This article is an excerpt from our Sefer 

Buy here on Amazon

Chapter 1: The obligation to guard one’s Health and physical safety

1. The verses in Scripture:[1]

There are various verses in scripture which speak of the idea of guarding one’s life. Some of these verses are interpreted to refer to other matters, and not to actual danger of life, while others are taken literally, as explained in Halacha 2. The following is a list of verses and their interpretation.

1. Bereishis 9:5“Veach Es Dimchem Lenafshoseichem Edrosh/I will demand your blood from you” From this verse we learn the prohibition against committing suicide. It is debated amongst Poskim as to whether this command also includes also a requirement to guard one’s life from dangers, and hence one who enters himself to a dangerous situation transgresses this command.^[2] [See Halacha 2A in Q&A]
2. Devarim 4:9: “Hishamer Lecha Ushemor Nafshecha Meod/guard yourselves and guard your soul very much.” From this verse we learn that there is a positive command for one to remove and guard himself from any matter which poses potential danger of life. There is a debate in the Poskim as to whether this teaching is the Biblical or merely Rabbinical interpretation of the verse, and majority of Poskim side that it is Biblical, as will be explained in Halacha 2A and the footnotes there!
3. Devarim 4:15: “Vinishmartem Meod Lenafshoseichem” The Poskim debate the meaning of this verse, as will be explained in Halacha 2A.
4. Devarim 20:19:[3] “Bal Tashchis/Do not destroy” Some Poskim[4] rule that this prohibition applies likewise against destroying the body, and not just against destroying property or food. From other Poskim[5], however, it is evident that this prohibition only applies to objects and not to the human body.
5. Devarim 22:8: “Veasisa Meakeh Legagecha/Make a fence for your roof” From this verse we learn that there is a positive command to put up a fence to one’s roof, as will be explained in chapter 3. The majority of Poskim imply that this positive command to make a fence does not also apply to other matters of danger.^[6]
6. Devarim 22:8: “Lo Sasim Damim Biveisecha/Do not place blood in your home.”^[7] From this verse we learn that there is a negative command against causing blood to spill in one’s home by leaving a matter of danger in its vicinity, as will be explained in Halacha 2A.

2. The obligation to beware from matters of danger and remove them from one’s midst:^[8]

A. The Biblical obligation:^[9]

It is a Biblical obligation in the Torah for one to guard his health and physical safety and to beware of his body, to not cause it loss, destruction or injury. The following are the details of this command.

The negative command: It is a positive command [in the Torah] for a person to make a fence [i.e. guardrail] on his roof^[10], and anyone who leaves his roof without a fence aside for transgressing this positive command, also transgresses a negative command [listed as one of the 365 negative commands^[11]] against [potentially] spilling blood in one’s home^[12],  as the verse^[13] states “Do not place blood in your home.”^[14]  This negative command against causing blood to spill in one’s home applies both for roofs and for anything else that poses a danger, and that a person can stumble on and die.^[15]

The positive command:^[16] In addition to this negative command, there is also a [Biblical^[17]] positive command for one to remove and guard himself from any matter which poses potential danger of life, and for one to well beware of it, as the verse^[18] states “Hishamer Lecha Ushemor Nafshecha Meod/guard yourselves and guard your soul very much.”

One who transgresses:^[19] If one transgresses the above and allows to remain and does not remove [from his home] the matter which poses a safety hazard, then he has nullified the above positive command and also has transgressed the negative command of “thou shall not place blood.” [and is liable for lashes^[20]].

Removing a danger from one’s midst:^[21] From the above it is understood that the Biblical obligation, and both positive and negative command, does not just prohibit one from entering a dangerous scenario, but furthermore, actually requires one to remove a danger from his vicinity even if it was created due to no fault of his own.

The types of dangers to which this Biblical obligation applies:^[22] Not all matters of potential danger fall under the above Biblical prohibition, and it all depends on the percentage of danger. Depending on how high the risk of danger is will effect whether there is a Biblical obligation to beware, or a mere Rabbinical obligation, or no obligation at all. See D!

The verse of Vinishmartem Meod Lenafshoseichem: Some Poskim[23] rule that the verse [Devarim 4:15] of Vinishmartem Meod Lenafshoseichem refers to the guarding of one’s life from dangers, and hence one who enters himself to a dangerous situation transgresses this command. However, this verse is omitted from most Poskim [including Admur, the Michaber and Rambam], as a source for the obligation to guard one’s health and only the previous verse of “Hishamer” is recorded. The reason for this because the simple meaning of this verse refers to guarding the Mitzvos, and not to matters of health.[24]   The verse of Veach Es Dimchem Lenafshoseichem Edrosh [i.e. suicide]: Some Poskim[25] learn that the verse [Bereishis 9:5] of Veach Es Dimchem Lenafshoseichem Edrosh, speaking against Bnei Noach committing suicide, includes also a requirement to guard one’s life from dangers, and hence one who enters himself to a dangerous situation transgresses this command. However, this verse is omitted from most Poskim [including Admur, the Michaber and Rambam], as a source for the obligation to guard one’s health and only the previous verse of “Hishamer” is recorded. The reason for this because the simple meaning of this verse refers to the actual intentional commitment of suicide and not to simply endangering oneself.[26] However, seemingly the prohibition for one to intentionally injure his body through hitting it or fasting seemingly derives from this verse.[27] However, some Poskim[28] learn also this prohibition against self-affliction from the previous verse of “Hishamer”   The reason Hashem commanded us to guard our souls, and health:[29] Hashem created the world for a purpose, which is to provide creatures with an opportunity to recognize G-d’s greatness and to serve him through observing His Torah and Mitzvos. Now, one who is lax with his life and safety expresses that he does not care to serve G-d and does not care for His great kindness, and there is no greater belittlement and heresy than this. The body is holier than the soul:[30] From the fact that the Torah commands a Jew desecrate Shabbos for the sake of saving a life, we can understand that the life of a Jew is even holier than that of the holiness of Shabbos. From here we can learn the preciousness of the body of a Jew, and how he must guard it from dangers. Q&A Does the obligation and prohibition only apply by matters of potential danger of life, or even against matters that can cause non-lethal injury?[31] Although from some Poskim[32] it is implied that the obligation and prohibition is only to guard oneself from lethal danger, and not simply to nonlethal injury, nonetheless, practically the Poskim[33] rule that the obligation and prohibition applies even to guarding oneself from nonlethal injury. [However, it is unclear if this is part of the Biblical prohibition or is only a rabbinical requirement.[34]

