory war.

II. Milchemes Reshus — A Discretionary War

A milchemes reshus is a war that is not a Torah obligation but is permitted under defined circumstances — classically, a war to expand the nation's borders or to enhance the standing of its king. The Rambam's example is the wars King David waged to extend his dominion (as opposed to the conquest of the Land itself, which was a mitzvah).

Precisely because it is discretionary rather than commanded, a milchemes reshus is hedged with strict conditions (Hilchos Melachim 5:2). It may be declared only by a king; it requires the approval of the Sanhedrin of seventy-one; and it requires the guidance of the Urim v'Tumim, the Divine response conveyed through the Kohen Gadol's breastplate. Without all three — king, Sanhedrin, and Urim v'Tumim — there can be no milchemes reshus at all. And since none of these institutions exists today, a milchemes reshus is simply impossible in our time.

This is the distinction to hold onto: the conditions of king, Sanhedrin, and Urim v'Tumim bound the discretionary war — not the obligatory one. A defensive milchemes mitzvah, by contrast, stands on its own, without need of any of them.

III. Who Is Obligated — and Why It Matters

There is a second great difference between the two categories, and it bears directly on the debate of our day: who must go out to fight.

The Mishnah (Sotah 43a) lists those sent home from the army before battle — the man who has built a new house, planted a vineyard, or betrothed a wife, and the one who is fearful. But the Mishnah sharply limits these exemptions (Sotah 44b): they apply only to a milchemes reshus. In a milchemes mitzvah, by contrast, "all go out — even a groom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy." The Rambam codifies this (Hilchos Melachim 7:4): in an obligatory war, the exemptions fall away and the obligation is universal.

This is where the contemporary argument is aimed, so it must be answered with precision. The abstract category is not in dispute: a war to defend Jewish lives from those who attack them is, in principle, a milchemes mitzvah — that is simply the Rambam's third case. But it is a long way from that abstract principle to the sweeping claim that these particular wars, fought by this particular state, halachically obligate every yeshiva student to present himself at an army base. That claim packs in several further steps — that the obligation is universal regardless of need, that pikuach nefesh and the formal category are one thing, that someone has the authority to declare it binding, and that a war run outside the Torah can compel the Torah world — and not one of those steps is the simple corollary of "all go out" that it is made out to be. We take them in turn.

IV. "All Go Out" Removes the Exemptions — but the Obligation Follows the Need

Does the rule of Sotah 44b settle the matter — does "all go out, even a groom from his chamber" prove that every yeshiva student must be drafted in every modern conflict? It does not, and seeing why requires reading the halacha precisely rather than as a slogan.

Consider what "hakol yotzin" actually does. It removes the ordinary exemptions — the new homeowner, the one who planted a vineyard, the newly betrothed, even the fearful — who in a discretionary war would be sent home. In a milchemes mitzvah, those deferments fall away. But removing the exemptions is not the same as decreeing that every single Jew must physically leave his home and take up a weapon regardless of whether he is needed. The purpose of a war is to be fought and won; the obligation it generates is the obligation to ensure that it is fought and won. When the war can be — and is being — prosecuted successfully without mobilizing the entire population, the claim that every individual is nonetheless halachically bound to enlist does not follow from "hakol yotzin" at all.

And here the conduct of the State of Israel itself is the decisive witness. For all that its spokesmen invoke milchemes mitzvah against the yeshivos, the State has never once treated its wars as a "hakol yotzin" of the literal kind — it has not summoned every man and every woman from home to the front. It mobilizes its standing army and calls up reservists according to military need, leaving the great majority of its citizens — men and women, in every profession — at their ordinary lives. By its own conduct, the State concedes that these wars do not require the literal, universal mobilization that "even a chatan from his room and a kallah from her chuppah" describes. One cannot, in the same breath, run the war on the basis of measured military need and invoke the rhetoric of total mobilization solely against the bnei Torah. If "everyone must serve" were meant literally, it would apply to the lawyer, the professor, and the tech worker no less than the yeshiva student — and it manifestly does not, because the war does not require it.

