Explainer: Basic Law: Torah Study and Its Implications
Torah study is a cornerstone of Jewish heritage and is worthy of support. The proposed Basic Law making its way through Knesset, however, equates Torah study with military service, would entrench a military exemption for Haredi yeshiva students, and would harm the constitutional status of a Basic Law and the principle of equality.
Photo by David Cohen/Flash90
In Brief
Basic Law: Torah Study, which is slated to make its way through Knesset, seeks to anchor Torah study as a foundational value in the heritage of the Jewish people and to equate those who devote themselves to long-term Torah study with those who perform meaningful service for the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
Although Torah study is indeed a cornerstone of Jewish heritage and is worthy of support and encouragement, the proposed Basic Law raises serious concerns that will be addressed in this explainer.
What Is Being Proposed?
The proposed Basic Law contains two sections.
The first section states: “Torah study is a foundational value in the heritage of the Jewish people.”
The second section provides that those who have undertaken to devote themselves to Torah study for an extended period shall be deemed, for purposes of their rights and obligations, as persons who are performing meaningful service for the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
In practical terms, the proposal seeks to equate the status of yeshiva students with that of those performing service, that is, military service. Its purpose is therefore not merely declarative. It is designed to entrench the exemption of yeshiva students from military service and to prevent those who study Torah from paying an economic price for not serving.
What Is the Legislative Background?
Basic Law: Torah Study appeared in the coalition agreements of the current government in December 2022. It has been raised periodically in public debate during the government’s term but has not been enacted.
The bill is signed by all members of Knesset from Shas. It joins an identical proposal submitted by MK Moshe Gafni and other members of United Torah Judaism in the 25th Knesset, and previously in the 24th Knesset, as well as by MK Avi Maoz of the Noam party.
The proposal is being advanced in the third year of a difficult war, which is exacting physical and psychological casualties. At the same time, the army has pointed to an immediate and urgent need for 12,000 additional soldiers, and to the exhaustion of the non-Haredi Jewish manpower pool: a recruitment rate of approximately 90% among serving populations and the return of approximately 130,000 people to active reserve duty.
Why Is the Timing Significant?
The timing of the debate and vote, just before the end of the Knesset’s term, is not coincidental.
The debate is taking place against the backdrop of increased determination by enforcement authorities to deny personal benefits to yeshiva students who are subject to conscription, and to prevent a situation in which the state, with one hand, calls them to military service, while with the other hand finances and incentivizes their evasion.
Recently, the High Court of Justice issued orders to various government ministries regarding the conditioning of benefits and discounts on the resolving their draft status vis-à-vis the army. These benefits and discounts relate to housing, daycare centers and after-school programs, public transportation, and municipal property tax. The orders were issued in the framework of contempt of court proceedings, after the government failed to comply with its obligation to act decisively to conscript yeshiva students in accordance with the law.¹
The debate also comes after the (non)conscription bill that was discussed in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee was, in effect, shelved. That bill, too, was intended, as written in its purpose clause, to regulate the status of yeshiva students and to continue granting a de facto exemption to the overwhelming majority of them.
At the same time, the army has reported an increase of approximately 50% in the rate of enlistment of graduates of Haredi education into the IDF. The numbers remain small: 1,860 young men in the half-year period between July and December 2025, certainly in relation to the size of the cohort of 18-year-old men in Haredi education, which numbers 14,500.² Many of those counted as Haredi—approximately 60%—are no longer Haredi at the time of enlistment. Nevertheless, it is clear that the denial of benefits is beginning to generate social change.
Is Torah Study the Issue in Dispute?
No. Torah study is a foundational element of Jewish heritage. As such, it is worthy of support and encouragement.
The concern is not with the value of Torah study itself. The concern is with the legal and practical consequences of the proposed Basic Law: the entrenchment of a broad exemption from military service, the equation of Torah study with meaningful military or national service, and the constitutional status of a Basic Law being used to address a political problem affecting a particular sector.
Moreover, the first section of the bill makes the following declarative statement: “Torah study is a foundational value in the heritage of the Jewish people.” Indeed, Torah study is a cornerstone of Jewish heritage and of the Jewish and democratic state, and as stated, is worthy of support and encouragement. At the same time, Torah study is a broad concept that encompasses a spectrum that ranges from traditional Talmud study in the spirit of ancestral Jewish tradition to the “Judaism as culture” approach associated with Ahad Ha’am, Bialik, and Zelda; Torah from East and West, from antiquity and modernity, halakhah and aggadah. No single Jewish group has a monopoly over the definition of Torah study.
