The Obligation to Comply with Safety Regulations

Introduction

In recent shiurim, we explored application of the principles of "communal pikuach nefesh," "a border town," and "until it falls" in addressing new questions that have arisen in the IDF and other security forces in the context of operational activity.

This shiur will seek to examine another halakhic issue that frequently confronts soldiers and commanders on Shabbat, in all of the IDF's formations: violating Shabbat in the framework of maintaining safety procedures and routine procedures. This issue, while not part of the "laws of war," is a clear example of the implementation of principles regarding "communal pikuach nefesh."

The Halakhic Questions

As stated, the issue is very common, and questions about it are raised every Shabbat. For example:

1. In the past, there was a protocol that required checking one’s personal weapon with a flashlight at the end of a period of guard duty, to ensure that there is no round of ammunition in the chamber. Is it permissible to turn on a flashlight for such a purpose on Shabbat?

2. Staying in the field at night often requires the use of light sticks. Is it permissible to use them on Shabbat?

3. Every time a military vehicle is driven, the driver's military ID card must be passed through a system called Electronic Driver Assistant. The system monitors the driver's driving to ensure that he drives carefully. Any deviation from the permitted speed, sudden braking, or unsafe turning is automatically reported to the unit's vehicle officer, together with the name of the driver. The use of the system involves electrical action, and its purpose is to ensure safer driving. Is this permitted on Shabbat?

4. In the framework of guarding IDF camps, routine communications checks are required every few hours, in order to ensure that the systems are functioning and the guards are alert. Is it permissible to perform such checks on Shabbat?

5. The guard detail in every camp is required to check every few hours that the unit armory is locked and secure, and to sign that the check was done. Is such a signature permissible on Shabbat?

6. Every operational vehicle requires a spare tire. If a vehicle is in good working order but the spare tire is found to be defective, is it permissible to violate Shabbat to repair the tire, which will only be needed in the event of a mishap?

7. Every tank in an operational sector of the IDF is required to undergo a daily maintenance routine (talat = tippul lifnei tenu'a – "pre-movement maintenance"). Is it permissible to conduct such maintenance on Shabbat as a matter of routine, even though it involves moving the tank and other actions that the Torah prohibits on Shabbat?

As stated, many examples of this issue can be offered, the common denominator being that an action is required that involves violation of Torah or Rabbinic prohibitions on Shabbat, with the goal of ensuring the preservation of human life and preventing safety or operational malfunctions.

The IDF saying that "procedures are written in blood" is unfortunately not a mere cliché, but a harsh and painful reality. Soldiers have lost their lives due to mishaps and accidents that could have been prevented if only greater caution had been exercised.

In spite of this reality, the questions on the subject are many. This is because in practice, the soldier is being required to violate Shabbat at a time when he is not facing an enemy or in the context of operational activity; they often feel that this is an unjustified desecration of Shabbat, based on excessive and exaggerated fears. Moreover, it happens not infrequently that safety regulations are not fully observed even on weekdays, and soldiers therefore find it difficult to implement these regulations specifically on Shabbat.

"Shatap" on Shabbat

To clarify the depth of the uncertainty, I will share a distressing story from my own experience.

In the year 5774, we published a compendium of halakhic guidelines for the activity on Shabbat of the Combat Intelligence Collection Corps (formerly the Field Intelligence Branch; now called the Border Defense Corps). In the course of writing the compendium, I was assigned two tasks. The first was to visit all the IDF intelligence collection battalions, from the Golan Heights to Eilat, in order to get a first-hand look at the operational mission, the unique observation means, and the nature of the activity. The second task was to speak with Shabbat-observant soldiers and officers who had served in the Intelligence Collection Corps over the years, and to hear from them about the halakhic questions they had faced.

In this context, I visited one of the Yeshivot Hesder and met with a large group of soldiers who had just been released from service in the Intelligence Collection Corps. They asked many questions, and one of them was whether it was permissible to conduct a "shatap" (shituf pe'ula = cooperation) on Shabbat. I asked them to explain what was involved, and they described how prior to each collection mission, a physical liaison was required between the intelligence collection team and the unit responsible for the routine security in that sector, in order to establish a common language and to ensure that the troops in the sector would not be surprised by the presence of another force, operating under cover and seeking to observe the goings-on across the border.