This is why "milchemes mitzvah means everyone must serve" is too blunt to function as a serious halachic argument. The honest question is not whether the exemptions are suspended — in a true milchemes mitzvah they are — but whether this individual is actually needed for a war already being amply manned without him. (Some authorities hold the chiyuv is not strictly contingent on need; but even on that view, the very Gedolim who took milchemes mitzvah most seriously upheld the exemption of the Torah world — which shows the real question was always located elsewhere.)

V. Pikuach Nefesh Is a Mitzvah; Milchemes Mitzvah Is a Category — and They Are Not the Same

Here is a distinction the public debate runs together, and almost everything turns on it. The saving of Jewish life — pikuach nefesh — is a mitzvah. Milchemes mitzvah is a formal halachic category. They are not the same thing, they do not have the same requirements, and they do not have the same scope.

A doctor who saves a Jewish life in a hospital fulfills the mitzvah of hatzalas nefashos; he is not thereby engaged in a milchemes mitzvah. The same is true on the battlefield. An individual soldier who places himself in danger to save Jewish lives performs a genuine — and great — mitzvah of pikuach nefesh; we daven for him, we mourn every loss, we honor his mesirus nefesh without reservation. But the mitzvah he performs in saving life is not, by itself, proof that the war as a whole carries the formal designation of milchemes mitzvah, with everything that designation is made to entail.

This distinction does real work, and nowhere more than on Shabbos. Pikuach nefesh overrides Shabbos directly — because saving a life always overrides Shabbos, whether in a war or in a hospital, and it does not need the war to be labeled a milchemes mitzvah to do so (Yoma 85b; "vachai bahem," Vayikra 18:5). The two are constantly conflated: the Shabbos override that genuine danger to life plainly permits is presented as though it flowed from the war's status as a milchemes mitzvah, and that supposed status is then stretched to cover Shabbos desecration that saves no life at all — administrative routine, operational convenience, political optics. That stretch has no halachic basis. Genuine pikuach nefesh overrides Shabbos, evaluated honestly case by case; the label "milchemes mitzvah" hands no one a blanket license to set Shabbos aside for whatever the system finds convenient. Keeping the two categories apart is not pedantry; it is the difference between halacha and a slogan that borrows halacha's authority.

VI. Who May Declare a Milchemes Mitzvah?

The Charedi world does not deny the abstract category — defending Jews from attackers is the Rambam's own third case. What it says is sharper, and it lands in a different place: that whether these wars, here and now, constitute a milchemes mitzvah that obligates the bnei Torah to leave the beis medrash is not a matter for the State, for journalists, or even for individual rabbanim to declare — it is a matter for the Gedolei Yisrael, and they have not declared it. This is among the gravest determinations in all of halacha — a ruling that would override the learning of Torah and conscript the nation's sons in the name of Heaven. It cannot be proclaimed by a secular government with a direct interest in the outcome; the Knesset is not a Sanhedrin, the cabinet is not a beis din, the chief of staff is not a Torah authority. Nor can it be proclaimed by writers marshaling sources, or by a well-meaning rav speaking to reporters. That authority belongs to the Torah leadership of the generation alone — and the plain fact is that they have not ruled that the present wars obligate bnei Torah to enlist.

This is no evasion. The voices most insistent that these wars are a binding milchemes mitzvah belong overwhelmingly to the Religious Zionist world and to writers outside the batei medrash — and to poskim of an earlier generation whose words are now pressed into a debate they did not live to conduct. Within the Charedi world, the response of its leadership has been consistent and unbroken: that no one may declare a milchemes mitzvah binding upon Klal Yisrael but the Gedolim, and that they have not done so. And even as pure lomdus, the claim that these wars obligate the Torah world is — in the honest words of those who have actually learned the sugya — far from the settled matter its proponents pretend. To wave the phrase as though it were a binding psak upon the yeshivos is not halacha. It is rhetoric wearing the clothes of halacha — and stripped of that borrowed robe, the designation simply has not been made by anyone entitled to make it.