Must one also beware of supernatural dangers, which have no scientific understanding? Yes.[35]   How does the concept of Hashgacha Pratis and the law of not endangering one’s life coincide:[36] We are taught that it is an absolute prohibition to enter ourselves into danger and rely on miracles. The reason for this is because G-d does not always perform a miracle for a person, and one must have enough merits for a miracle to be done to take him out of a situation of danger. Now, one may rightfully ask as to why this is the case, as we are also rightfully taught that everything that happens to a person is by divine decree, Hashgacha Pratis. Thus, if G-d did not decree for something to happen to someone, then it should not happen regardless of the situation and as to how dangerous it is. For example, if G-d did not decree for someone to get hit by a car, then seemingly he should not get hit by a car whether he’s walking on the sidewalk, or sprinting onto a busy highway with flying cars? What is incorrect about this notion? The answer is that G-d created the world with a certain system of nature, and the more that is required to override the natural system, the more merits one needs in the eyes of G-d. In other words, while an individual may not be deserving of getting hit by a car while walking on the sidewalk, and thus G-d will not make the rare event occur of a car going out of control and slamming into the sidewalk, this may not be the case if the person decides to sprint down I-95. In that case, it is not G-d who is directly deciding for the person to get hit by the car, but rather His rules of nature that He embedded into creation, which have nothing to do with a person’s innocence or guilt, but rather with the natural order of the world.[37] Now, while of course G-d retains the ultimate decision of whether this individual will die as a result of the natural danger, He does not choose to override this natural danger so easily and freely, and requires that the potential victim have enough merits to deserve being saved, and have G-d intervene to stop the laws of nature which he created from applying to him.

B. Rabbinical Dangers-Being careful in the matters of danger listed by our Sages and recorded in Halacha:^[38]

There are many matters which the sages^[39] prohibited due to them potentially leading to danger of life^[40], and whoever transgresses them and says, “I will endanger myself and it’s none of anyone else’s business,” or says “I [do not worry of the chance of danger and] choose not to be careful about this,” is liable to receive lashes known as Makas Mardus.^[41] [It is likewise forbidden for one to rely on a miracle or for one to endanger his life, in any of these matters of the like.^[42] One who is careful to beware of them, on him will befall a good blessing.^[43]]

The categories of Rabbinical listed dangers and their level of obligation: There are various categories of dangers recorded in the writings of Chazal, some deriving directly from the Talmud, and some from later authorities, primarily from the works of Rav Yehuda Hachassid. The extent to which one must abide by these dangers will be discussed in Halacha ??.

Is the danger physical, for the body, or spiritual, for the soul: It is possible that by some of the Rabbinically enacted dangers, the dangerous effect is not to the physical body, but rather to the soul.[44] So not just for example, due to it one can suddenly lose all his motivation in serving God in prayer and Torah learning.[45] Ruach Ra’ah: One of the more common supernatural dangers is a danger due to reasons of Ruach Ra’ah, or the evil spirit. Some Poskim[46] rule that although a person will not be actually harmed if he transgresses one of the Ruach Ra’ah Dangers on mere occasion, if he does so often, he will certainly be harmed.   Why are gentiles not affected by these dangers?[47] We find that many of the recorded dangers in the Talmud which are followed only by Jews and not Gentiles do not seem to negatively affect the health of Gentiles. The reason for this is not because these recorded dangers are in truth not dangerous at all, but rather because the Jewish people have a different physique than Gentiles. Jews are more refined in nature due to the giving of the Torah and keeping of the Mitzvos and thus the body becomes a lot more sensitive to anything coarse and negative. Ever since we received the Torah on Mount Sinai, the impurity that was entered to the human body through the bite of the snake in the times of Adam has ceased, and made the Jewish body more refined.[48] Therefore, the body of a Jew is more prone to subtle dangers than is the body of a Gentile.[49] Furthermore, Gentiles eat non-kosher foods and insects and reptiles, which makes their body more coarse and less prone to the more subtle dangers.[50] For this reason, one can explain also why we see secular jews who do not abide by the dangers recorded in the Talmud and are nonetheless not health compromised.[51] [Perhaps this is similar to one who is wealthy and pampered and is repulsed by foods that normal people would eat without a problem in times of need.]

C. Sakana Chamira Mei’issura-Being more careful in matters of danger than in Halachic prohibitions:^[52]

One must beware of all matters that can endanger one’s life, being that a dangerous matter is even more severe than a forbidden matter and one is to suspect more for a possible dangerous matter then for a possible forbidden matter. [This matter has practical ramification regarding the nullification of a food that is prohibited due to danger [i.e. is it nullified, can it be nullified even initially, do we apply Safek Sfeika etc. etc.]. Some Poskim^[53] that this rule only applies to natural dangers and not to Segula dangers. Other Poskim^[54] however, apply this rule to all kinds of dangers, even Segula dangers.]

D. The law by a slight danger [i.e. low risk]:^[55]

For recreational purposes: Some Poskim^[56] rule that it is forbidden for one to enter himself even into a slight level of danger, for unnecessary purposes, such as for a hobby and recreation. [According to this approach, it should be forbidden to drive, fly, climb a tree, go skydiving, for recreational purposes.] Other Poskim^[57], however, prove that it is permitted for one to do any activity which is accepted amongst people of the world to be done even if it carries some risk, and even for merely recreational purposes. [Thus, it is permitted to drive a car, and go flying, and on a cruise, and climb a tree, even for recreational purposes.]