I told the questioners that, on the face of it, such a mission seemed to be important and significant, but their response was they were not always careful about it even on weekdays, and in any case, such a cooperative venture could be conducted by telephone, with no need to travel on Shabbat and join the other force in person. I heard the question, and continued on my way.

As mentioned, at the time I also visited the collection battalions, including the battalion stationed on the Gaza Strip border. I was accompanied there by a young officer from the Intelligence Collection Corps named Tal Nachman. Tal explained the various missions of the battalion, and the means it employs over the course of operational activity.

Shortly thereafter, on the fourth of Adar I, 5774, Tal Nachman fell in combat on the Gaza border. It was a routine operational activity in the vicinity of Nachal Oz, during which a soldier from the reconnaissance battalion of the Givati Brigade who participated in the mission and secured the collection force identified a figure he believed to be a terrorist on the armored personnel carrier. The soldier opened fire on the armored personnel carrier, and Tal z"l, was killed.[1]

After Tal’s death, I returned to the same question that had been put to me: Is it permissible to conduct a "shatap" on Shabbat? Is it a mission that involves a matter of pikuach nefesh? I am convinced that the soldier who asked this question did in fact believe – from his point of view – that the safety procedures, and in this case the coordination procedures between the operational force and the collection force, are a tedious and unnecessary task that does not justify driving on Shabbat, which involves a Torah prohibition.

And yet, when one considers the broader picture, and the fact that coordination and safety procedures of this sort are indeed designed to save lives and prevent tragic and painful incidents such as the death of Captain Tal Nachman z"l, we understand that this is indeed a matter of pikuach nefesh. As we learned at the beginning of this series (shiur 1), "Jewish lives are more precious to God than [observance of] the mitzvot" (Rashi, Yoma 82b), and it is clear that it is permissible to desecrate Shabbat in order to save even one Jewish life.

Communal Pikuach Nefesh

But here it is necessary to clarify further: When one violates Shabbat in the name of this or that safety procedure, there is no "danger before us" and there is no "sick person before us." When a soldier is required to perform a certain action on Shabbat only in the name of a safety procedure, he is not saving lives directly, and at times he will even argue that it is obvious to him that no one would be harmed if he were to forgo that safety procedure at that moment.

Thus, in the example cited above regarding lighting a flashlight for the purpose of clearing a weapon: a trained soldier can clear a weapon even "in his sleep," and it is almost certain that he would not leave a round in the chamber.

The novelty of the allowance to violate Shabbat in such circumstances is that once a soldier dons his uniform, the framework itself is what obligates him to observe safety procedures. Even if no one is currently in danger, at the systemic level, failure to observe safety procedures will eventually cost lives. Even if the danger is not “before us” in the present, laxity in these procedures will eventually lead to loss of life, and when dealing with the community rather than the individual, this too is included in the category of pikuach nefesh.

I would like to reiterate the felicitous definition of Rabbi Prof. David Tendler, which was also quoted in the shiur on repairing sanitary hazards on Shabbat (shiur 25):

It is the responsibility of society, or the kingdom, or the government to worry about the distant future. By the definition of a society or a state that bears responsibility for generations yet to be born, the future and the present are one.[2]

A soldier who violates Shabbat in order to observe a safety procedure is not saving lives in the present, but since he is part of the military framework, he too is responsible for the " generations yet to be born," and in this sense, "the future and the present are one."

Indeed, the definition presented here is not simple and is not unanimously accepted; already several decades ago, halakhic authorities disagreed about its precise application.

Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Neria, son of Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neria, fought in the Yom Kippur War and later served as a military rabbi in Operation Shalom Hagalil. He published an article in 1982, entitled "Pikuach Nefesh ba-Tzava," in which he tried to establish the precise parameters of a future danger that would be considered a present instance of pikuach nefesh. Rabbi Neria refers to the various sources that we have already discussed in previous shiurim, such as "a piece of fiery metal" (shiurim 22 and 23), or the words of the Chazon Ish (Yoreh De'a 208, 7) regarding "future matters that do not exist in the present" (shiur 19).

