Q&A: A Question About Security
A Question About Security
Question
People go hiking in a place with a security risk.
The army, of course, provides security for them.
Is that permitted?
On the one hand, saving life; on the other hand, they could stay home and go to the synagogue to hear the cantor, who has a yahrzeit, rasp out Yekum Purkan…
Is there a difference between the IDF and a private security company?
(The security authorities in the area require or recommend that hikers take security with them at their own expense.)
And if they cannot obtain security, then ostensibly the trip would be canceled and they would have to stay home, and in any case there would be no Sabbath desecration.
Is that a consideration?
And if it is permitted, do they need to remain in the security area for the Sabbath?
Or is it permitted to stay home and then, when the time comes, travel out and provide security?
(And doctors as well?)
Answer
By logic, it seems there is a difference between a private company and the army. In the case of a private company, in my opinion it is forbidden. In the case of the army, in my opinion it is permitted. The army is supposed to protect all residents regardless of their outlook. You cannot maintain an army if everyone decides not to protect those they do not like. A state is obligated to provide protection to every citizen. The best situation would be if the state prohibited the army from doing this and required hikers to hire a private company. But as long as that is not the case, I think one must take part in it.
Of course, if something has already happened, then anyone who can come and defend must come.