Laws of Weapons on Shabbat
Question
Please, 8 questions on the subject of a soldier/security guard with a rifle/pistol on Shabbat, in the reality of the State of Israel in recent years:
Clarification: On weekdays there are six reasons for a soldier/security guard to carry a rifle/pistol, and to keep it in a safe at other times:
A] To eliminate terrorists and/or dangerous criminals.
B] To deter terrorists and/or dangerous criminals.
C] So that the weapon does not come into the possession of terrorists and/or criminals.
D] To prevent children, youths and simpletons from getting hold of the weapon and playing with it.
E] The law in the State of Israel requires such supervision over the weapon. And if he violates this law and is caught, he will be punished. And if this recurs several times, his gun license may be revoked.
F] The weapon costs a lot of money, i.e. it is economically expensive.
The 8 questions:
1] May a soldier/security guard always carry a weapon such as a rifle or pistol in a place where there is an eruv?
2] How does your answer to the previous question fit with what is written:
It is written that in a place where there is a tangible danger, a weapon is considered a kli she-melachto le-heter (a utensil whose primary function is for permitted use), since it is for saving lives.
And that there is an argument that in a place where there is no tangible danger, since the main usual use of a pistol is for deterrence, therefore it is a kli she-melachto le-heter.
And according to the view that nevertheless it is a kli she-melachto le-issur (a utensil whose primary function is for prohibited use), since operating it involves the prohibition of kindling fire and its purpose is to kill an enemy,
when you use it for deterrence, it is permitted to carry it, since this is considered carrying a kli she-melachto le-issur for using its body (the item itself) for a permitted purpose.
Apparently this depends on the discussion of the poskim regarding a circumcision knife — whether it is considered a kli she-melachto le-heter,
since circumcision on the eighth day is permitted on Shabbat.
Therefore, although one should be stringent and treat it as muktzeh,
when there is a real reason to carry the weapon, there is broad room to permit it.
When there is no security need at all, there is a concern that the weapon is considered muktze machmat chisaron kis (muktzeh due to risk of monetary loss/expensiveness), i.e. because its cost is high,
since then people there are accustomed to placing it in a safe.
[Shulchan Shlomo, siman 338, se’if katan 16 and 27. And he noted that this is the law even though all the deterrent effect of the weapon stems from its being a killing instrument.]
[Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilchatah, ch. 20, note 28.]
3] Is a soldier/security guard permitted to take his rifle/pistol as usual in a place where there is no eruv?
Or, if this is possible from the standpoint of safety and technically, may he do so with a modification (shinui) as long as he is in a place without an eruv?
4] How does your answer to the previous question fit with what is written:
"מתניתין לא יצא האיש לא בסייף ולא בקשת ולא בתריס,
ולא באלה ולא ברומח, ואם יצא חייב חטאת.
רבי אליעזר אומר תכשיטין הן לו" — "In our Mishnah it is taught: A man may not go out (on Shabbat) with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield,
nor with a club, nor with a spear; and if he went out, he is liable for a sin-offering.
Rabbi Eliezer says: They are ornaments for him (his adornments)." [from the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 63a].
And in Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chayim, siman 301, se’if 51:
"ולכן לא יצא איש לא בסייף אפילו חגור במתניו,
שבחול יוצאין בו כך, ולא בקשת בכהני גווני,
ולא בתריס שהוא מגן על ראשו וגופו מפני השונא,
ולא באלה שהוא מקל של ברזל, ולא ברומח שנושא אותם בצד הגוף כדרך בעלי מלחמה,
ואם יצא - חייב חטאת.
והטעם, מפני שדברים אלו אינם תכשיטין בעצם, אלא לבעלי מלחמה הרי הם כבגדיו.
אבל בסתם בני אדם - הרי הם משא [כ"מ מפי ה"ר עובדיה במשנה פרק ו' משנה ד' ע"ש].
ולכן הבעל מלחמה, כמו העובד בצבא המלך - הם כבגדיו.
ויראה לי ברור דכל אלו מיירי לא כשנושאין בידיו,
דבכהני גווני גם בתכשיט חייב חטאת, אלא דמיירי שתלוין בבגדיו [וכ"מ ממג"א סקכ"ז].
וראיתי מי שכתב דהחנית נושא בידו, ואלמלי היה תכשיט היה מותר גם בכהני גווני,
ולכן מותר להוציא מטה עם כפתור נאה לכרמלית [תפארת ישראל בפירוש המשנה].
וחלילה לומר כן וטעות גדול הוא, דאם כן כי גזרינן באשה דילמא שלפא ומחוי,
מה בכך הא תכשיט הוא, ואם כי אין דרך תכשיט זה לישא בידיים,
מכל מקום סוף סוף אין זה תכשיט כשנושאין בידיים.
ולכן ברשות הרבים - חייב חטאת.
ובכרמלית - אסור מדרבנן. וכן עיקר לדינא.".
5] For an accurate assessment of where exactly the line passes between a possible danger to life and a real danger to life, on the one hand, and lack of danger to life, on the other,
is one obligated to rely on the rulings of the security establishment?
Or is it permitted to be concerned and be more stringent?
For we recall these six points:
A] Even before, but especially since the Six-Day War, the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Rebbe of Lubavitch, strongly expressed opposition to returning territories in exchange for peace and spoke about this many times.
And nevertheless, several times territories were returned in exchange for peace. And many rabbis claim that the damage caused by such mistakes is very evident.
B] A significant intelligence failure of the security establishment before the Yom Kippur War.
