So Even If It’s Not a Milchemes Mitzvah, Is There a Halachic Obligation to Fight in the Wars?

The Documented Answer From the Gedolei HaPoskim Is No — And They Have Said So in Letters, Seforim, and as Recently as November 2024

In our previous article, we set out the documented Charedi halachic position that the wars conducted by the State of Israel do not meet the formal halachic conditions of a milchemes mitzvah. The natural follow-up question — pressed in every Knesset debate, in every Religious Zionist response, in every secular editorial demanding Charedi enlistment — is: fine, even if it isn't technically milchemes mitzvah, is there still a halachic obligation to fight?

The gedolei haposkim of the past century answered this question explicitly. They did not equivocate. The answer they reached, drawn from the Rambam, the Shulchan Aruch, the Talmud, and seventy-eight years of accumulated halachic responsa, is no — and the reasons go deeper than the simple absence of a milchemes mitzvah designation. They go to the heart of what the Torah obligates a Jew to do, and what it forbids him to risk.

We set out the case below.

I. Sakanas Nefashos: The Halacha Forbids Entering Unjustified Danger

The first and most basic halachic principle: a Jew is forbidden to place himself in mortal danger without a Torah-mandated justification.

The Rambam codifies this in Hilchos Rotzeach U'Shmiras Nefesh, perek 11, halacha 4–5:

"It is a positive commandment to remove every stumbling block which may cause loss of life... and to be exceedingly cautious regarding it... and concerning every danger that endangers life, there is a positive commandment to remove it and to guard against it and to be exceedingly careful, as it is written: 'Take heed and guard your soul.' (Devarim 4:9)"

The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 426 and Yoreh Deah 116) follows this directly. Self-endangerment is not a neutral act. It is forbidden absent halachic justification.

The implications for warfare are clear. A war that meets the formal conditions of milchemes mitzvah generates exactly such a halachic justification — the Torah itself overrides the prohibition of self-endangerment in the categories the Rambam specifies (Hilchos Melachim 5:1). A war that does not meet those conditions does not generate that override. The default principle of sakanas nefashos remains in force. Entering combat in such a war is not just unrequired — it is potentially a violation of the Torah's positive command to guard one's life.

The Chasam Sofer is documented in Shu"t Chasam Sofer, Choshen Mishpat siman 44 (in the discussion of dina d'malchusa and the king's wars), as treating the question of military endangerment as halachically serious — and his student the Imrei Eish (siman 52) explicitly addressed the case of Jews drafted into nineteenth-century European armies and the halachic permissibility of paying substitutes. The principle is old, established, and uncontested across the poskim: one does not endanger one's life without halachic justification.

II. The Torah's Own Prescription: Torah Magna U'Matzla

The Talmud in Sotah 21a–b establishes a halachic principle that the Charedi world has stood on for two thousand years: Torah study itself is a form of national protection.

"Rav Yosef said: A mitzvah, while one is engaged in it, protects and saves [from punishment]; while one is not engaged in it, protects but does not save. Torah, both while one is engaged in it and while one is not, protects and saves." (Sotah 21a)

This is not metaphor. The Gemara is laying out a halachic framework: Torah operates as an active mechanism of protection for Klal Yisrael, distinct from any other mitzvah. The Rambam takes this principle and codifies its institutional implication in Hilchos Shemittah V'Yovel 13:13:

"Why did Levi not merit a portion in the inheritance of the Land of Israel and its spoils with his brothers? Because he was set apart to serve Hashem, to teach His ways and His righteous laws to the multitudes... And not Levi alone, but every single individual whose spirit moves him and whose intelligence gives him to set himself apart to stand before Hashem, to serve Him and minister to Him and to know Hashem... behold, this person has been consecrated as the Holy of Holies, and Hashem will be his portion and his inheritance forever and ever."

The Rambam — in his halachic code, not in a homily — establishes that the category of those whose primary avodah is Torah is structurally different from the rest of Klal Yisrael, with structurally different obligations regarding material endeavors and physical participation in the nation's economic and military life.

The Charedi gedolim, following this exact framework, have ruled that bnei yeshiva whose Torah is their sole occupation fulfill their obligation to Klal Yisrael through that Torah. The IDF cannot conscript out of the beis medrash someone whose halachic role is precisely to be there.