VII. A War Waged and Run Outside the Torah

There is a deeper problem still, and it goes to the very nature of the wars the bnei Torah are told they must join. The State of Israel does not govern by the Torah, and it does not wage or run its wars by the Torah.

Its decisions of war and peace — when to strike and when to hold back, when to escalate and when to restrain, which provocations to make and which to absorb — are made on secular and political grounds: the calculations of politicians, the pressures of world opinion, the ideologies of the hour. They are not submitted to daas Torah, and they are not bound by halacha. And a government that steers the nation's life-and-death affairs without the Torah will, at times, make decisions that themselves bring danger upon the Jews under it — provoking enemies, mishandling threats, or spending Jewish lives for political and diplomatic ends. None of this excuses for an instant those who rise to murder Jews; the guilt for murder rests wholly on the murderer. It is to say something narrower and undeniable: that a state acting outside the Torah does not reliably act, even in war, for the true and Torah-defined safety of its people — and that the army's own life-and-death decisions are shaped by politics and the verdict of the world as much as by any pure calculation of saving life.

And the problem reaches down into the chain of command itself. To place a ben Torah under the operational authority of a command structure that does not regard halacha as binding is to create conflicts he has no power to resolve from below. This is not theoretical. The institutional record shows it: the documented clashes over Shabbos desecration justified by expansive "operational necessity"; the mandated mixed-gender settings in which religious soldiers have been disciplined for adhering to halacha; the litigated crisis over ceremonies that halacha does not permit a religious soldier to sit through. When the rosh yeshiva of a religious-Zionist Hesder yeshiva, Rav Eliezer Melamed, declined to condemn soldiers who walked out of such a ceremony, the army expelled his yeshiva from the Hesder framework (2012) — the army itself deciding which yeshivos are acceptable partners, and stripping the arrangement from a rosh yeshiva who would not bend halacha to the chief of staff's concerns. That is not a chain of command capable of generating a Torah-authorized milchemes mitzvah; it is one that, by its own conduct, subordinates halacha to secular priorities — and a ben Torah is being asked to surrender his body and his soul to exactly that.

VIII. The Chazon Ish to Ben-Gurion

The Charedi position on all of this was stated, with perfect clarity, in the most famous meeting in modern Charedi-State history: the Chazon Ish and David Ben-Gurion, in the Chazon Ish's apartment in Bnei Brak, in October 1952.

When Ben-Gurion pressed the point — that the young men at the borders protect the Torah world, and is that not itself a mitzvah, and if no one is alive who will learn Torah — the Chazon Ish answered that it is in the merit of the Torah being learned that Klal Yisrael lives and is protected, calling the Torah the tree of life. The substance is documented and has been recounted by those who recorded the meeting: the gadol hador telling the Prime Minister, to his face, that the Charedi world does not accept the framing in which the State's military activity is the central religious obligation of the Jewish people — that the soldiers are protected by the Torah of the bnei yeshiva, and not the reverse. (The exchange is given here as the documented substance of the meeting rather than as a verbatim transcript.) This was the settled position of the Torah leadership, and the Gedolim who followed — the Brisker Rav, Rav Shach, the Steipler, Rav Elyashiv, Rav Chaim Kanievsky — never reversed it.

IX. What of the State's Founding?

One further argument is often folded into this discussion, and honesty requires placing it precisely rather than overstating it. Some hold that the State's very establishment was bound up with the shalosh shevuos — the three oaths of Kesuvos 111a, by which Klal Yisrael was sworn not to ascend to Eretz Yisrael "as a wall," by mass force, before the time of Mashiach.