For the sake of Parnasa:^[58] According to all, it is permitted for one to slightly endanger his life for the sake of Parnasa, making a livelihood. Thus, one may go hunting despite the risks that it carries. Likewise, one may travel by ship for the sake of business through risky water despite the fear of shipwreck. Likewise, one may climb to high places for the sake of his livelihood [such as to climb a tall tree to bring down fruits, or become a window cleaner of a high rise].^[59]

3. Chovel Beatzmo-The prohibition against damaging or injuring one’s body:^[60]

It is [Biblically^[61]] forbidden to hit one’s body^[62], or to embarrass it^[63], or to pain it in any form of pain as a person does not have possession over his body at all to be allowed to do so.^[64] Thus, it is forbidden for one to hit one’s friend even if the friend gives him permission to hit him.^[65] Furthermore, one is obligated to guard his body to not cause it loss, destruction or injury.^[66] [Some Poskim^[67] learn that this is learned from the verse [Bereishis 9:5] of Veach Es Dimchem Lenafshoseichem Edrosh. However, some Poskim^[68] learn also this prohibition against self-affliction from the verse of “Hishamer.”]

Fasting: Due to the above prohibition, it is forbidden for one to pain his body even through abstaining from eating or drinking something [that he needs].^[69] This is with exception to one who does so for the sake of repentance, in which case this pain is in truth good for him as it saves him from purgatory. Therefore it is permitted to fast for reasons of penitence, even if one’s body is not healthy enough to handle it.^[70] However, one who is healthy and able to handle the fasts, may fast even not out of repentance, but simply to refine his soul for G-d, as there is no better good than this.^[71] Certainly, one may abstain from a certain food for the sake of serving G-d, such as if one is addicted to eating and drinking or other lusts, then he may force himself to abstain completely from these lusts until he returns to a balanced eating habit.^[72]

For the sake of money:^[73] It is permitted for one to cause pain to his body for the sake of Parnasa.

4. The prohibition against committing suicide:^[74]

It is forbidden to commit suicide and one who does so is guilty of murder, as the verse^[75] states “Veach Es Dimchem Lenafshoseichem Edrosh.” [From this verse we learn that one who kills himself, God will demand his soul from his hand in the future.^[76] Some write that one who commits suicide does not have a portion in the world to come.^[77] All forms of suicide are prohibited even if blood is not spilled, such as through strangulation.^[78] Some Poskim^[79] learn that one to commit suicide transgresses the prohibition of murder. However, other Poskim^[80] rule that suicide is not included within the murder prohibition and it is its own separate prohibition. Some Poskim^[81] rule that the prohibition to commit suicide applies even to a Gentile. However, other Poskim^[82] rule that gentiles are not included in the command against suicide.]

5. The obligation to guard one’s health:^[83]

It is a Mitzvah for one to lead a healthy life and guard his health in order so one be healthy and strong to serve G-d. Accordingly, it is forbidden for one to oppress his body.^[84] Likewise, one is obligated to beware of his body, to not cause it loss, destruction or injury.^[85]

Preventive medicine:[86] Based on the above, included in the obligation of guarding one’s health is the obligation to involve oneself in preventive medicine, and one cannot suffice with simply getting himself cured after he gets sick.

6. The obligation to guard one’s memory:^[87]

It is a biblical prohibition for one to forget his Torah learning.^[88] Numerous hazards recorded in the Talmud and Poskim are due to that lack of keeping them can damage one’s memory of his Torah learning. This is known as “Kasha Leshichicha.” Nonetheless it is not clear if a person is obligated be careful to adhere by these hazards, and if doing so is optional, or a Rabbinical or even biblical obligation and if one who does not abide by them transgresses the above negative command against forgetting one’s Torah learning. Some Poskim^[89] indeed rule that there is no actual obligation to abide by the memory loss hazards, as would only transgresses forgetting his Torah learning if he does something active to remove it from his heart. However, from other sources it is evident that one is obligated to abide by these matters^[90], and some Poskim^[91] even hold that one who transgresses it, transgresses a Biblical prohibition against forgetting one’s Torah learning.

Who should avoid matters that cause memory loss?^[92] It is questionable whether memory loss hazards are applicable to ignoramuses, women, and children, who do not have the same level of obligation in Torah learning. The following is a Halachic analysis on the subject: Torah scholars are to beware very much from those matters that cause forgetfulness.^[93] Some Poskim^[94] rule that non-Torah Scholars, and certainly women, however, do not need to be careful in this matter, and on the contrary, it is better that they not abide by it so they can forget all the nonsense that they enter their minds. Other Poskim^[95], however, imply that these warnings apply to all men but not to women. Other Poskim^[96] rule that it applies also to pregnant women, although all other women may eat it. Others write it applies also to nursing women and to women at the time that they can become pregnant.^[97] Other Poskim^[98] rule that it applies to all people, man or woman. Regarding children, some Poskim^[99] write that even children are to be careful to avoid matters that cause memory loss, while other Poskim^[100] write that there is no need for them to be careful in this as they have not learned anything that they can forget.

Safek-Being lenient in a case of doubt: Some Poskim^[101] rule that even in a case of doubt, one may not be regarding those matters that cause memory loss and they are similar to other matters of danger. Other Poskim^[102] however rule that one may be lenient in the case of doubt.

Overview-The prohibition to forget one’s Torah learning:^[103]

It states in the Mishnah in Avos^[104], “Whoever forgets even a single teaching from his study, is considered by Scripture to be liable for his life, as the verse^[105] states, “Make sure to guard yourselves and guard your souls very much, lest you forget the words that your eyes saw.” The Talmud^[106] teaches us based on this verse, that whoever forgets even one matter from his studies transgresses a negative command. There are the various opinions in Rishonim regarding the severity of one’s forgetting of his Torah learning.

