3.3. Equality in Obligations Toward the State. The Universality of Military Service. Exemptions From It. Tax Obligation and Its Distribution. Participation in State Administration

With equality of rights in the state there is necessarily connected equality of duties toward it. The Mosaic state here too stands in sharp contrast to the abnormally developed ancient states. In the latter there was ordinarily no correspondence between rights and duties, as required by the justice of the state; on the contrary, the fully enfranchised classes or castes enjoyed complete exemption from the heavy burdens of state service, while the disenfranchised classes bore all the state’s burdens. Such an order of things is incompatible even with simple state justice—and all the more incompatible with the higher theocratic principle that animated the Mosaic state. In this state there was realized precisely the just correspondence of rights and duties—and since the rights of all members of the state were equal, the duties toward the state were also equal. The first and principal duty toward the state—now as then, and all the more in the ancient world—is the duty of defending the state; hence military service is the most important and at the same time the heaviest of state obligations, and its just distribution is one of the most important tasks of the lawgiver. In the Mosaic state its just distribution, thanks to the simplicity of social relations, was straightforward: since all members of the state equally enjoyed the rights conferred by the state, all of them of course were also to defend and protect it. Hence the principle of universal military service: it applied to every Israelite from the age of twenty and above (Num. 1:3; 26:2). The universality of military service, besides state justice, was also called for by the political conditions of the people’s situation, since the land designated for their habitation was to be acquired by arms; but even after the conquest and settlement of the land, the people, surrounded on all sides by enemies, constantly had to be ready to defend against attacks that were often unexpected (Exod. 17:8; Judg. 6:3). As regards the actual order of fulfilling this obligation, it was, in the opinion of Saalschütz, distinguished by a well-ordered organization. Men were enrolled for military service proportionally in each tribe, clan, and family (Num. 1:2), and corresponding to these divisions of the people, different units of the army were formed. The entire army was divided, apparently, into two levies, of which the first consisted of young men from age twenty and upward, and the second of the remaining male population. Separate lists were maintained for both divisions, from which they were summoned in wartime. The universality of military service, however, must be understood not in the unconditional sense, but only in the sense of the obligation of all to it. The law admits certain limitations to its universality. Thus the Levites were fully exempt from military service, which was conditioned both by their special calling and by their lack of a land holding in the state; they therefore were not counted when the people were numbered for military service (Num. 2:33). Also exempted from military service were those for whom, on account of particular circumstances in their family life, separation from family or household was especially burdensome. Before the beginning of a war, the officers were to announce exemptions for all those falling under the categories defined by the law. “The officers shall speak to the people, saying: ‘Who is the man who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. And who is the man who has planted a vineyard and has not enjoyed its fruit? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man enjoy its fruit.’” In this case an Israelite was thus exempted from military service for four years, since by law one could enjoy the fruit only in the fifth year after planting (Lev. 19:25). “And who is the man who has betrothed a wife and has not taken her? Let him go back to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man take her” (Deut. 20:5–7). Likewise exempted from military service (as from all other obligations) was a man who had recently married. “If a man,” says the law, “has recently taken a wife, he shall not go out with the army or be liable for any other public duty. He shall be free at home for one year to be happy with his wife whom he has taken” (Deut. 24:5). Moreover, no one was in the strict sense compelled to military service by force, and therefore exempted from it were all those who felt themselves incapable of war and lacked the courage necessary for warfare. “And the officers shall speak further to the people and say: ‘Is there any man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own’” (Deut. 20:8). Thus in the Mosaic state, under universal military service, justice was nonetheless observed with regard to certain individuals for whom, on account of particular circumstances in their social, family, or personal situation, this obligation could be especially burdensome.

The principle of equality in the Mosaic state retained its significance also with respect to other obligations toward the state. Alongside military service—the obligation imposed on citizens to defend the state externally—stands another obligation imposed by the duty of maintaining and preserving the internal institutions of the state: the tax obligation. In the Mosaic state this obligation was likewise not laid exclusively on any one class of people, but had a universal character, extending equally to all members of the state. The tax obligation, moreover, thanks to the simplicity of the state organization—which had not developed institutions that required external support—did not have a properly state-defined character in the time of Moses or even during the period of the judges. The only institution that at that time required support and for which, properly speaking, the tax obligation was established by law, was the religious institution with its tabernacle and class of priests; therefore the tax obligation also had an exclusively religious character. To this type of obligation belonged, first of all, the so-called redemption tax, paid by every man “who enters the numbering”—that is, the roster of those fit for war (Num. 1–3). It consisted of half a shekel of silver (Exod. 30:12–14) and was used “for the service of the tent of meeting” (Exod. 30:16). Then came the tithe of all produce, going to the benefit of the Levites “for their service, for what they do, their service in the tent of meeting” (Num. 18:21); another tithe “of all the yield of your seed, of your wine, and of your oil, of the firstborn of your herd and flock” for the general national festival (Deut. 14:22–23); and the firstfruits of all produce—also offered for the arranging of a public festival in which the poor members of the state also participated (Deut. 26:1–15). All these religious obligations were equally binding on all—the law makes no division of the people into those subject to taxation and those exempt. Noteworthy also in the laws regarding the tax obligation is the fact that the tax determined by the tithe was an income tax—that is, it was not fixed once and for all, but was continually proportioned to the amount of income—and only the insignificant redemption tax of half a shekel was paid equally by both rich and poor (Exod. 30:15). The law did permit, however, individual exemptions from all obligations in special cases of family life. “If a man has recently taken a wife, he shall not go out with the army, and nothing shall be imposed on him; he shall be free at home for one year, to be happy with his wife whom he has taken” (Deut. 24:5). By this law a man who had recently married was exempted not only from military service but from all other obligations as well—and consequently also from the tax obligation—for the duration of one year. The lawgiver thereby grants the man freedom to devote all his attention and labor to the establishment of his newly founded household and to the strengthening of the marital union just contracted. Such an exception from the law of universal tax obligation in favor of certain individuals did not violate equality, since the exemption granted to them was equally available to every Israelite after marriage.

Thus, as is evident from what has been set forth, under the influence of the theocratic principle, the highest social justice was realized in the Mosaic state—expressed in an equality consistently applied across all spheres of public and political life. The members of this state are all equally equal in property and position, in rights and duties. If all members are equally equal and fully enfranchised in the state, then evidently all of them also have the right to participate in governing their state. A sharp distinction between rulers and subjects ordinarily exists where particular privileged classes have been formed by special historical circumstances—classes which, by virtue of their wealth and education, naturally acquire the significance of hereditary rulers of the state. But where no such privileged classes exist, and where all are equally equal in every respect, there it is natural that in important matters of state or in the governance of the state all members of the state participate—though, of course, through chosen representatives. Hence representation, as the chief expression of the form of government in the Mosaic state. This form had here a special significance in view of the circumstance that in the Mosaic state—partly on the basis of ancient right, partly on the basis of the direct legislation of Moses—the elective principle existed on a broad scale, applied in all spheres of state and social life. The distinctive character of the elective principle and the representative form of government will become clear when the internal structure of the social organism of the Hebrew people is disclosed. The basic features of the internal structure of the Hebrew popular organism had formed prior to the conclusion of the covenant with Jehovah, and consequently outside the influence of the theocratic principle, so that at the founding of the state on the theocratic principle the internal organization of the people was already a ready material from which the lawgiver established the new state. Therefore, to understand the distinctive character of the new state’s organization, it is necessary to examine the basic features of the historically formed and consolidated organic structure of the people itself.