It must be said clearly whose argument this is. The shalosh shevuos as the central halachic objection to the State is, above all, the position of the Satmar Rav in his Vayoel Moshe — the most extensive treatment of the subject — together with Brisk, the Eidah HaChareidis, and others who held with him. It is not accurate to present the oaths as the shared basis of the entire Torah leadership. The Litvish Gedolim opposed Zionism and the secular state with great force, but largely on other grounds — the rejection of the Zionist ideology and its false vision of redemption, and above all the protection of Torah amidst secular governance. The Chazon Ish framed his opposition around guarding Torah, not around expounding the oaths; Rav Shach did not rest his opposition on the oaths directly, but on the rejection of Zionism's ideology and its claim to be the beginning of the redemption. (We treat the oaths in full in our article on the Three Oaths of Kesuvos 111a; the point here is only to attribute the argument honestly.)

And for the present question, the crucial point is this: the case set out above does not depend on the oaths at all. Whether or not one rests on the shalosh shevuos, the defense of Jewish life remains pikuach nefesh; the formal milchemes-mitzvah designation remains the province of the Gedolim, who have not pronounced it; and a war run outside the Torah remains outside the Torah. The Charedi position stands on its own halachic feet without needing to adjudicate the oaths here — and it is the stronger for resting on ground that even those who debate the oaths can examine on its merits.

X. The Questions That Must Then Be Judged on Their Own

Once it is clear that the blunt slogan settles nothing, the genuine questions come into view — and the case of the full-time Torah learner must be judged on its own terms, not swept along by a phrase. Several distinct questions have to be weighed, and none is answered by "hakol yotzin":

First, is the learning of Torah itself part of Klal Yisrael's protection? If, as the tradition teaches, the Torah of the beis medrash is a genuine component of the nation's defense — the spiritual dimension of every Jewish victory, from Moshe's upraised hands while Yehoshua fought Amalek (Shemos 17) onward — then drawing the learners out of the beis medrash, when others amply suffice to manage the fighting, may weaken the nation's protection rather than strengthen it.

Second, what of those not learning full-time? For them the question is real, and its answer is the building of Torah-faithful frameworks — paths to a livelihood and a productive life within kedushah — rather than the army, for the reasons developed in our other articles.

Third, would the service itself create spiritual danger of the kind the Torah world has documented at length — to the individual, and through him to the community? A genuine halachic determination cannot ignore the spiritual cost of the framework into which a young man would be placed.

These are the questions that actually decide the matter — and they are questions of daas Torah, weighed by the Torah leadership, not questions a single phrase can resolve. It is the most telling fact in the entire discussion that even Gedolim who held plainly that the defensive wars are a milchemes mitzvah nonetheless ruled that the core of the Torah world must remain in learning. That, by itself, is decisive proof that the Charedi position was never the claim "it is not a milchemes mitzvah." It was, and is, a claim about how the obligations of the nation are best fulfilled — judged on the questions above, and entrusted to daas Torah.

XI. The Closing Position — Stated Plainly

So — are the wars of the State of Israel a milchemes mitzvah? On the question as it is actually posed — whether these wars carry the formal designation that is invoked to empty the batei medrash, to override Shabbos beyond the saving of life, and to bind the Torah-loyal Jew to the authority of a secular state — the answer of the Torah world is no, and it is said without equivocation.

Let it be stated as plainly as it can be: the battles the State of Israel fights today are not a milchemes mitzvah in the formal, binding sense that is claimed for them. They are waged by a secular government that does not rule by the Torah, under a command that does not answer to halacha, and they have never been declared a milchemes mitzvah by the only authority with the standing to declare one — the Gedolei Yisrael, who have not done so. A designation of that gravity is not the property of the Knesset, the General Staff, the newspapers, or the Religious Zionist beis medrash; it belongs to the Torah leadership of the generation alone, and they have withheld it. To pin the words "milchemes mitzvah" to these wars in order to conscript the bnei Torah is therefore to invoke a status no one has the authority to confer — the term borrowed from the Rambam, stripped of its conditions, and repurposed as an instrument of compulsion.