At the end of the article, Rabbi Neria appends three halakhic rulings in the name of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv. Due to the importance of the issue, I will quote his words in full:

And here is the place for me to cite three practical halakhic rulings which were told to me by the Gaon Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, shelita [and which were brought before him before their publication].

My question was one of principle, whether or not IDF safety, maintenance, and operating regulations are binding in all cases to the extent that they permit violating Shabbat for them?

And I asked in greater detail about three cases. 1. A truckload of mines was parked on Shabbat in the middle of the Refidim camp – is it permissible to unload the truck, in keeping with the safety regulations of the Engineers Corps, or should they wait until after Shabbat? 2. Guard duty outside the eiruv in an area that is not considered dangerous – is it permissible to carry the magazine detached from the gun, as per IDF safety regulations, or should it be inserted inside the gun to avoid the prohibition of carrying outside an eiruv? 3. New machine guns arrived in an area of the Golan Heights on a Friday night, and it was necessary to go out on patrol with them the next day. The operating instructions require a preliminary machine gun test before patrol. There are no other machine guns in the area. Is it permissible to conduct this test on Shabbat?

And he answered me that in principle, since the prohibitions of Shabbat are not regarded as serious by them, we cannot accept every far-fetched concern of theirs, and based on that desecrate Shabbat. Rather, we must examine each case on its own merits, according to “the judge's eye” and to the best of one’s ability. This is also what I was told by Rabbi Yoel Kloft, shelita. 

Regarding case number 1, he first asked me whether it was common for a mine to explode. I answered that it might happen but that it was rare. And he answered that if so, the truck should not be unloaded on Shabbat.

Regarding case number 2, he asked me whether it was common for a bullet to be discharged from a loaded weapon. And I answered that it was common with the Uzi but with the M16 it was very rare, and he said that even though this involves a remote fear of pikuach nefesh, the magazine should be inserted into the rifle. (And I heard in the name of Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that he said it should not be inserted in such a case).

Regarding case number 3, he asked about the situation on the front, whether or not there had been any skirmishes recently, and I answered that there had been a certain incident, but what would the law be if the front were absolutely quiet. Regarding this he asked if the machine gun test was necessary, and I answered that the test was very important, but of course a machine gun is normally in fine working order. And he answered that if so, they should not do the test. First, the fear of encountering an enemy and having to use the weapon is a remote concern, and second, the fear that the machine gun will not function is a remote concern, and for these two remote possibilities we cannot permit the desecration of Shabbat. (The Gaon Rabbi Yoel Kloft inclined in this case toward leniency.)

And to conclude, it would seem that in the matter of violating Shabbat for the sake of pikuach nefesh that is not presently before us, the poskim, and even the contemporary Acharonim, disagree about the parameters, and each case must be considered anew, in light of the special circumstances pertaining to the conditions of the time and place. May God illuminate our eyes. (Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Neria, "Pikuach Nefesh ba-Tzava," Techumin 3)

Rabbi Elyashiv put forward two arguments. The first was a lack of trust in the professionals who determine safety protocols, and the fear of excessive safety margins that do not justify desecration of Shabbat. This is a complex argument, since, as we have already learned (in shiur 16), in matters of pikuach nefesh one must follow the dictates of the "experts," who bear the responsibility and are aware of the concerns and implications.

Rabbi Elyashiv's second argument is that a very remote concern about danger to life does not justify desecrating Shabbat. In the concluding paragraph, Rabbi Neria points out that this ruling is not in line with the principles of "communal pikuach nefesh" that he himself laid down in his article, and he concludes that the poskim of our time do in fact disagree about the matter. 

Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Meir wrote a rejoinder to Rabbi Neria's article in which he vehemently disputed Rabbi Elyashiv's conception of the halakhic attitude toward safety regulations:

It is obvious that instructions issued by the professional authorities are binding on the entire IDF, and therefore each of us has a clear halakhic obligation to obey them, based on "take great care of yourselves" (Devarim 4:15). Disregard of such an order and failure to carry it out, even if the matter ended without disaster, constitutes a most serious transgression from a halakhic point of view. It follows necessarily, therefore, that if the execution of such an order entails the performance of a prohibited labor on Shabbat, this is an instance of the simple law that pikuach nefesh sets aside the prohibition of Shabbat. (Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Meir, "Tokefam shel Hora'ot ba-Betichut be-Tzahal," Techumin 4)

Later in his comments, Rabbi Ben Meir also addresses the issue of trusting commanders, and establishes that in the case of a specific incident, there is room to insist that a senior commander should be the one to give the order regarding the necessity of a particular action on Shabbat, after the military rabbi has spoken with him about it. However, when it comes to general safety procedures in the IDF, the matter is clear, and there is no question of trusting this or that commander. Accordingly, these directives are binding as a matter of pikuach nefesh. Rabbi Ben Meir concludes:

As for safety instructions, since there is no doubt that these instructions are issued for reasons of safety, and our only halakhic doubt is whether this uncertain pikuach nefesh is considered “before us” such that it sets aside the prohibitions of Shabbat – we may infer from the fact that the IDF is willing to expend money, cancel leaves, and deprive soldiers of sleep and the like, even on weekdays, for the sake of safety regulations, that the same applies to the allowance of a prohibited labor on Shabbat…

The security regulations were drawn up based on lessons learned in the IDF, and in other armies, from actual accidents. There is no doubt that their full and strict observance throughout the IDF prevents many casualties, and that their disregard results in fatalities. Any unit whose commander was strict on security matters saw a significant drop in casualties. Every time we relaxed discipline on this subject we paid a heavy price. We must impress upon our students and rule for all who ask that it is a full-fledged mitzva to observe all safety regulations, whether on weekdays or on Shabbat. Disregarding such an injunction and failing to carry it out, even in a case that ends without disaster, constitutes a most serious transgression from a halakhic standpoint, a violation of the mitzva of "Take care and care for yourself well" (Devarim 4:9), and a transgression of the prohibition of "Bring not blood into your house" (Devarim 22:8).

Rabbi Zalman Korn wrote a "response to a response" to Rabbi Ben Meir's article, in which he sought to justify the rulings of Rabbi Elyashiv ("Hora'ot Betichut Tzva'i'ot le-Inyan Pikuach Nefesh," Techumin 4). Rabbi Korn contends that each soldier must examine each case on its own merits and determine whether there is a danger to human life in that particular case. Rabbi Ben Meir, in his aforementioned article, had forcefully rejected this contention, and in my humble opinion he is right: The whole point of safety regulations is that they are general and binding on all. If, God forbid, each soldier were to decide in each case whether or not there is a real risk, things would inevitably come to a point of life-threatening danger.

It is interesting to note that on the margins of Rabbi Ben Meir's article, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Neria added the following note:

It brings me joy that the subject I dealt with has aroused a stir, and that the rabbis have engaged themselves in this matter… I would like to note that I recently spoke with the Gaon Rabbi Yoel Kloft, shelita, and in that conversation he told me that he retracts his previous ruling and in fact his opinion is that the IDF safety regulations should be followed as they are, and that Shabbat may even be desecrated for the sake of their implementation or observance. (Ibid.)

Rabbi Yoel Kloft, a great Talmudic scholar who served in several rabbinic posts and was a member of the rabbinical court in Haifa, was at first inclined to agree with Rabbi Elyashiv’s ruling that safety regulations are not defined as pikuach nefesh. But in the end, he retracted and accepted the position of Rabbi Ben Meir that one is permitted to violate Shabbat for the sake of maintaining safety procedures.

Rabbi Re'em Hacohen also wrote a short article addressing the rulings of Rabbi Elyashiv as cited by Rabbi Neria, and explained:

In my opinion, all the questions posed by Rabbi Yitzchak Neria, and the answers given by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv – they were asked by an individual and in a private capacity, and not as they should have been, by the commander in charge of safety regulations in the army. In my opinion, the safety regulations were originally formulated by those responsible for them with reference to the likelihood of injury to individuals within a community. It is clear that adherence to safety regulations ultimately preserves the life of some individual, and from a collective perspective, we are dealing with certain saving of a life, for if the entire army were to violate safety regulations, soldiers would certainly be killed as a result of mishaps… Therefore, in my opinion, one should disagree with all three of the rulings cited. (Responsa Badei ha-Aron – Pikuach Nefesh, no. 7)[3]

To conclude this section, it should be noted that the author of the book Ha-Tzava ka-Halakha deals extensively with this issue of the observance of safety regulations on Shabbat (chap. 16, pars. 16-19). According to him, the criterion for determining whether one is permitted to desecrate Shabbat for the sake of safety regulations is the level of adherence to the particular regulation on weekdays.