C] The security establishment did not succeed in preventing the establishment of the 36th Government of Israel, also called the "Government of Change", headed by Bennett and Lapid, which lasted from 13/06/2021 to 29/12/2022 and made several terrible decisions:
It relied on the Arab party Ra"am to form the coalition.
It transferred much larger than usual sums to the Palestinian Authority, which paid and pays salaries to terrorists.
It transferred much larger than usual sums to the Arab sector in the State of Israel, including to the "Islamic Association for Orphans and the Needy" = "Assistance 48 Association", one of the associations of the Ra"am party. Afterwards it was proved that this association transferred large sums to terrorist organizations, and therefore the Registrar of Associations closed this association.
Instead of transferring the Qatari money directly to Hamas, part 1 of the money was transferred via the UN, but under the de facto control of Hamas. And part 2 was transferred via the purchase of fuel from Egypt, which was sold in the Gaza Strip, and the profits from it were used to pay the salaries of Hamas officials. This is the same as before: salaries for the terrorist organization Hamas.
It signed a new maritime border agreement between Israel and Lebanon and, as part of it, relinquished the gas field "Kana-Sidon", which at the time of signing the agreement was estimated to contain twice as much gas as the "Karish" field. Therefore there was concern that this would be a huge amount of money for the terrorist organization Hezbollah.
It stopped new investments in Judea and Samaria, based on the assumption that in the future these territories would be handed over to the Palestinian Authority.
D] A significant intelligence failure of the security establishment before the 7 October massacre on 07/10/2023.
E] There is a claim that there were senior officials in the security establishment who admitted that they were surprised by the strength of the terrorist organization Hezbollah at the beginning of its attack in Operation "Shaagat HaAri" ("The Roar of the Lion").
F] There have been several attacks, Heaven forbid, that succeeded since the establishment of the state and also in recent years.
6] If the soldier/security guard does not carry the rifle/pistol with him, then the weapon must be in a safe.
It is written that one can obtain a completely mechanical safe, i.e. without an electronic code lock, without internal lighting that goes on only when the door is open, and without an alarm in case of an attempted break-in.
However, usually, before returning the weapon to the safe, there is a procedure of actions for checking the weapon:
A] Pointing the weapon in a safe direction. Always, even when the weapon is empty, it is pointed at an angle such that, if a shot is fired, the impact will not cause significant damage. Usually to a low corner of the room or to a designated unloading device.
B] Removing the magazine with the rounds/bullets from the weapon.
C] Pulling the bolt/charging handle (cocking) two or three times, in order to ensure that any round that was inside was ejected.
D] Visual and physical inspection. When the bolt is locked back, one looks into the chamber and verifies with one’s eyes that it is empty. It is also recommended to carefully insert a finger to feel and make sure there is no round there.
E] Releasing the bolt and dry firing. Only after you have verified that the barrel is empty, you release the bolt and pull the trigger — a "dry fire" — in a safe direction in order to ensure that the firing pin is released.
F] Safety catch, if relevant.
This weapon check is intended for the following purposes:
A] Preventing accidents. Children or unauthorized people who might reach the weapon in the safe, even though it is locked, will not find a weapon ready to fire.
B] Preventing forgetfulness. Such an orderly check prevents surprises when taking the weapon out again.
C] Preventing wear of the spring, which could cause malfunctions in the weapon. In most firearms, it is not recommended to store the weapon for a long time in a cocked state, i.e. when the firing pin spring is under tension, because this wears it out.
Therefore, the questions:
7] To what extent is one obligated to try to obtain an "operational safe" in which the weapon is stored loaded, but in a rigid holster protecting the trigger inside the safe, in order not to have to perform the entire procedure of checking the weapon on Shabbat?
8] If the law in the State of Israel requires such a check of the weapon before each time placing the weapon into the safe,
and the soldier/security guard has not yet succeeded in obtaining an exemption from this law and/or an operational safe,
then only if it is certainly possible from the standpoint of safety and technically, should he perform the weapon check with a modification (shinui)?
And if this is not possible, should he do the weapon check in the usual manner?
Because of these two points:
A] Perhaps the law requiring the weapon check was enacted primarily because of the obligation of safety and not only to prevent wear to the weapon.
B] If he violates this law and is caught, he will be punished. And if this recurs several times, his gun license may be revoked.
9] As long as it is possible from the standpoint of safety and technically, which of the actions in the weapon-check list is it preferable, for halachic reasons, to perform with a modification (shinui)?
Thank you.
Answer
Shalom u’vracha.
1. It is forbidden. It is muktzeh.
2. Its primary function is for a prohibited activity — firing. And precisely because this is what it serves for, it also has a deterrent effect.
Also a circumcision knife is muktzeh, as stated above.
When there is a real risk, and there is a need for deterrence in order to protect, it is permitted even to fire, and all the more so to move an item that is muktzeh.
3. In a place of danger it is permitted. When there is no danger it is forbidden. The civil law does not permit what the Torah forbids.
When there is danger and it is permitted to carry a weapon, if it is possible to move it with a modification (shinui), one should move it with a modification, on condition that this does not harm the security need [for example, if there is danger and carrying the weapon in such a way would delay the response to the danger].
4. There is no contradiction there to what was stated above.
5. Clearly, one cannot rely absolutely on people who do not make their decisions according to the Torah. But this is true both regarding leniency and regarding stringency. One must exercise proper judgment.
6. 8. 9. When there is a real danger [as stated above], and one must carry a weapon, one is obligated to follow all the safety instructions regarding the weapon. Whatever can be done with a modification (shinui) should be done with a modification — of course, only when that modification does not create any danger.
7. There is no obligation, but there is an advantage in doing so.