1. The opinion of the Rambam: The Rambam^[107], as well as many others who enumerate the list of the 613 commands, omit the above prohibition of forgetting one’s Torah learning from the list of 365 negative commands. This seems to imply that it is not a prohibition at all, and at least not a biblical prohibition.
2. The opinion of the Ramban: The Ramban^[108], unlike the Rambam, does enumerate the verse of “thou shall not forget..” as part of the 613 commands. However, as he understands it, this prohibition is not referring at all to forgetting one’s Torah learning but rather to forgetting the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. Thus, he too does not list the forgetting of one’s Torah learning as a biblical prohibition. According to the Ramban, it seems that he understands the statement in the above Mishneh in Avos and Talmud which seems to prohibit forgetting one’s Torah learning, to simply be a matter of piety which is supported by the above verse in Scripture, although it is not an actual obligation.
3. The prohibition is only when one stops learning Torah altogether: Indeed, there are a number of Rishonim who enumerate the above prohibition of forgetting one’s Torah learning as part of the 613 commands, hence accepting the above Mishnaic and Talmudic teaching as literal.^[109] Nonetheless, even they describe the prohibition is only applicable to one who completely drops his Torah learning, and get themselves involved in trivial matters which causes his Torah learning to become forgotten.
4. The opinion of the Alter Rebbe:^[110] The Alter Rebbe has a very unique and detailed approach in his understanding of the above Mishnaic and Talmudic prohibition of forgetting one’s Torah learning. In his laws of Torah study, the Alter Rebbe states based on Rabbeinu Yonah^[111],  that whoever forgets one aspect of his Torah learning due to him not reviewing it properly is considered by Scripture to be liable for his soul, and likewise transgresses a negative command in the Torah. Meaning, that not only does he hold that forgetting one’s Torah learning is under a biblical prohibition, but that it is transgressed even if one does not actively do anything to make him forget it, but simply is not active enough to retain the information that he acquired, such as if he does not review his learning. Even in today’s times that all the laws have been written in books, and anything that one has forgotten can be researched, nonetheless, the moment that one forgets his learning he transgresses the above negative command prior to looking it up. In his Kuntrus Achron^[112], the Alter Rebbe explains this to be likewise the opinion of the Rambam who more than once mentions of the idea of not forgetting one’s Torah learning.
5. The opinion of the Rebbe:^[113] Even according to the approach of the Alter Rebbe in his understanding of the prohibition against forgetting Torah, the prohibition is specifically in a case that one actively does something to neglect Torah learning in general. If, however, he does not actively neglect Torah learning and simply avoids reviewing certain sections of Torah due to lack of time, then since he has not neglected Torah learning therefore no prohibition is considered to have taken place.

7. The obligation to guard one’s wealth:

Numerous hazards recorded in the Talmud and Poskim are due to the lack of keeping them can cause one to lose one’s livelihood. This is known as “Kasha Leaniyus.” Nonetheless it is not clear if a person is obligated to be careful to adhere by these hazards, and if doing so is optional, or an obligation.

8. Must one abide by all the health directives and safety hazards recorded in the Talmud?^[114]

*See the Introduction regarding if one must abide by all of the restrictions recorded in our Sefer. Below we will discuss specifically the hazards recorded in Chazal. 

The general rule:^[115] There are many matters which the sages^[116] prohibited due to them potentially leading to danger of life^[117], and whoever transgresses them and says, “I will endanger myself and it’s none of anyone else’s business,” or says “I [do not worry of the chance of danger and] choose not to be careful about this,” is liable to receive lashes known as Makas Mardus.^[118] [It is likewise forbidden for one to rely on a miracle or for one to endanger his life, in any of these matters of the like.^[119] One who is careful to beware of them, on him will befall a good blessing.^[120]]

What dangers of the Talmud must one beware of? There are dozens of safety and health related instructions and restrictions in the Talmud. Many of these restrictions have been omitted from the Rambam and Tur and Shulchan Aruch, seemingly implying that in their opinion, these restrictions which they have omitted are no longer applicable today.^[121] Indeed, many Poskim^[122] rule regarding dangers which are due to Ruach Ra’ah, or due to a specific nature, that they are no longer applicable today due to the nullification of this evil spirit or due to a change in the nature [i.e. Nishtaneh Hativim]. Furthermore, in practicality, the populace are accustomed to being lenient regarding many of these Talmudic warnings, hence seemingly cementing their abolition.^[123] Even today we find that there are people who are careful in various superstitions that have no source in the Talmud [i.e. Rebbe Yehuda Hachassid; Tzavas Reb Sheptal, Sichos Zekeinos] but not to dangers recorded in the Talmud.^[124] However, the Peri Chadash on Y.D. chapter 116:9 records most of these Talmudic restrictions that were omitted from previous sources, and warns that one is to be careful in them. Other Poskim^[125] likewise followed this path of listing many of the omitted dangers, and so was likewise followed by Admur in his Shulchan Aruch Hilchos Shemiras Guf Vinefesh in which he lists many of the omitted Talmudic dangers and binding and obligatory. Accordingly, the Poskim^[126] conclude that one is to be stringent in all the Talmudic dangers which are recorded by the Achronim, despite their omission from the main works of the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch. Nonetheless, some exceptions do apply to this rule, as we will explain in the next Halacha which will detail each of the applicable rules of exceptions and their law.

9. Rules of exception and leniency-Must one abide by all recorded dangers in Chazal:

Although in general one is required to follow all of the warnings and health hazards recorded in Chazal, as explained above, a number of exceptions and reasons to justify leniency exist. Practically, one may only be lenient in a danger listed in Chazal if it is explicitly stated or understood from the Poskim that one may do so. In this Halacha we will review each of these cases of exception and reasons of leniency. The following is a summarized list of these exceptions which will be elaborated upon below:

1. Ruach Ra’ah
2. Nishtaneh Hativim-Change of nature.
3. Talmudic Medicine and health directives
4. Shomer Pesaim Hashem.
5. Man Delo Kapid Lo Kapid Bahadaiyhu.
6. Warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid.
7. Shichicha-Memory loss
8. Poverty:
9. No source in Jewish literature-Sichas Nashim Zekeinos & Superstitious practices
10. Family traditions

A. The concept of Nisbatel Ruach Ra’ah:

Some Poskim^[127] rule that one no longer needs to beware of dangers that are due to Ruach Ra’ah.^[128] Practically, however, the Poskim^[129] negate this opinion and so is the final ruling and custom to be stringent. [As for those sources which negate the concept of Ruach Ra’ah today, most can be explained to refer to specific types of Ruach Ra’ah, while other types exist even today. Accordingly, some Talmudic warnings due to Ruach Ra’ah are indeed omitted from the Poskim and no longer need to be followed, while others exist even today and must be guarded, as stated in the Poskim.^[130]]

B. The rule of Nishtaneh Hativim-Change of nature:^[131]

The Rishonim and Poskim mention the possibility that certain dangers mentioned in the Talmud are no longer applicable in today’s times due to a change of nature of the human body and physique.^[132] Other Poskim^[133], however, dissent this ruling, and so is proven from the many laws of Treifos by animals^[134] and dangers on Shabbos for which one may desecrate Shabbos on its behalf^[135], which have no change in law today. Practically, we only apply this rule on an individual basis and not collectively to all Talmudic dangers, and hence unless explicitly stated or understood from the Poskim that a certain danger is no longer applicable due to change of nature, one must abide by it.