III. The Chazon Ish Said It Directly to Ben-Gurion

The most famous and best-documented articulation came in the meeting of October 20, 1952, with Yitzchak Navon as the only third-party witness:

Ben-Gurion: And these young men sitting at the borders, who protect you — is that not a mitzvah?

The Chazon Ish: In the merit of our Torah study, they live, work, and are protected.

Ben-Gurion: But if these young people didn't protect you, the enemies would slaughter you!

The Chazon Ish: On the contrary. In the merit of our Torah study, they are safe.

Ben-Gurion: Protection of life is also a mitzvah! If nobody is alive, who will learn the Torah?

The Chazon Ish: Torah is the tree of life, the elixir of life.

The Chazon Ish in Kovetz Igros Vol. 1, p. 97, and in his halachic writings on Hilchos Eiruvin (Orach Chaim 114), elaborated the same framework: bnei Torah whose Torah is their sole occupation are the active mechanism of national protection. They are not draft-evaders. They are doing the job the Torah assigns them.

IV. The Documented Position of the Brisker Rav

The Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik zt"l) is documented in Uvdos V'Hanhagos L'Beis Brisk Vol. 2, siman 140, and Peninei Rabbeinu HaGriz p. 148, as holding that the establishment of the State raised serious halachic problems rooted in the shalosh shevuos (Kesuvos 111a), and that yeshiva students should not be drafted from their learning into the IDF's framework. His position was uncompromising and is well-recorded by his talmidim.

The Brisker Rav's halachic logic was straightforward: an institution whose foundational establishment carries halachic problems cannot generate halachic obligations to participate in its military activities. The act of saving Jewish life remains pikuach nefesh and binding on every Jew. But the State's framework cannot serve as the vehicle of national religious obligation when its own foundation is halachically problematic.

V. Rav Shach's Nuanced Position — and Why It Confirms the Conclusion

Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt"l, Rosh Yeshiva of Ponevezh and the recognized leader of Lithuanian Charedi Jewry for thirty years, wrote in 1980 on behalf of Vaad Hayeshivos (the formal liaison body between the army and the yeshiva system) — in a letter quoted across Charedi and academic sources — that:

"The right given to yeshiva students of deferring their enlistment into the army is contingent on his study being his sole occupation."

This is a critical and honest distinction. Rav Shach did not hold that no Jew should ever enlist. He held that the exemption applies specifically to those whose Torah is their sole occupation — Toraso Umanuso. For someone in that category, the answer to "is there an obligation to fight" is unambiguously no. His Torah is his obligation, and the State has no halachic authority to remove him from it.

This position is preserved across Rav Shach's published Michtavim u'Maamarim and is the foundation of the Charedi Toraso Umanuso framework that has governed yeshiva exemption for forty-six years.

VI. The Steipler Gaon: When the Framework Itself Causes Spiritual Damage

Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky zt"l, the Steipler Gaon — who himself served in the Russian army during World War I and personally experienced the spiritual cost of military service — addressed these questions throughout Krayna D'Igrasa (the published collection of his letters and essays) and in the recorded conversations preserved in Orchos Rabbeinu.

The Steipler's letters consistently warn that even where physical danger is bearable, spiritual danger is the deeper concern. He drew on his own experience: he served in the Russian army and kept Shabbos and kashrus through extraordinary mesirus nefesh, but he saw firsthand what the military environment does to ordinary religious soldiers without that level of yiras Shamayim. Krayna D'Igrasa contains his explicit warnings — to talmidim, to families, to communal askanim — that placing a young Jew under military authority without the protective framework of full-time Torah and a chevra of bnei Torah is a halachic risk that the Torah does not require him to take.

VII. Rav Elchonon Wasserman Hy"d on the Underlying Project

Rav Elchonon Wasserman Hy"d, talmid muvhak of the Chofetz Chaim and Rosh Yeshiva of Baranovitch, addressed the foundational question in his published Kovetz Maamarim and Ikvesa D'Meshicha. His analysis is structural: Zionism, as an ideological movement, treats secular Jewish nationalism as a substitute for Torah-defined Jewish peoplehood. A military project conducted as the expression of that ideology cannot generate Torah obligations on Jews who reject the underlying ideology — because the obligations would, by their very structure, be obligations to participate in something the Torah itself rejects.

