Father of Fallen IDF Officer Criticizes Basic Law on Torah Study as Financially Motivated
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Tzvika Gringlik, father of a fallen IDF officer, condemned the Basic Law on Torah Study in a Knesset hearing, arguing it prioritizes financial incentives over genuine religious learning and distorts the traditional practice of Torah study alongside military service.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Tzvika Gringlik opposes the Basic Law on Torah Study, calling it financially motivated.
- He emphasizes Torah study existed before the law and alongside military service.
- Gringlik recalls studying Torah under harsh conditions during tank commander training.
- He warns the law reduces Torah study to monetary value, corrupting its spiritual meaning.
- Gringlik fears the law encourages improper attitudes toward military leadership.
- He expresses personal difficulty continuing Talmud study under the law's implications.
Tzvika Gringlik, father of Lieutenant (res.) Shaul Gringlik who was killed in combat in the Gaza Strip, voiced strong opposition to the proposed Basic Law on Torah Study during a Knesset committee hearing. He argued that Torah study existed long before the law and was practiced alongside military service without legal mandates. Gringlik recalled his own experience studying Torah under difficult conditions during tank commander training, emphasizing that genuine study was not reflected in the law's provisions.
He asserted that the law's true purpose is financial rather than educational, stating, "We know what is behind this law. We are not stupid. The money talks." Gringlik warned that the law would reduce Torah study to a monetary value, which he believes corrupts its spiritual significance. He expressed personal difficulty in continuing to study the Talmud, fearing that the new law would cause learners to focus on financial gain rather than religious devotion.
Gringlik also criticized the law for potentially encouraging improper attitudes toward military leadership, referencing rabbis who have spoken about the Chief of Staff in controversial terms. His testimony highlights a broader debate over the intersection of religion, military service, and state funding in Israel.
Mentioned