C. Talmudic Medicine and health directives:^[136]

There are numerous medical treatments and medicinal cures recorded in the Talmud that have no scientific basis and are viewed to be in the realm of supernatural and alternative medicine.^[137] These Talmudic medical directives and cures, are no longer applicable today due to change in the nature of the human physique^[138], and are actually prohibited in being followed.^[139] Practically, a Cherem was placed against relying on the medical treatments recorded in the Talmud, in order not to cause a mocking of the Sages if the cures do not work.^[140]

D. The rule of Dashu Bah Rabim and Shomer Pesaim Hashem:^[141]

In Tehillim^[142] that is a verse which states “Shomer Pesaim Hashem” which is interpreted to mean that God guards the fools, those who are too ignorant to guard themselves.^[143] This verse is recruited in the Talmud^[144] and Poskim^[145] to defend the practice of the masses to not abide by certain dangers recorded in the Talmud and Poskim [i.e. Dashu Ba Rabim], as “Hashem guards the fools,” and hence nothing evil will occur to them. [By Segula dangers, this is interpreted to mean that the danger becomes completely abolished, while by natural dangers, while the danger is lessened, it is possible that some danger still remains.^[146]]

In which cases of danger may one apply this leniency? Some Poskim^[147] rule that we only apply this rule on an individual basis and not collectively to all Talmudic dangers that the public is no longer careful to keep, and hence unless explicitly stated or understood from the Poskim that a certain danger does not need to be abided by due to Shomer Pesaim Hashem, then one must abide by it even if the masses are lenient. Furthermore, some Poskim^[148] rule that one can only apply leniency to cases that involve a Mitzvah, as a joint leniency with the rule of Shomer Mitzvah Lo Yada Davar Ra. Other Poskim^[149], however, rule that this rule can be applied to any danger that the masses now ignore, even if the danger is recorded in the Talmud and Poskim without any mention of Shomer Pesaim Hashem. Practically, we are lenient in this matter to apply the leniency even to dangers recorded in the Talmud and Poskim as active.^[150] This especially applies towards matters that are considered the custom of the world to perform, such as to fly on an airplane and the like.^[151] Likewise, it applies by a matter that is considered a very distant danger and is of low risk.^[152] This leniency applies to both Segula dangers and natural dangers.^[153] Some write that this rule may be applied more freely by dangers which are due to Segula, while by those dangers which are due to natural causes, then some danger may still remain even though the rule and leniency apply.^[154] Others write that one may apply this rule to any case in which the leniency of “Nishtaneh Hativim” can be applied to, and hence they conclude that today there is justification for being lenient in the majority of the Talmudic warnings, and cannot protest any member of the Jewish people for doing so.^[155]

How many people must be accustomed to being lenient to apply the leniency: Some Poskim^[156] rule that this rule can only be applied if even Torah scholars and God-fearing Jews are lenient in the recorder danger however, if only ignoramuses are lenient while Torah scholars are stringent, then one may not apply the rule. However, other Poskim^[157] imply that once the populace is accustomed to being lenient then even Torah scholars may choose to be lenient, even if they are normally stringent. The Chabad ruling follows this approach.

If there is a difference of custom of communities:^[158] Whenever there is a difference of custom and communities such as if in some countries and communities the custom is to ignore certain dangers while in other countries and communities the custom is to be careful in them, then each community may follow their custom. The communities which are stringent may not be lenient and on them we do not apply the rule of Shomer Pesaim Hashem, while the communities which are accustomed to being lenient, we apply the rule towards them.

Relying on this rule even initially: Some Poskim^[159] rule that this rule only applies Bedieved, however initially every person should be stringent upon himself, even by those dangers upon which we apply the rule of Shomer Pesaim Hashem. Other Poskim^[160] rule that one may even initially rely on this protection of fools, and hence in all cases that the masses are accustomed to being lenient in one of the dangers mentioned in the Talmud and Poskim, even a total scholar who is aware of the danger may be lenient against following it. Practically, the Chabad custom and ruling is like this latter approach.^[161] This especially applies to dangers which are due to Segula, in which seemingly even according to the first opinion one may be even initially lenient as when the masses ignore the danger it becomes completely abolished.^[162] However, some are stringent even by Segula dangers.^[163]

E. Man Delo Kapid Lo Kapid Bahadaiyhu:^[164]

Understanding the rule: A concept that we find both in the Talmud^[165] and Poskim^[166] is “Kol DeKapid Kapid Bahadaiyhu, Udelo Kapid, Lo Kapdi Bahdei.” This means that if one is paranoid that a certain action will endanger his life, then the paranoia itself causes the danger to become real, while one who chooses to ignore the danger is safe from the danger. The Talmud^[167] uses this concept regarding the danger of Zugos [drinking and eating in pairs] saying that it damages one who is paranoid of the danger, while one who ignores the danger is protected. This rule seems to imply that the actual danger associated with various actions recorded in the Talmud and Poskim, and certainly those which are mere folklore, is subjective to the person. One who is superstitious and paranoid about it, then specifically he is prone to the danger, while one who ignores it, is protected.

When and how to apply the rule: This rule can seemingly be used as a defense for those who ignore the various dangers recorded in the Talmud and Poskim, as since they do not give these actions any significance, therefore it is not dangerous for them to perform. Nonetheless, in truth the Talmud concludes there regarding Zugos that even though the danger is lessened when one stops worrying about it, he should nonetheless suspect for it as some level of danger still exists.^[168] Furthermore, some Poskim^[169] learn that this rule can only be used by specific dangers, and does not apply to all types of dangers. Practically, we only apply this rule on an individual basis and not collectively to all Talmudic dangers, and hence unless explicitly stated or understood from the Poskim that a certain danger can be chosen to be ignored, then one must suspect for it, as the Poskim^[170] sate that whoever transgresses the Talmudic dangers that are brought in the Poskim and says, “I will endanger myself and it’s none of anyone else’s business,” or says “I [do not worry of the chance of danger and] choose not to be careful about this,” is liable to receive lashes known as Makas Mardus. However, those dangers which are optional to be kept, such as the various dangers found in Jewish folklore which have no source in Jewish literature, or those dangers which are not recorded in the classic Poskim, then a person may choose to not be paranoid about these dangers and in such a case he is protected from their damage.