This is published, primary-source halachic and hashkafic analysis. Rav Elchonon was murdered in 1941 and could not have anticipated October 7th. But his framework — that Torah Jews are not obligated to participate in military projects whose foundational premises violate Torah — has been consistently applied by every gadol who came after him.

VIII. The Position of the Contemporary Roshei Yeshiva: November 2024

The most recent authoritative articulation came at an emergency gathering of dozens of Lithuanian Charedi yeshiva deans, held in late 2024. The gathering was convened to address the post-October 7 pressure on Charedim to enlist in IDF "Charedi tracks" supposedly tailored to religious observance.

The assembled Roshei Yeshiva issued a sharply-worded letter opposing enlistment even in these tailored frameworks, on the explicit grounds that — quoting from the letter — "these arrangements regrettably do not endure over time despite promises and commitments." In other words: the spiritual safety the IDF promises religious soldiers is not actually delivered, and the gedolim have evidence accumulated over decades that it cannot be delivered within the IDF's institutional structure.

Rabbi Dov Lando shlita, Rosh Yeshiva of Slabodka and one of the leading poskim of the Lithuanian Charedi world, was quoted in the letter:

"Anyone who, G-d forbid, joins these tracks or similar, should know that beyond the personal tragedy that he brings upon himself and his household, others may, G-d forbid, be drawn after him, and his sin would be great to bear."

This is a sourced, contemporary, named-gadol statement — published in Israel National News and other media — issued specifically in response to the current war and the current pressure to draft Charedim. The position of the contemporary gedolim is identical to the position of the Chazon Ish, the Brisker Rav, Rav Shach, and the Steipler. The seforim are still on the shelf. The Roshei Yeshiva are still ruling. The position has not changed.

IX. What This Means in Practice

Read together, the documented halachic record yields a clear answer to the question.

For a yeshiva student whose Torah is his sole occupation: there is no halachic obligation to fight in the State's wars. His Torah is his contribution. The Chazon Ish, Rav Shach, the Steipler, the Brisker Rav, and the contemporary Roshei Yeshiva all rule this explicitly. The principle of Toraso Umanuso governs the question entirely.

For a Jew not engaged in serious full-time learning: the picture is more complex. Rav Shach's 1980 letter explicitly ties the exemption to full-time Torah study, implying that those outside that category may have different obligations. But the Charedi gedolim — including Rav Shach himself in his other published writings — have ruled that even for these individuals, the IDF's institutional framework is not the avenue through which any obligation to defend Klal Yisrael is properly discharged. The chillul Shabbos that becomes routine through expansive "operational necessity" exceptions, the mixed-gender environments that halacha forbids, the pressure to participate in ceremonies that violate halacha — these are structural features of the IDF, not bugs. A Jew with yiras Shamayim cannot enter that framework without serial halachic compromise. The gedolim have therefore consistently directed Charedim outside the framework toward parnasa, communal service, and mishmar ezrachi arrangements that protect Jewish life without entering the institutional structure that systematically erodes Yiddishkeit.

For pikuach nefesh in immediate emergencies: every Jew is obligated, always. If a terrorist breaks into a building, every Jew in that building is obligated to act to save Jewish life. This obligation is universal and unconditional, and the Charedi world has never disputed it. Mishmar ezrachi groups operate in Bnei Brak, Beitar, Elad, Modiin Illit, Kiryat Sefer, and across the country, often working in coordination with security forces. Bochurim daven by the bedside of the wounded. Hatzalah and Zaka run toward every battlefield. Defense of Jewish life is not the question. The question is whether the State's military framework, in its current secular form, generates the formal halachic obligations its supporters claim.

The documented answer is that it does not.

X. The Conclusion the Gedolim Reached

When Religious Zionist poskim or secular politicians invoke "milchemes mitzvah" — or its softer cousin, "even if it's not technically milchemes mitzvah, every Jew should still serve" — they are advancing an argument that the gedolei haposkim of the past century have examined in detail and rejected.