As we have seen (shiur 20), this criterion is generally valid, but there are exceptions. Thus, for example, in the case I mentioned above, the soldiers in the intelligence collection unit claimed that even on weekdays they were sometimes lax in performing the liaison, and yet it is clear to me that this mission is permitted on Shabbat.

Torah Prohibitions and Rabbinic Prohibitions

Here it is appropriate to note that Rabbi Goren also addressed this question of the halakhic status of safety regulations, and he ruled that they are indeed binding even on Shabbat (Responsa Meishiv Milchama, vol. 1, no. 28). However, Rabbi Goren's words were written in a very brief manner, and in the framework of a responsum dealing with the permissibility of transporting live ammunition from a vehicle returning from an ambush to the unit's ammunition depot. It seems that the case under discussion did not involve the Torah prohibitions of driving or of carrying from one domain to another, but only the Rabbinic prohibition of muktzeh.

In my humble opinion, even according to the view of Rav Elyashiv cited above, there is room to say that where the implementation of the safety procedures involves only a Rabbinic prohibition, this is permitted. As a parallel to this, it may be recalled that some Acharonim maintain that even if the halakha is not in accordance with the Maggid Mishneh (Hilkhot Shabbat 2:14), and one may not perform prohibited actions on Shabbat that are not essential for a dangerously sick person – nevertheless, regarding Rabbinic prohibitions, one may be quite lax (see shiur 8, the Bi'ur Halakha and Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhata).

This touches upon a practical question that I am asked almost every Friday: Is it permissible for a soldier at the beginning of his basic training to carry his personal weapon, even though he has not yet fired it and is not yet proficient in its use? The poskim are divided as to whether the personal weapon is classified as muktzeh or whether it should be viewed as a kli she-melakhto le-heter (a utensil whose use is permissible on Shabbat) – namely, the function of defense, and in certain respects, even as an ornament.[4]

Without entering into the details of the dispute as to whether a personal weapon is considered muktzeh, IDF safety regulations require a soldier to remain in constant proximity to his personal weapon. Regrettably, theft of weapons and disappearance of weapons is a common phenomenon, and they are liable to fall into the hands of criminals and terrorists, thus costing lives. It is therefore a categorical obligation on the soldier to become accustomed to carrying his weapon at all times – except, of course, when the commanders on the scene have decided to lock up all the weapons together for the duration of Shabbat, in accordance with relevant regulations and procedures.

In view of the fact that carrying a weapon for non-operational purposes involves at most a Rabbinic prohibition, and all the more so, since according to some poskim it is fully permissible, we rule in practice that a soldier should carry his weapon on Shabbat in order to maintain the safety protocols that are applicable in this context.

Advance Preparations to Prevent Shabbat Desecration

It is important to note that regarding these matters of safety procedures, where there is no direct life-threatening danger but only a future and indirect one, there is a full obligation to prepare in advance so that Shabbat desecration may be kept to a minimum, to the extent possible (see shiurim 13 and 14).

Thus, the Chief Rabbi of the IDF, Brigadier General Rabbi Eyal Krim, ruled (Responsa Kishrei Milchama, vol. 2, no. 37) that it is forbidden to hold a "safety conference" on Shabbat, following a safety mishap in one of the units, on the grounds that, despite the great importance of the conference, it can be held on Sunday as well.

As for the signatures on the armory inspections, IDF regulations themselves allow them to be filled out before or after Shabbat. The inspection itself is done on Shabbat, but the mandatory procedure of signing that an inspection has taken place allows for the signature to be affixed on Saturday night.