Application by Ayin Hara:^[171] The concept of an evil eye is only applicable to the perpetrator, however, the victim, can avoid the evil eye, even if another person placed it on him. This can be accomplished through completely removing one’s mind from the matter, and not contemplating it. One who contemplates the evil eye, and enters paranoia that people are casting it upon him, causes the damage to befall him. One, however, who ignores the evil eye, and remains steadfast that it has no true power over him, can deflect any of its damage. [The Rebbe on various occasions discussed the necessity of ignoring the evil eye and removing one’s mind from it.^[172] This however does not mean that its potential does not exist, and thus all the above laws brought in Halacha relating to Ayin Hara remain in place.^[173] The Rebbe’s message was not that Ayin Hara is not existent and does not have any effect, but that one can protect himself from falling a victim towards it, if he removes his mind from it and gives it no credence.^[174]]

F. Warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid:^[175]

Historical background: See Chapter 2

Must one abide by the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid? Some of the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid are recorded in other Rishonim, and written as final rulings in the Shulchan Aruch, and certainly these must be abided by.^[176] Now, regarding his other warnings: Some Poskim^[177] rule that the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid are not binding on the Jewish people especially if they go against the Talmud, and especially being that seemingly many of the warnings were written in his name but never really said by him. Other Poskim^[178] rule that many of the warnings never became accepted by the Jewish community, and others have been abolished. Other Poskim^[179] rule that on this we apply the rule of Kol DeKapid Kapid Bahadaiyhu, Udelo Kapid, Lo Kapdi Bahdei, which means that each person can choose to suspect for it or ignore. Other Poskim^[180] rule that many of the warnings of Rabbi Yehuda Hachassid were intended only for his descendants and not for anyone else. However, we find that even his own descendants do not necessarily abide by his warnings^[181], and some Poskim^[182] explain that the warnings were only meant for his children and not for future generations. However, other Poskim^[183] hold that the warnings were meant for all of his descendants, and therefore everyone today must be careful to abide by them as perhaps he is one of his descendants. Practically, the majority of Poskim^[184] negate the notion that the warnings were not written by Rav Yehuda Hachassid, and likewise negate the idea that they were only meant for his descendants. Hence, we only apply leniency towards the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid if explicitly stated in the Poskim regarding a specific warning that it was never accepted by the Jewish people.^[185]

Cases of leniency: One is only required to be stringent in the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid regarding its literal and simple interpretation, and not in any related matter.^[186] Some Poskim^[187] rule that one may be lenient in the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid if he receives a Heter from three Rabbanim. Some Poskim^[188] rule that one may be lenient for the sake of the mitzvah, although other Poskim^[189] are stringent even in the case of a mitzvah.

The approach of the Chabad Rabbeim: The Alter Rebbe was very careful with the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid.^[190] However, the Tzemach Tzedek was not stringent in keeping all of the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid, and he had a son and daughter marry two siblings against the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid, relying on the ruling that many of the warnings were only meant for his descendants.^[191] However, some say that the Tzemach Tzedek was later punished for doing so and he therefore retracted his lenient ruling and was stringent.^[192] The Rebbe Maharash^[193] was careful to abide by the warnings of Rebbe Yehuda Hachassid, as was the Rebbe Rashab^[194], and the Rebbe.^[195] However, in certain cases the Rebbe Rashab and Rebbe was lenient.^[196]

G. Shichicha-Memory loss

*See above Halacha 6!

Numerous hazards recorded in the Talmud and Poskim are due to that lack of keeping them can damage one’s memory of his Torah learning. This is known as “Kasha Leshichicha.” Nonetheless it is not clear if a person is obligated be careful to adhere by these hazards, and if doing so is optional, or a Rabbinical or even biblical obligation and if one who does not abide by them transgresses the above negative command against forgetting one’s Torah learning.

H. Poverty:

Numerous hazards recorded in the Talmud and Poskim are due to the lack of keeping them can cause one to lose one’s livelihood. This is known as “Kasha Leaniyus.” Nonetheless it is not clear if a person is obligated to be careful to adhere by these hazards, and if doing so is optional, or an obligation.

I. No source in Jewish literature-Sichas Nashim Zekeinos & Superstitious practices:^[197]

*See Chapter 2 Halacha for further details on this matter!

Amongst the many accustomed hazards and dangers found within Jewish tradition, there are some which do not have any source at all, neither in the Talmud or Poskim. Some are not mentioned in any book of Jewish literature and are even accustomed to being followed by Gentiles. Some are not widespread in all communities and are limited to specific families or geographic locations. These types of dangers are known in Halachic vernacular as “Sichas Nashim Zekeinos^[198]” or in the Yiddish jargon, “Baba Maaseh” Some of these dangers may have been adopted due to a perceived or misperceived bad luck that is associated with them. Others may have been adopted in order to avoid imitating actions that are done to a corpse due to a perceived Ayin Hara. Others may have been adopted from the gentile nations and are actually part of pagan beliefs and witchcraft. The rightful question is raised as to what should be our attitude towards such traditions? Following a superstitious practice can at times transgress the prohibition of Lo Sinacheish and/or Darkei Emori^[199], and at times are not under any transgression, depending on the source of the superstition and its reason. Many superstitious defined practices are indeed sourced in Jewish law and are obligatory to be followed. Furthermore, there exists superstitious defined practices which are not sourced in Jewish law but are part of classic Jewish tradition and have the status of Minhag Yisrael Torah Hi.^[200] Furthermore, some Poskim^[201] rule that it is permitted and even praiseworthy for one to believe in superstitions that the general populace believes in even if it has no source in Sefarim and the words of our sages. Accordingly, we find many superstitious practices that are followed by different Jewish communities [i.e. Moroccan Jewry, Hungarian jewelry, etc.] despite not having any source in Jewish literature and being followed even amongst Gentiles, and their Christian neighbors.^[202] Accordingly, since there are many Halachic restrictions which can be defined as superstitious which are an obligation to follow or at least sourced in classic Halachic literature or Jewish tradition, therefore when hearing from Orthodox Jews of a certain adherence that is kept which sounds like a superstitious belief, one is to first verify if the custom is recorded in classic Jewish works, and has the backing of Halacha. If the adherence does not have any source in classic Jewish literature [i.e. Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, traditional Achronim] then one who did not receive this tradition in his family, is not required to follow this custom, and may choose to ignore it even if it is a classic Jewish custom followed by other families, and so is suggested.^[203] If he desires to follow it anyways, then this matter enters into the question and debate of whether following such practices are prohibited due to Darkei Emori and/or Lo Sinacheish, or if it is a justifiable Jewish custom that has the status of “Minhag Yisrael Torah hi”, and practically he is to contact a Rav.^[204] Those who received a tradition in their family and the tradition is not unique to their family alone, are to try to abide by it under the basis of Minhag Yisrael Torah Hi, and Minhag Nashim Zekeinos.^[205]