The seforim are still on the shelf. Krayna D'Igrasa, Kovetz Igros, Uvdos V'Hanhagos L'Beis Brisk, Peninei Rabbeinu HaGriz, Michtavim u'Maamarim, Vayoel Moshe, Kovetz Maamarim, Ikvesa D'Meshicha — every one of these is a real, locatable, citable sefer that any reader can open and verify. The position is not new and not invented. It is the documented Charedi halachic mesorah, transmitted in writing across four generations, confirmed by the contemporary gedolim as recently as the November 2024 letter.

The Torah does not obligate a Jew to enter unjustified danger. The Torah does not obligate a Jew to subordinate his halachic life to a secular military framework that systematically erodes it. The Torah obligates a Jew to learn Torah, to defend Jewish life when immediate danger requires it, to live as a kadosh in a world that pressures him otherwise — and to trust that the Ribbono Shel Olam, who promised that Torah magna u'matzla, has not changed His promise because the Knesset would prefer otherwise.

This is the answer the gedolim gave. The question has been asked, and asked, and asked. The answer remains the same. Bimheirah b'yameinu, when the Beis HaMikdash is rebuilt, when the Sanhedrin returns, when the conditions for a true milchemes mitzvah are restored — the question will resolve itself. Until then, the Torah world continues its actual avodah: learning, davening, raising Jewish families, and sustaining Klal Yisrael through the means Hashem actually gave us.

Sources

Primary halachic sources

• Rambam, Hilchos Rotzeach U'Shmiras Nefesh, perek 11, halachos 4–5 — the prohibition of self-endangerment
• Rambam, Hilchos Talmud Torah, perek 3 — the supreme value of Torah study
• Rambam, Hilchos Shemittah V'Yovel 13:13 — the structural category of Levi'im and those consecrated kodesh kodashim
• Rambam, Hilchos Melachim u'Milchamos 5:1–2 — categories of milchemes mitzvah and milchemes reshus
• Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 426 — the prohibition of self-endangerment
• Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 116 — sakanos
• Talmud Bavli, Sotah 21a–b — Torah magna u'matzla
• Talmud Bavli, Kesuvos 111a — the shalosh shevuos

The documented Charedi position

• Vayoel Moshe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum (Satmar Rav), Maamar Shalosh Shevuos (Brooklyn, 1959/1961)
• Kovetz Igros, Chazon Ish, Vol. 1, p. 97
• Chazon Ish, Orach Chaim, Hilchos Eiruvin, siman 114
• Uvdos V'Hanhagos L'Beis Brisk, Vol. 2, siman 140 — the Brisker Rav (Rav Yitzchok Zev Soloveitchik zt"l)
• Peninei Rabbeinu HaGriz, p. 148 — additional Brisker Rav material
• Kovetz Maamarim and Ikvesa D'Meshicha, Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman Hy"d
• Michtavim u'Maamarim, Rabbi Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt"l, Vol. 1
• Krayna D'Igrasa, Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky zt"l (the Steipler Gaon)
• Orchos Rabbeinu, recorded teachings of the Steipler Gaon

The Chazon Ish – Ben-Gurion meeting (October 20, 1952)

• Yitzchak Navon's recorded account, published in his memoirs
• World Mizrachi, "The Chazon Ish, Ben-Gurion and Rav Tzvi Yehudah" (March 2023)
• Yeshiva World News, "70 Yrs Ago Today: What Happened At The Historic Meeting Of The Chazon Ish And Ben-Gurion?" (October 2022)
• Jewish Action, "Great Minds of the 20th Century" (Rabbi Aharon Feldman) — citing MK Shlomo Lorincz, Digleinu Vol. 2 (110), Marcheshvan 5718

Rav Shach's 1980 Vaad Hayeshivos letter

• Tzarich Iyun (iyun.org.il), "Charedi Army Service: A Matter of Jewish Belonging" (June 2025) — quoting Rav Shach's letter on behalf of Vaad Hayeshivos

The November 2024 emergency gathering of Lithuanian Charedi yeshiva deans

• Israel National News, "Haredi leaders warn against Haredi IDF service tracks" — Rabbi Dov Lando shlita's letter and quote on the spiritual danger of even tailored frameworks