How Would the Proposal Affect Israel’s Constitutional Structure?
The very choice to anchor the issue of Torah study in a Basic Law harms Israel’s constitutional structure.
The rationale behind using a Basic Law appears to be that Israel's Supreme Court would be hesitant to invalidate a Basic Law, thereby reducing the risk of judicial review. If adopted, this legislation may become the first example of a broader pattern in which additional laws are formulated as Basic Laws in order to ostensibly shield them from review by the Supreme Court.
Such a development could create a situation in which any coalition initiative that harms the principle of equality or human rights is drafted as a Basic Law, to the point of emptying the concept of a Basic Law of its meaning.
This move has no foundation on which to rely. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Basic Laws, too, are subject to judicial review when they harm Israel’s foundational values as a Jewish and democratic state, including the principle of equality.
Paradoxically, if this Basic Law proposal succeeds, it may in practice encourage increased judicial review and needlessly intensify tension between the branches of government.
More seriously, the proposal represents an attempt to exploit the framework of Basic Laws in order to solve a political problem of a particular sector. Basic Laws are intended to regulate Israel’s governmental structure and the foundational values of Israeli law, much like a constitution. This proposal dilutes their unique value and turns them into a shortcut for ordinary legislation.
What Are the Economic and Security Implications?
The principal harm caused by the proposed Basic Law relates to the entrenchment of an exemption from service for yeshiva students. This arrangement of exempting yeshiva students from military service³ is unsustainable.
The Israeli economy cannot continue to carry on its back an entire sector, growing ever larger, that functions as a “society of learners,” is funded by the public budget, and does not contribute its share to increasing economic output. The Haredi public must be absorbed into the labor market as a productive public.
After October 7, it became even clearer that the current situation is also unsustainable from a security standpoint. The national security reality faced by the IDF are so vast, across so many fronts, that there is a real danger that it will be unable to continue holding the borders. The IDF needs Haredi young men to help fill the ranks.
If Basic Law: Torah Study is enacted, and the civil obligation of yeshiva students—whose numbers are steadily increasing—is exhausted through their study, it will no longer be possible to expect their integration into military service and the labor market.
Such a reality may lead to the collapse of working households under the tax burden, and to the collapse of regular and reserve soldiers under the burden of defense. This would damage the economy, security, the people’s army model, and social cohesion.
How Does the Proposal Affect the Principle of Equality?
The current situation also violates the principle of equality. Even if the current situation were sustainable, a situation in which there is an entire sector of society that does not contribute its economic or security share is simply unjust.
It is unjust for the taxes and years of military service of certain sectors are directed toward protecting the way of life of another sector that does not shoulder the burden.
Justice requires equality in bearing the economic and security burden.
In a 2024 survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute, almost the entire Haredi public said that prayers assist the war effort either more than military service does or to the same degree: 52% said prayers assist more than military service, and 41% said both assist equally.⁵ The belief that Torah study protects the people of Israel and the devotion of yeshiva students to their studies can be appreciated. But equating Torah students with soldiers cannot be justified.
The burden of mandatory conscription is not comparable to a voluntary choice to pursue a yeshiva track. The scope of the hours, days and nights, shabbat and holidays, and the grueling conditions required of soldiers are not comparable to the mandatory hours required of yeshiva students for the purpose of exemption from service and financial support: 35 to 45 weekly hours are required under the support regulations.
Moreover, there can certainly be no identification between the relatively comfortable stay and secure sitting in the study hall by those who “kill themselves in the tent of Torah” and the real-life risk to soldiers in training and on the battlefield.
The bill seeking to equate the rights and obligations of yeshiva students with those of soldiers therefore inflicts severe harm on the principle of equality. The words of the Court regarding equality in conscription are apt: “Discrimination in relation to that which is most precious of all—life itself—is the gravest form of discrimination.”⁷
What Do Torah Scholars Say in Situations of Defense War?
The demand for equality in bearing the burden is not solely a secular demand. These arguments also take on halakhic form. According to this view, the State of Israel is in an ongoing state of a war of no choice, defined in halakhah as a “commanded war” or milhemet mitzvah. According to rabbinic sources, in such a situation all go out to war, even a bridegroom from his chamber and a bride from her canopy. Halakhic authorities have emphasized that even Torah scholars are required to participate in a defensive war.⁶
Could the Proposal Harm the World of Torah?