J. Family traditions:^[206]

Some families carry a family tradition to avoid doing certain matters. While such families who received such a tradition may and should honor it, it is not obligatory for others to follow.

10. Cases of exception and leniency:

A. For the sake of a Mitzvah-Shomer Mitzvah Lo Yada Davar Ra’ah:^[207]

It is permitted for one to enter himself into slight danger [i.e. low risk danger] for the sake of fulfilling a Mitzvah, as the verse^[208] states that one who guards a Mitzvah will know no evil.^[209] It is, however, forbidden for one to enter himself into high risk of danger even for the sake of a Mitzvah.^[210] [Some Poskim^[211] rule that one may only be lenient by a Segula danger and not by a natural danger.]

Examples: Some Poskim^[212] rule that for the sake of Kavod Shabbos it is permitted for one to be lenient to eat a pot of meat in which fish gravy fell inside, even if there isn’t 60x in the meat versus the fish. Certainly, one may be lenient if there is 60x.^[213] Likewise, if one said a blessing over water and then heard that the Tekufa has arrived, then he is to slightly delay drinking the water until after the Tekufa passes and may then drink it, as one who guards a Mitzvah knows no evil.^[214] Likewise, one may be lenient to use Mayim Shelanu which passed the Tekufa for the sake of Matzas Mitzvah.^[215]

B. For the sake of Parnasa:^[216]

According to all, it is permitted for one to slightly endanger his life for the sake of Parnasa, making a livelihood. Thus, one may go hunting despite the risks that it carries. Likewise, one may travel by ship for the sake of business through risky water despite the fear of shipwreck. Likewise, one may climb to high places for the sake of his livelihood [such as to climb a tall tree to bring down fruits, or become a window cleaner of a high rise].^[217]

C. To help save the life of another:^[218]

Some Poskim^[219] rule that it is forbidden for one to put his life in even questionable danger in order to save his friend from even certain death.^[220] Other Poskim^[221], however, rule that one is obligated to enter himself into questionable danger in order to help save his friend from definite death. Practically, Safek Nefashos Lehakel.^[222] [In all cases one must heavily measure this matter to determine if in truth he is in questionable danger if he tries to save him.^[223]]

11. A Blessing:

A. Is a blessing recited upon taking safety precautions:^[224]

Whenever one does something to remove danger, a blessing is not recited. [Despite this, when a roof is obligated to have a fence or guardrail placed around it, some Poskim rule that a blessing is to be recited, as will be explained in Chapter 3 Halacha 5.^[225]]

B. May a blessing be recited over a food which is forbidden to be eaten due to danger?^[226]

The general rule is that that a blessing is not said upon eating forbidden foods^[227], and is likewise not recited over foods which damage the person.^[228] Accordingly, one can argue that a blessing may not be said over foods that are forbidden to be eaten due to physical or spiritual danger. On the other hand, however, perhaps there is a difference in this matter between dangers which are natural and scientific, versus dangers that are due to Segula. Likewise, perhaps there is a difference between the level of danger that the food poses.

___________________________________________________________

[1] See in length Encyclopedia Hilchatit Refuit Erech Berius Vol. 2 p. 331

[2] See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Miabeid Atzmo Ladaas” Vol. 38

[3] See in length Encyclopedia Hilchatit Refuit Erech Berius Vol. 2 p. 349

[4] See Shabbos 129a and 140b; Rif Shabbos 129b; Rosh Shabbos 18:5; Semak 175; Shaarei Teshuvah 3:82; Sefer Chassidim 1014; Possible implication of Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 14 who compares the two matters, however, see Likkutei Sichos Vol. 34 p. 107 footnote 15 that the comparison is only regarding the level of care that must be shown, and not regarding the prohibition

[5] Setimas Kol Haposkim, including Rambam, Michaber, and Admur who mention other verses for the source of the obligation of Shemiras Haguf and explicitly relate Bal Tashchis to objects.

[6] See Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1 p. 8 for different opinions on this matter.

[7] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

^[8] See Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3-4; Michaber C.M. 427:8 and 10; Rama Y.D. 116:5; Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] 218:3; Mavo Chapter 1

Does the obligation and prohibition only apply by matters of potential danger of life, or even against matters that can cause non-lethal injury? See Q&A!