In addition, the Armored Corps directives, written in coordination with the IDF Rabbinate, allow for routine maintenance of tanks in operational sectors to be carried out close to the onset of Shabbat and immediately thereafter, and to forgo routine maintenance on Shabbat itself (provided that the tank has not been driven on Shabbat). In this way, the required operational readiness can be maintained without desecrating Shabbat.

Similarly, a soldier who needs to use a flashlight for the purpose of checking his weapon, or to operate a stick light during a stay in the field, is required to do so before the onset of Shabbat. Likewise, it is advisable to be equipped for this purpose with a flashlight that has LED illumination, whose prohibition is Rabbinic and not by Torah law, rather than an incandescent bulb.

The Necessity of a Shinnui – Performing the Prohibited Action in an Unconventional Manner

In our earlier discussion of using a shinnui to perform prohibited labors for the sake of pikuach nefesh (shiur 12), we saw the following ruling of Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv:

It may be argued that even though we maintain that Shabbat may be desecrated even for an uncertain danger in the future – in such a case, if it is possible to perform the prohibited labor with a shinnui, one should do so by virtue of the law according to all opinions, and not only because that is the custom as the Rema wrote. For as of yet there is no danger, but we are afraid about the future, and so when it is possible to do it with a shinnui, and he will receive the matter without delay, one should be stringent according to all opinions. (Kovetz Teshuvot, vol. 2, no. 26, letter 3)

Here too, in my humble opinion, this should be the practical halakhic ruling regarding anything related to observing safety procedures on Shabbat. Therefore, in the event that the flashlight was not turned on before Shabbat, as it should have been, it may be turned on Shabbat – but this must be done with a shinnui.

I similarly respond to inquirers that it is permissible to use the IDF's Electronic Driver Assistant system on Shabbat, but one should swipe the ID card in an unconventional manner. In the same way, it is also permissible to conduct communication checks on Shabbat, but it is proper to operate the device with a shinnui.

As stated above, in my humble opinion, safety regulations permit even Torah prohibitions – and in such cases, there is a full-fledged obligation to perform the task in an unconventional manner. I will conclude with an example of this, regarding which my opinion differs – with all due respect – from that of my father-in-law, Rabbi Shlomo Levy.

In the army preparation classes at Yeshivat Har Etzion, Rabbi Shlomo would give the following example: In the past, there was an order of the Armored Corps that tanks had to be moved every few hours in the winter months, to prevent freezing (to the best of my knowledge, this is no longer the case with the newer tanks). It once happened that on a particular Shabbat in the middle of the winter, it was unusually warm. Clearly, there was no danger of freezing in such weather! Consequently, the question arose whether the order should be carried out, and the tank be moved, or whether in such a situation the routine could be dispensed with. Rabbi Shlomo ruled that in such circumstances there is no allowance for carrying out the order.

With all due respect, I think that such a ruling is liable to lead to the problematic reality we described above, where each person rules for himself. What will happen when the weather is unstable? Or when the temperatures are only a little higher than usual? Will each soldier at each post decide for himself whether to follow the procedure for moving the tank? There is grave concern that, at some time and in some place, such a ruling will result in an operational mishap.

Nevertheless, since this case involves a serious question of violating a Torah prohibition of Shabbat, in my humble opinion, in this case it is an absolute obligation to move the tank with a shinnui. In this way, there is no longer a Torah prohibition involved, but the binding security procedure is fulfilled to the letter.

(Translated by David Strauss; edited by Sarah Rudolph)

[1] See his memorial page on the Yizkor site, here.

Tal's family had sharp criticism of the IDF, and of the fact that those responsible for the safety lapse were not brought to justice. Of course, I cannot comment on this, and I do not know the details of the operational investigation, but the media published about it; see, for example, the article on the Ynet website, here.

[2] "Ba'ayot bi-Kedima be-Hatzala," in Kevod ha-Rav (a collection of articles in honor of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, New York 5744), p. 168.

[3] In section 3 there, there is a comprehensive article dealing with the parameters of communal pikuach nefesh, which we have studied in the past. 

[4] See the summary in Torat ha-Machaneh, vol. 2, chap. 47, responsum 2, and the sources cited there.