What remains is real, and we hold it without reservation: the defense of Jewish life is the mitzvah of pikuach nefesh, binding on every Jew, and every soldier who stands in harm's way to shield his people is owed our gratitude, our tefillos, and our tears. That much the Torah world affirms with its whole heart. But pikuach nefesh is not the formal category, and the saving of life confers upon no government the authority of a Jewish king. From the Chazon Ish — who told Ben-Gurion to his face that it is the Torah of the yeshivos that protects the nation — through the Brisker Rav, Rav Shach, the Steipler, Rav Elyashiv, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky, the Torah leadership has stood as one on the conclusion that follows: the bnei Torah remain in the beis medrash, and no secular state may empty it in the name of a milchemes mitzvah it has no standing to declare.

Until the day when shofteinu k'varishonah — our judges as of old — sit again under Torah authority, and the defense of Klal Yisrael is conducted within the framework Hashem prescribed, the Torah world will go on saying what it has said all along, without apology and without equivocation: the defense of life is pikuach nefesh and binds us all — but the wars of this secular state are not the milchemes mitzvah they are proclaimed to be, and the Torah world continues the avodah it was actually given, learning and davening and sustaining Klal Yisrael through the means the Torah itself calls its protection.

May Hashem guard all who stand in the defense of His people, grant wisdom to those who carry the burden of these decisions, restore our judges and counselors as at first, and bring the day when nation shall not lift up sword against nation — bimheirah b'yameinu, amen.

Sources

Milchemes mitzvah — the three categories

  • Rambam, Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos 5:1 — the three obligatory wars: the conquest of Eretz Yisrael (the seven nations), the war against Amalek, and "ezras Yisrael miyad tzar shebaa aleihem," defending Israel from an attacking enemy; and that the king wages a milchemes mitzvah first, on his own authority
  • Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 20b — the three mitzvos upon entering the Land; Shemos 17; Devarim 25:17–19 — the command regarding Amalek
  • Ramban, additions to the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos — the further mitzvah of conquering and settling Eretz Yisrael

Milchemes reshus — and its strict conditions

  • Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 5:2 — the discretionary war, requiring a king, the Sanhedrin of seventy-one, and the Urim v'Tumim — none of which exist today; Sanhedrin 2a; Tosfos there — the Sanhedrin requirement for a discretionary war
  • The frequently misunderstood point that these conditions attach to the discretionary war and not to the obligatory one

Who is obligated, and the obligation-follows-need reading

  • Mishnah, Sotah 43a with 44b — the battlefield exemptions apply to a milchemes reshus, but "in a milchemes mitzvah all go out, even a groom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy"; codified by the Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 7:4
  • The abstract category — that defending Jewish lives is in principle a milchemes mitzvah — is the Rambam's own and undisputed; what does not follow is that these wars obligate every yeshiva student
  • That "hakol yotzin" removes the exemptions without decreeing universal mobilization regardless of need — the obligation tracking the genuine need of the war, as the State's own practice of mobilizing by military need concedes; with the note that some authorities hold the chiyuv is not strictly contingent on need, yet even they upheld the exemption of the Torah world

Pikuach nefesh and milchemes mitzvah are distinct

  • Talmud Bavli, Yoma 85b; Vayikra 18:5 ("vachai bahem") — the saving of life overrides Shabbos and nearly the whole Torah as a mitzvah in its own right, independent of any war's formal status; the conflation of pikuach nefesh with the formal category, used to justify Shabbos overrides that save no life, having no halachic basis

