Judge Mintz Queried: Where Is The Torah Prohibition Against Military Service?

JERUSALEM (VINnews) — An expanded panel of nine Israeli Supreme Court justices, headed by Deputy Chief Justice Noam Solberg, held a hearing Tuesday on petitions seeking to strike down Amendment No. 28 to the Security Service Law. The temporary amendment freezes arrest and enforcement proceedings against yeshiva students who are legally obligated to enlist in the military.

The petitions were filed by organizations including Israel Hofsheet, the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, Brothers and Sisters in Arms, as well as opposition lawmakers Yair Lapid and Avigdor Liberman. The petitioners argue that the law was enacted through a flawed legislative process and violates the constitutional right to equality in a manner that does not satisfy the requirements of Israel’s Limitation Clause.

The hearing took place under unusual circumstances, after the government decided not to send a representative to defend the law it had enacted.

Representing the Knesset was attorney Yitzhak Bart, legal counsel to the Knesset, who argued that “there is no choice but to strike down the law,” saying that the legislative process failed to comply with the requirements of Basic Law: The Knesset and the Knesset’s procedural rules.

Justice Gila Kanfi-Steinitz questioned how the Court should proceed when the Knesset itself declines to defend legislation it passed. Bart responded that this was “a very unique and exceptional situation,” explaining that the Knesset’s legal advisers are obligated to defend legislation only when it complies with the law. He added that the legal advisers had warned lawmakers throughout the legislative process about the procedural defects.

Attorney Anar Helman, representing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, argued that the amendment is “an invalid and harmful law” that “fails to satisfy even a single element of the Limitation Clause.”

According to Helman, the law effectively prevents criminal enforcement against individuals who fail to report for military service and could even halt proceedings that have already been initiated against them. He added that, at a time when the Israel Defense Forces requires thousands of additional soldiers, there is no justification for allowing the law to remain in force.

During the hearing, the justices challenged several of the state’s arguments. Justice Yael Wilner questioned why the emphasis was being placed on wartime circumstances, asking whether the measure would not constitute discrimination even during peacetime. Justice Daphne Barak-Erez noted that the case concerns criminal enforcement, not the broader issue of whether yeshiva students should be drafted.

Later in the proceedings, the Court granted permission to attorney Nathan Rosenblatt, who was not one of the formal parties to the case, to address the panel as a representative of the Haredi community.

Rosenblatt argued that the Haredi public has suffered a series of hardships in recent years and said charedim face consistent discrimination. He added, “We have never, not even once, received a favorable ruling from the High Court.”

He continued: “In a Jewish and democratic state, is it appropriate to place a person before the dilemma of whether to obey the Torah or obey the law?”

Justice David Mintz interrupted him, saying: “With all due respect, I am restraining myself. I am listening to what you are saying, and I simply cannot believe what I am hearing. Is there a Torah prohibition against military service?”

Rosenblatt replied in the affirmative, saying, “Your Honor, as a religious Jew, knows there is such a prohibition. All the leading Torah sages hold this view.”

Justice Mintz responded: “That itself is apparently a matter of very serious dispute. Not all leading Torah sages. You are speaking from a sectoral perspective. What is this?”

A senior officer from the Chashmonaim brigade wished to present evidence of the damage caused by the arrests to the enlistment of charedim, but the court refused to receive him.

After approximately an hour and a half, the hearing concluded. The government did not present its position before the panel, and Deputy Chief Justice Noam Solberg announced that the Court’s ruling would be issued in the near future.