Israeli Parliament Debates Basic Law on Torah Study Amid Budget and Legal Concerns

The Knesset committee held a lengthy discussion on the proposed Basic Law on Torah Study, ending without a final decision. Legal advisors from various government ministries warned of unclear wording in the bill and potential impacts on budgets, benefits, and rights for Torah students. A key issue raised was the possible reinstatement of a National Insurance premium discount for yeshiva students, which was halted in January following a Supreme Court ruling. Roee Karat, legal advisor for National Insurance, estimated this benefit could cost around 100 million shekels annually if restored.

Additional concerns included the law’s effect on income support eligibility, as currently both higher education students and yeshiva students are excluded under existing regulations. Karat suggested the constitutional status of Torah study might override these rules. Knesset legal advisor Sagit Afik noted the practical impact of the law remains unclear and recommended clarifying the bill’s intent if it is meant to be declarative, emphasizing Torah study as a fundamental value.

Afik also warned that elevating Torah study’s status could lead to demands for comparable benefits, straining limited budget resources. Legal representatives from the Defense, Labor, and Education Ministries highlighted ambiguities in the bill’s language. The Defense Ministry could not confirm if the law would affect benefits for reservists, while the Education Ministry cautioned that funding for Torah study might come at the expense of other academic subjects.

Deputy Attorney General Avital Sompolinsky argued that granting constitutional status to Torah study might undermine equality in national service burdens, noting the bill aims to address court rulings on military conscription. In contrast, Shas MK Yossi Taieb dismissed budget impact concerns, stating the law’s purpose is to provide a constitutional umbrella for Torah study and a judicial interpretive tool without equalizing rights.

During the debate, combat veterans and disabled soldiers demanded similar recognition under the law. Nadav Hirsch from the Disabled Combatants Forum claimed the law discriminates against soldiers, while MK Shirly Naor warned that including them might reduce their state resources. The committee concluded the day’s session without resolution, planning to resume discussions for the bill’s second and third readings the following day.