Who may declare a milchemes mitzvah

  • That the Charedi world does not deny the abstract category of defensive milchemes mitzvah; and that the authority to declare these wars binding upon the bnei Torah belongs to the Gedolei Yisrael alone — not the State, the press, or individual rabbanim — and that they have not so ruled; the insistent claim being that of the Religious Zionist world and of writers outside the batei medrash, together with poskim of an earlier generation (e.g., Rav Zevin, Rav Waldenberg, Rav Elyashiv, who passed in 2012), rather than the current Charedi leadership; and that even as lomdus the matter is, in the words of those who have learned the sugya, far from simple (see Israel National News for the Religious Zionist position, and the Charedi world's own discussion noting that the Gedolim have not declared a milchemes mitzvah)

A war waged and run outside the Torah

  • That the State governs its wars by secular and political calculation rather than by the Torah or daas Torah, so that its decisions may themselves bring danger — while the guilt for murder rests wholly on the murderer — and that the army's life-and-death decisions are shaped by politics and world opinion rather than pure pikuach nefesh (developed in this series' articles on the IDF and the State's conduct)
  • The documented institutional record of conflict between army authority and halacha — including the 2012 removal of Rav Eliezer Melamed's Har Bracha yeshiva from the Hesder framework over the women's-singing controversy, and the litigated directives on attendance at such ceremonies (Haaretz; Ynet; Times of Israel) — presented as documented events

The Chazon Ish to Ben-Gurion (October 1952)

  • The documented substance of the meeting — the Chazon Ish's teaching that it is in the merit of Torah study that Klal Yisrael lives and is protected, and his rejection of the framing in which State military activity is the central religious obligation — presented as documented substance recounted by those who recorded the meeting, not a verbatim transcript; the position upheld without reversal by the Brisker Rav, Rav Shach, the Steipler, Rav Elyashiv, and Rav Chaim Kanievsky

The State's founding and the shalosh shevuos

  • Talmud Bavli, Kesuvos 111a — the three oaths; Vayoel Moshe, Maamar Shalosh Shevuos, of the Satmar Rav, as the central exposition of the oaths-based objection — attributed specifically to the Satmar position (with Brisk and the Eidah HaChareidis), and expressly not presented as the shared basis of the Litvish Gedolim, who opposed Zionism on other grounds — the Chazon Ish around the protection of Torah, and Rav Shach around the rejection of Zionist ideology, rather than the oaths (developed in "What Is the Torah's Interpretation of the Three Oaths in Kesuvos 111a?")
  • Note on sourcing: the original draft's joint attribution of an oaths-based conclusion to the Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, the Brisker Rav, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Minchas Yitzchak, and others, with specific page and siman citations, has been corrected and not reproduced, as it overstates a position that was centrally the Satmar Rav's; likewise the original draft's citation of the Chazon Ish (Hilchos Eruvin 114) for Torah-as-national-defense is not reproduced, his position being drawn instead from the documented Ben-Gurion meeting

The questions that must be judged on their own

  • Whether the learning of Torah is itself part of Klal Yisrael's protection (Shemos 17 — Moshe's upraised hands while Yehoshua fought Amalek); what frameworks exist for those not learning full-time; and whether the service would create spiritual danger — the questions of daas Torah that "hakol yotzin" does not resolve (developed in "Do We See the Miracles?", "What Would Happen If No One Fought?", "Why Is Torah Learning the Top Priority?", and "Is It True That the Secular Establishment Wants to Assimilate Charedim Through the IDF Draft?")

The structural relationship to other articles in this series

  • "What Is the Torah's Interpretation of the Three Oaths in Kesuvos 111a?" — the oaths, treated in full
  • "What Would Happen If No One Fought?" and "Do We See the Miracles?" — Torah as the protection of the nation
  • "Why Is Torah Learning the Top Priority?" — the value the allocation of the nation's sons must weigh
  • "Why Does the Charedi World Frown on 'Charedi' IDF Programs?" — the chain-of-command and spiritual-environment concerns
  • "Is It True That the Secular Establishment Wants to Assimilate Charedim Through the IDF Draft?" — the gap between military necessity and the draft's stated aims