First of all, I didn't realize it but last post was our 100th post!
I don't want to get into the politics behind allowing the ultra-orthodox community in Israel to avoid army service. The issue deserves a better post than I can give it now. Until then check out this interesting article about the issue in the Jerusalem Post this past spring.
Leaving aside the issues on the ground, I was blown away by a Midrash on today's daf that seems to give precedent for allowing a subset of Yeshivah boys an exemption from the army.
According to the Talmud text, the line in Song of Songs, "My vineyard is before me. One thousand are for you, Shlomo (King Solomon), and two hundred are for those who guard [the vinyard's] fruits." (Song of Songs 8:12) actually deals with conscription in the army. The Talmud text goes on to elaborate on the meaning of this line. Taking Rashi's commentary, as well as a few lines from the 16th centurty commentator the Maharsha (Samuel Eidels), one can make the argument that the text is referring to the ratio of conscription: for every 1000 men that Solomon could enlist in his army, he had to leave 1/5th (200 men) behind to study Torah. Eidels's argument hangs on the idea that the Jewish people are referred as God's vineyard in Isaiah (5:7). Therefore, when the text says that one should "guard the vineyard" they mean they should look out for the welfare of the Jewish people. As it was rabbis who were writing this text, it makea sense that they believe that the highest form of protect of the Jewish people is the protection of the ideas and ideals that have sustained the Jewish people since Sinai (i.e. the Torah).
I was blown away by this text and spent some time looking on Google to find out of this text was ever used in defense of the huge numbers of ultra-Jews avoiding army service. I didn't find anything.
If anyone can help me, I'd be very interested to know if this text ever entered the public debate on topic and if so who brought it out?
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Marc, congratulations on the 100th post.
ReplyDeleteI believe that their arguments do not come from this place, and that they are twofold.
1. The King Shlomo's ratio is about a voluntary war, but one could say that the defense of Israel today is a war of a mitzvah. Nevertheless, one should not join a bad person even for a mitzvah;
2. Study of the Torah is the best defense anyway, those who study Torah are called defenders, and those who are in the army are called destroyers.
Mark, your second point is very interesting. Do you have a citation? I'm teaching a class on war next year and that text could be very helpful.
ReplyDeleteMarc, you mean, this,
ReplyDelete2. Study of the Torah is the best defense anyway, those who study Torah are called defenders, and those who are in the army are called destroyers.
Let me look. I will find it.
Can you set up this blog in such a way that I get notifications when my comments are answered? Otherwise I need to check - I could have seen your answer two days ago!
Or, just inform me on my LJ profile
ReplyDeleteThe quote is below. By the way, it has been popularized by the Neturei Karta, but we are interested in the arguments, not politics.
ReplyDelete"Guardians of the City" comes from the gemara of the Jerusalem Talmud, Hagigah, 76c. There it is related that Rabbi Judah HaNasi sent two rabbis on a tour of inspection:
In one town they asked to see the "guardians of the city" and the city guard was paraded before them. They said that these were not the guardians of the city but its destroyers, which prompted the citizens to ask who, then, could be considered the guardians. The rabbis answered, "The scribes and the scholars," referring them to Tehillim (Psalms) Chapter 127.
The fact that "One should not join a bad person even for a mitzvah" is also not obvious, cannot be derived through logic, but comes from the Zohar.