Print this Article
We are all aware of the Torah imperative to avoid even the smallest chance of danger regardless of the financial or physical cost or even if it involves the violation of a Mitzvah. Yet, we intuitively understand that the Torah allows us to drive in a car even though, in 2006, 1.42 people died for every 100 million miles driven. An analysis of some of the rationales for why this is permitted will help us understand how Poskim evaluate other less obvious situations to decide whether the Torah wants us to ignore or avoid a specific risk.
Note: The goal of this article is to present some factors involved in this type of decision, and the article is not intended to serve as a source for a Halachic ruling. Rulings on these types of questions must be addressed by a Posek.
There appear to be a number of possible reasons to permit an act that appears to have some element of risk:
- Although the Halacha requires that one be concerned with even a tiny chance of danger, there may be some risks that are so remote that we may ignore them even as they relate to Sakana – danger. An extreme example of this is that Hattam Sofer[1] says that (as it relates to Pikuah Nefesh – life danger) one need not be concerned about occurrences which happen once in a thousand years. Hattam Sofer’s guideline is obviously meant as a hyperbole, and the exact level at which something is considered truly remote as relates to Sakana requires further clarification.
- In deciding whether an act meets the aforementioned criteria of being “too risky”, one must be careful to properly identify the “act”, as follows. For example, while there is reason to believe that eating too much salt raises one’s blood pressure, drinking too many flavored soft drinks leads to diabetes, and basking too much in the sun may lead to skin cancer, that doesn’t mean that it is forbidden to ever consume salt or sugar or walk outdoors. In each of these cases, it is a dangerous “act” when one has more than a specific amount of the otherwise-safe item, and therefore one cannot classify salt as being dangerous and forbidden.
- Even when the item is considered truly dangerous, the Gemara[2] tells us that if people commonly ignore the danger inherent in a specific act (דשו ביה רבים), others are permitted to follow suit and rely on Hashem’s protection. At the same time, as people become more concerned with that particular danger, the previously-permitted act may become forbidden. A full discussion of this principle, known as שומר פתאים ה’ (Hashem protects the innocent), is beyond the scope of this article, but the following words of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach[3] are instructive:
“Regarding how to classify a life-threat, and what is the limit, I greatly debated this matter, and it seems that anything that prompts people to flee for their life is considered to be a life-threat… But if most people do not fear it, it is not considered to be a life-threat. An example for this is the measles vaccine, although one should technically rush to have it administered, since most people do not feel a pressing urge to do so, one may take their time, although presently one is keeping themselves in a state of danger…”
- Binyan Tzion[4] says that the stringency associated with danger only applies if the person is already ill or in some other situation which might lead to death, but it doesn’t restrict a person from entering a situation where danger may develop in the future.
- Shem Aryeh[5] understands that one may do those things which are required for “normal living” and need not be concerned with possible danger. It is noteworthy that within this opinion, the Tzitz Eliezer cites a disagreement as to whether it is limited to people entering the situation for business purposes or if it applies to all people.
Summary:
There are many experiences in life which carry with them a certain element of risk but are permitted according to Halacha. Using the example of food, we determine whether a specific food is “safe” based on a number of factors: What the chances are that consuming the food will lead to danger, how much of the food must be consumed before reaching the dangerous level, and whether consumption of such foods is considered safe by the average consumer. [Later authorities suggest two other factors that may play a role in this decision.] Clearly the answer to this question will be different depending on how much of the given food the person is considering eating, and on what is considered safe in the locale and times that the person lives in.
[1] Responsa Hattam Sofer Y.D. 338. At first glance, one might think that the driving example given in the previous text qualifies for the literal words of Hattam Sofer because even if a person drove 500 miles a week, it would, on average, take him more than 2,800 years before he would be killed in a car accident, which appears to be more than “once in a thousand years”. However, Hattam Sofer actually means to say that not even once in a thousand years does anyone on Earth give all appearances of being dead, and then actually turn out to be alive. Accordingly, the appropriate statistic to compare to Hattam Sofer is that in 2006 there were rahmana litzlan a total of 42,642 driving related fatalities in the USA, which means that more than 115 people were killed each day – which of course doesn’t qualify for the literal words of Hattam Sofer. However, as noted in the coming text, Hattam Sofer is clearly overstating the cutoff level at which the Safek Sakanah – risk of danger – is considered too common.
[2] Gemara, Shabbat 192b, Yevamot 12b, Avoda Zara 30b and elsewhere.
[3] Minhat Shelomo II:37
[4] Binyan Tzion 137 (See Ahiezer I:23)
[5] Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27.