Another argument, developed in research curredntly being conducted at the Israel Democracy Institute, is that equating the status of learners with that of soldiers and entrenching a sweeping exemption for yeshiva students also harms the world of Torah itself.⁸
The study halls have never known quantitative flourishing of the kind currently being experienced in the State of Israel. Tens of thousands of students fill the benches of the study halls.
At the same time, the study halls have never known the Torah-scholarly mediocrity that they are currently experiencing in Israel. In an intellectual world, such as the study hall and academia, quantity and quality stand in an inverse relationship to one another.
A healthy, lively, and vibrant study hall must be elite, selective, and structured as a pyramid: entry into it should be limited, and remaining in it should be reserved for the few.
This idea was expressed by the Sages in various sources, including: “In the ordinary course of the world, one thousand people enter for Scripture and one hundred emerge from them; one hundred enter for Mishnah and ten emerge from them; and one for Talmud”; and “I have seen people of ascent, and they are few.”
When the study hall becomes the default option for everyone, without screening, without time limitation, and without the “price” and uniqueness of choosing a life of spirit over a life of action, it necessarily lowers its standards, aims for the average, and becomes mediocre. Anyone who examines the Torah yield of the “society of learners” that has developed in the State of Israel cannot help but be negatively impressed.
The current situation, in which Haredi society functions as a society of learners, harms not only the Israeli economy and Israel’s security, but also the world of Torah itself.
This is the irony of the proposed Basic Law: Torah Study. In order to restore the value of Torah study, it is necessary to restore the study hall to its original form: a vibrant place that encourages spiritual excellence, in which a small group of people with intellectual curiosity and high learning abilities sit and study.
The conscription of most yeshiva students would help remedy not only the ills of the economy and security, but also those of the study halls and Torah study.
Are Torah Study and Military Service Necessarily in Conflict?
The proposal rests on the assumption that Torah and military service stand in contradiction to one another. That assumption should be rejected.
The world of hesder yeshivot, and the successful service of young Haredi men who muster the courage to serve in the military, show otherwise. Military service does not necessarily impair the quality of Torah study. On the contrary: engagement, with discernment, with other people, and contribution to statehood and security, are conditions for meaningful Torah study.
If the Knesset seeks to enact Basic Law: Torah Study, it would be proper for it to elevate the necessity of combining Torah study with service in the Israel Defense Forces.
As currently formulated, however, the bill severely harms the principle of equality, Israel’s resilience and its security and economic future, its constitutional structure, and even the world of Torah itself.
Notes
¹ HCJ 5819/24, Movement for Quality Government v. Minister of Defense; the original judgment was issued in November 2025, and the operative orders, as part of a contempt of court proceeding for noncompliance with the original ruling, were issued on April 26, 2026.
² Report by the head of the IDF Planning and Manpower Administration Division, Brig. Gen. Shay Tayeb, at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee regarding the conscription law, May 20, 2026.
³ On the nature of Israeli discourse regarding conscription and the distinction between the various arguments, see Shlomit Ravitsky Tur-Paz, introductory chapter, in And You Shall Remain Silent – Has Haredi Society Changed During the War? (2024), Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute.
⁴ One of the arguments raised to justify the division between learners and soldiers relies on the biblical figures of Jacob’s sons, Zebulun and Issachar. According to Bereshit Rabbah 99:8, “Zebulun engaged in commerce [livelihood] and Issachar engaged in Torah, and Zebulun came and fed him,” and they shared between them the spiritual reward of the study.
⁵ See Shlomit Ravitsky Tur-Paz, “How Can I Bear Alone?” – The Partnership of Haredi Society in the Burden of the War: An Attitudes Survey, in And You Shall Remain Silent – Has Haredi Society Changed During the War? (2024), Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute.
⁶ Benny Porat, Yair Orvito, Shlomit Ravitsky Tur-Paz, “Shall Your Brothers Go to War While You Sit Here?!” – Source Sheets – The Obligation to Enlist in the Army and the Exemption From It (2024), Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute.
⁷ HCJ 6427/02, Movement for Quality Government v. Knesset of Israel (published 2005).
⁸ Benny Porat and Eliyahu Berkovitz, “I Have Seen People of Ascent, and They Are Few” – An Internal Critical Perspective on the Torato Umanuto Arrangement (unpublished), The Israel Democracy Institute.