To bring us out of the yeshivas and into the Israeli melting pot'

By Aryeh Dayan

(C) reprinted with the permission of Haaretz Daily (English)

Two weeks ago, a few days before the Tal Bill exempting yeshiva students from army service won third and final reading Knesset approval, a fire erupted in the Jerusalem office of the Degel Hatorah movement. The offices are located in the Geula neighborhood, in a crowded Haredi residential area. The blaze destroyed the contents of a few cupboards, and blackened part of the ceiling and walls in the office, but no one was hurt as the the fire broke out at night when the Degel Hatorah office was empty, and the flames did not spread to any of the neighboring residential apartments.

Police investigators decided it was a case of arson. Yeted Ne'eman, Degel Hatorah's journal, wrote that investigators found among charred remains a container of flammable glue which was apparently used to intensify the blaze.

Police investigators have yet to detain suspects, and no organization has claimed responsibility for the fire, so the motivation behind the apparent arson of one of the two ultra-Orthodox movements which make up the United Torah Judaism party (the party which led the parliamentary campaign on behalf of the Tal bill) cannot be determined with certainty. Nonetheless, even if nobody in the UTJ party is willing to say so openly, it's clear the act of arson occurred against the backdrop of an argument which has in the past year divided the Ashkenazi Haredi community. The argument relates to the Tal bill, or, more precisely, it involves the part of the law which is termed the "year of decision."

The secular media, which mostly neglected this internal Haredi debate, ignored the act of vandalism at the Degel Hatorah headquarters in Jerusalem.

The way in which the act was covered by the Haredi media suggests that nobody is blaming secular hooligans for the arson. Agudath Yisrael's journal Hamodia limited coverage of the incident; it wrote that the fire was caused by "anonymous elements," and refrained from indulging speculation about motives.

Yeted Ne'eman, in contrast, used big headlines to describe "Shock, amazement and consternation among the Torah public." The subheadline explained that the "base, humiliating act" was perpetrated by "a group of crazed louts." In the code language used in Haredi newspapers, the allusion referred to groups of radical ultra-Orthodox activists who oppose what they regard as the Haredi parties' overly moderate positions.

Tempted to leave the yeshivas

Echoes of the bitter argument among Haredi factions about the year of decision were rarely heard outside of the ultra-Orthodox world. A much more raucous public debate about the IDF enlistment, or exemption, of Haredi men has dominated discussions. Despite the economic and social importance of the issue, very few secular Israelis displayed interest in the question of whether a 22-year-old Haredi man who has received service exemptions for four straight years should be allowed to leave yeshiva studies for a year without being conscripted, or be entitled to a "year of decision" in which he examined his prospects for becoming integrated in the work world, outside of the yeshivas? In contrast, this question about the year of decision rattled and divided the Haredi leadership.

The Tal bill, which was authorized by the Knesset overrides the objections of many influential Haredim, and confers this year of decision option. A Haredi man who chooses at the end of the year of decision to continue in the work world, and not to return to yeshiva study, is to be called up for a few months of military service, or a year of non-military, compulsory public service. The IDF has the authority to decide about what sort of service is to be done by such a Haredi man. Public service assignments for organizations such as Yad Sara can be done concurrently with salaried work at a regular job.

As things stood before the passage of the Tal bill, any Haredi man who wanted to leave yeshiva life and work to support his family was first of all required to enlist in the IDF. The year of decision mechanism is designed to accomplish a dual purpose: For men who really do not want to go on with Torah studies, the year enables them to consider their next step without the sword of immediate conscription dangling over their heads. The mechanism provides such men a year-long opportunity to adjust to civilian work roles. Secondly, the device has the aim of helping the Haredi community raise its standard of living, if only by a limited degree.

The idea originally stems from various Haredi circles, and it became an important component in recommendations furnished by the Tal Committee. Yet it has met with fierce resistance from Haredi sectors.

Haredi supporters of the year of decision, particularly Bnei Brak Mayor Rabbi Mordechai Karelitz and Deputy Minister Rabbi Avraham Ravitz, both of whom are affiliated with Degel Hatorah, believe the formula should alleviate the economic distress faced by young ultra-Orthodox families. These supporters hinted that the year of decision might even trigger a process of change throughout the entire Haredi society, a society which is increasingly hard-pressed to overcome the lopsided structure caused by the requirement of continuing with yeshiva studies until an age is finally reached at which IDF conscription is no longer a threat.

Opponents of the year of decision, who include most Agudath Yisrael members and MK Moshe Gafni (Degel Hatorah), believe the formula is unnecessary. "Whoever doesn't want to study should enlist in the IDF," says Gafni. The critics also warn that the mechanism is also potentially harmful. It is liable to tempt Haredi men toward leaving yeshiva study, they fear. The opponents contended that acceptance of the year of decision formula would constitute surrender to secular Israelis whose true wish is to undermine the yeshiva world.

Shas joined Haredi supporters of the year of decision formula. "The whole subject of conscription doesn't apply so much to us, and we dealt with it only out of solidarity with our Ashkenazi brothers," one senior Shas MK told Ha'aretz, on condition of anonymity. "I estimate that only one of our 17 Knesset seats comes from Haredi men who have IDF exemptions. As to the argument between the Ashkenazi factions about the year of decision, we decided to support the more pragmatic position."

Despite such pronouncements of non-partisan interest, it appears Shas, too, has an electoral stake in the year of decision debate. Thousands of Sephardic yeshiva students reach the age of 22 each year; and Shas' support of the year of decision formula is likely to make them very happy.

Arguments about the year of decision among Ashkenazi factions continued right up to final Knesset balloting on the Tal bill. On the day of the third reading vote, MK Gafni, and also MK Meir Porush tried to introduce qualifying motions which would have repealed the year of decision.

"Gafni brought up this reservation, but also took steps to ensure that the repeal would fail," Deputy Minister Ravitz says, striking a cynical chord. "He understood that the law would not pass without a year of decision, and that the whole issue would be sent back to the High Court if the bill wasn't legislated."