Fighting in National Armies 93

the halakhah. None of the responsa discussed the question of fighting in the armies of a non-Jewish state. There was no halakhic precedent for the stringent conditions which had to be faced The questions addressed to the rabbis dealt with the problems of observance for Jewish soldiers in the army, such as shabbat, dietary laws, etc. As military life had become a norm, how could the Jewish communities help the Jewish recruits and their families? Although similar questions faced Jewish soldiers elsewhere, Russian mandatory military service, which lasted for decades with its conversionist goal, presented different issues."

The obligation of filling the quota of recruits which had been placed upon the Jewish communities remained a contentious issue. Communal leaders sought to substitute the payment of a fine, but the government rejected this concept. The rabbinic authorities were forced to understand this as dina demalkhuta dina and tried to set some guidelines. The first issue raised was the possibility of hiring substitutes as, naturally, each young man tried to free himself from the obligation. Some suggested that trouble makers among the young people be singled out and conscripted, however, Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793) rabbi in Prague , who dealt with this issue in Austria and strongly rejected this.+

Another way out was through the purchase of a substitute, another Jew who was willing to serve for an appropriate payment. Was it permissible to place the life of another person at risk even if that person was willing? Landau , dealt with this as well and rejected it by citing the well known example of a besieger of a town who demanded that a specific Jew be delivered, otherwise all Jews would be killed. Landau indicated that the request could be met as it was for aspecific person and the that person, could be surrendered. However, purchasing the service of a poorer Jew as a substitute was not a parallel example.* Not everyone agreed, so Meir Esh, a Hungarian pupil of Hatam Sofer , argued that those who were willing to serve as substitutes understood the danger. They also knew that military service entailed violating many commandments, but did not mind. Thus they were already liable for divine punishment. Furthermore military service although potentially dangerous, was not absolutely dangerous in times of peace, therefore the purchase of a substitute was permissible."