16 Jul RELIGIOUS COMMANDERS IN THE ARMY

I. Allowing a Sin
Most religious
Jews are raised and

educated in a like-
minded environment

with schoolmates and
friends from a similar
background. Depending on the family
and community, religious Jews have some
exposure to non-religious Jews. Often,
the IDF is a mixing bowl, a salad of Jews
from different backgrounds who must
work together for the sake of personal and
national safety. With all the benefits of this
exposure, it also poses challenges.
One such challenge faces the religious
army commander in terms of the Shabbos
observance of his unit members. A
commander cannot force his unit members
to observance the Shabbos laws in their
private lives. In a diverse community
like the army, we have to be careful
to respect people’s choices even if we
believe them to be bad choices. However,
sometimes a commander faces decisions
that have implications regarding Shabbos
observance. For example, if an army unit
finishes its responsibilities on Shabbos,
a commander has the ability to release

the soldiers on leave. If a unit serving
on guard duty for a week is relieved by
another unit on Shabbos morning, is a
religious commander allowed to give his
soldiers leave when it is almost certain
that some will travel to their homes by
vehicle on Shabbos?
A religious Jew strives to fulfill all of the
commandments and related laws, whether
biblical, rabbinic or custom. A relevant
biblical law is the prohibition of lifnei
iver, placing a proverbial stumbling block
before a blind person. You are not allowed
to give a glass of wine to a nazir, who
is forbidden to drink wine, if he cannot
otherwise reach the glass (Avodah Zarah
6a). A soldier may not leave the army base
without permission from his commander.
Does the commander violate lifnei iver by
giving his permission, thereby enabling
his unit members to travel in forbidden
ways on Shabbos?
II. What is Leave?
Rav Ya’akov Ariel (cont., Israel) points
out that the Talmudic examples of lifnei
iver involve providing someone with an
object for violating a prohibition. In the
case of the unit commander, there is no
physical object (Be-Ohalah Shel Torah,

vol. 5, no. 29).
Rav Ariel asks
whether the leave,
the vacation, is
an “item” that
the commander
has and gives to
the soldiers. Or
does it belong to
the soldiers and
the commander
merely removes
an obstacle to the
soldier using it?
Rav Ariel answers
that this case is actually in between these
two poles. The commander does not give
anything to the soldiers but he is not
passive either. Rather, the commander
actively removes the impediment from
the soldier. Regarding a similar case, Rav
Zechariah Ben Shlomo (cont., Israel)
considers whether a soldier must return
to base early enough on Friday so that
the person whose position he is relieving
has time to return home before Shabbos
starts (Hilkhos Tzava, ch. 93, par. 24,
sec. 2). Rav Ben Shlomo says that he is
not obligated to do so because he does
not cause that soldier to leave but merely
removes the impediment to his leaving.
Rav Ariel suggests another way to look
at the question. Does a soldier’s free time
belong to him or to the army? Meaning,
when a soldier enlists, does he obligate
himself to the army but retains his basic
freedom? If so, when the army does not
need him, when it gives him a leave, then
he reverts to his full rights to his time?
Or, when he enlists, does he pledge all
his time to the army and the leave is a gift
from the army? If it is the former, then
when the commander gives his soldiers
leave, all he is doing is relinquishing the
army’s rights to the soldiers’ time. He
is not giving them permission to leave
the base but removing his claim to their
time. On the other hand, if it is the latter
and all the soldiers’ time belongs to the
army, only then we can suggest that a
commander gives soldiers permission to
leave the base on Shabbos.
Perhaps most importantly, it is only
forbidden to give someone an item that
is primarily used for a prohibition. It is
permissible to give someone an item that
might be used for permissible behavior
or might be used for forbidden behavior
(Gittinf 61a). Since vacation time can be
used to travel home or to relax on base,
it is considered an item than may be
used for either permissible or forbidden
activity. Therefore, it is not subject to
lifnei iveir.

III. Assisting the Sin
But even without the biblical prohibition
of lifnei iveir, there remains a rabbinic
prohibition against helping someone to
violate a prohibition (mesayei’a yedei
overei aveirah). Rav Ya’akov Ettlinger
(19th cen., Germany) rules that mesayei’a
only applies at the time of the sin. You
are not allowed to help or be a part of the
sin as it occurs (Binyan Tziyon, no. 15).
That is not the case with giving soldiers
leave. Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin
(Netziv, 19th cen., Russia) adds that this
rabbinic prohibition does not apply when
it prevents you from earning a living
(Meishiv Davar, vol. 2, nos. 31-32). Rav
Ariel argues that a commander may be
demoted if he is found to be preventing
soldiers for taking leave due to religious
considerations. Even if he is not at risk
for this, it could impede his progression
in rank. More broadly, this could hurt
the progress of religious commanders in
general, if there is a concern that they will
mistreat in some way their non-observant
unit members. It will also risk distancing
soldiers from religion rather than bringing
them closer.
Rav Nachum Rabinovitch (21st cen.,
Israel) points out that the Mishnah
(Shevi’is 5:9) explicitly permits this
prohibition due to darkei shalom, the ways
of peace. Since there is no certainty that a
soldier will travel far on Shabbos, there is
no problem in giving him permission to
leave (Melumedei Milchamah, no. 10).
However, a commander should try as
much as possible to let his soldiers leave
base early enough on Friday so they can
reach home before Shabbos.
We want others to observe the Torah and
encourage them to the best of our ability.
We certainly do not want to assist them
violate the Torah. However, when we
have control over someone else’s time or
body, we have to finely balance the need
to give them freedom to make their own
choices and, on the other hand, the need to
maintain our own faith and integrity.