Does the prohibition against suicide also include a prohibition against entering oneself into danger? See Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 3:123 [yes]; Divrei Malkiel 5:35; Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1:5 p. 17

[9] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3 and 14 “One is obligated to beware of his body, to not cause it loss, destruction or injury.”; Michaber 427:8; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:3; Implication of Brachos 32b and Maharsha there Shavuos 36a;; Levush Ir Shushan C.M. 426:11 [Unlike Levush Y.D. 116:1-See Darkei Teshuvah 116:57]; Tevuos Shur 13:2; P”M O.C. 4 A”A 2; Y.D. 97 S.D. 3; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Avoda Zara 30a; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 546; Chochmas Adam 68:4; Chayeh Adam 15:24;  Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 3:122; Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 427:8; Marcheshes 20; Mishmeres Shalom 108; Beis Yehuda Y.D. 25; Zivcheiy Tzedek Y.D. 116:4; Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 49; See Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 546; Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter p. 19; Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 1; See in length Encyclopedia Hilchatit Refuit Erech Berius Vol. 2 pp. 352-355

Other opinions-This command is merely Rabbinical: Some Poskim rule that there is no Biblical command to guard one’s safety and that it is merely a Rabbinical injunction. [Possible implication of Michaber ibid who rules a transgressor only gets Makas Mardus; Levush Y.D. 116:1; Beir Hagoleh C.M. 427 Ayin leaves this matter in question; Shivim Temarim Ayin Daled 1, 4 writes that it is merely Rabbinical and that the verse is a mere Asmachta; Rabbeinu Yerucham  Nesiv 15:30; Semak 171; Divrei Malkiel 4:62]

[10] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 1; Michaber 427:1; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:1; Sefer Hamitzvos Rambam Asei 184; Sifri Ki Seitzei 229; Semag Asei 79; Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 546

The scriptural source: As the verse [Devarim 22:8] states “And you shall make a fence for your roof.” [Admur ibid]

[11] Sefer Hamitzvos Rambam L.S. 298; Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvah 547

[12] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3; Michaber 427:6; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:3; Sifri Ki Seitzei 229; Likkutei Sichos 2 Parshas Ki Seitzei

[13] Devarim 22:8

[14] Admur ibid; Michaber ibid

^[15] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3; Michaber C.M. 427:7; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:4; Sifri Ki Seitzei; See Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1:3 p. 12

Does the positive command to make a fence also apply to all matters of danger? From Admur and Poskim ibid it is implied that the positive command to make a fence only applies by a fence. However, see Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1 p. 8 for different opinions on this matter.

[16] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3; Michaber 427:8; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:3; Levush Ir Shushan C.M. 426:11 [Unlike Levush Y.D. 116:1-See Darkei Teshuvah 116:57]; See Brachos 32b and Maharsha there; Shavuos 36a; See Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 546; Sefer Chassidim 1551;  Imreiy Yaakov 10:11; All Poskim in next footnote.

Other opinions-This command is merely Rabbinical: Elsewhere we find that this verse does not refer at all to the guarding of one’s health or safety, and is rather a warning in Scripture against forgetting Torah learning. [See Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 2:4; Levush Y.D. 116:1; Mishneh Avos 3:8; Menachos 99b] Accordingly, some authorities rule that the use of this verse as a safety precaution is merely Rabbinical and that the verse is a mere Asmachta. [Possible implication of Michaber ibid who rules a transgressor only gets Makas Mardus;  Levush Y.D. 116:1 writes it is Rabbinical; Beir Hagoleh C.M. 427 Ayin leaves this matter in question; Shivim Temarim Ayin Daled 1, 4 writes that it is merely Rabbinical and that the verse is a mere Asmachta; Rabbeinu Yerucham  Nesiv 15:30; Semak 171; Divrei Malkiel 4:62; See Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 546; Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter p. 19; Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 1]

[17] Implication of Admur ibid; Michaber ibid; Rambam ibid; Levush C.M. 426:11; Tevuos Shur 13:2; P”M O.C. 4 A”A 2; Y.D. 97 S.D. 3; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Avoda Zara 30a; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 546; Chochmas Adam 68:4; Chayeh Adam 15:24;  Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 3:122; Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 427:8; Marcheshes 20; Mishmeres Shalom 108; Beis Yehuda Y.D. 25; Zivcheiy Tzedek Y.D. 116:4; Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 49

Other opinions: See previous footnote!

[18] Devarim 4:9

[19] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3; Michaber 427:8; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:3; Chochmas Adam 68:4; Chayeh Adam 15:24; Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 49

Other opinions: See next!

[20] See Admur C.M. Shemiras Guf Vinefesh 4; Michaber 427:9-10 that the sages prohibited a number of matters and one who transgresses is liable for Makos Mardus, and possibly in this case one would require Biblical Malkus. Vetzaruch Iyun. [See Smeh C.M. 427:12; Tevuos Shur 13:2; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Avoda Zara 30a; Imrei Yaakov 10:15]

[21] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3; Michaber 427:8; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:3; Chochmas Adam 68:4; Chayeh Adam 15:24; Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 49

Other opinions-This command is merely Rabbinical: Some Poskim rule that one who does not remove a danger from his midst only transgresses the positive command of making a fence. [Shivim Temarim Ayin Daled 1, 4; Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 1]

[22] See Halacha B that a number of matters were restricted by “the Sages” hence implying that not all matters are under the Biblical obligation; Admur 316:23 and M”A O.C. 316:23 that only one in a thousand spiders are lethal in food and hence it is not considered a danger; Darkei Teshuvah 116:57 in name of Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27 that whether it is Biblical or Rabbinical is dependent on percentage of danger; Igros Moshe C.M. 2:76 that by a mere low suspicion of danger it is only Rabbinical; Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 49 that Biblically we are not Machzakinin Issura by revealed liquids; Yabia Omer 1 Y.D. 8 that fish and meat is only Rabbinical as its uncommon; Betzeil Hachochmah 4:118 that only a continuous danger, like an unfenced roof, is Biblical; Shulchan Chaiy Pesicha that only natural dangers are Biblical and not Segula dangers; Yad Yitzchak 2:80 that even Segula dangers are Biblical] See Imrei Yaakov 10:15; See Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 1

[23] Rashbatz in Zohar Harakia 118; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10; Kitzur SHU”A 32:1; See Brachos 32b where this verse is mentioned by the demon to a Chassid Echad who was not careful in his safety; See Tosafos Shavuos 36a; Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1:1 footnote 3.

[24] Levush Y.D. 116:1

[25] Sefer Chassidim 675; Levush Y.D. 116:1; Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 3:122; Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 116:1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Miabeid Atzmo Ladaas” Vol. 38

[26] Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27 based on Bava Kama 91b; Peri Chadash in Mayim Chaim on Shavuos 36

[27] See Admur Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Halacha 4; Torah Temima on verse ibid; See Halacha 3

[28] Binyan Yehoshua on Avos Rebbe Nasan 3:4; Urim vetumim 27:1; Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 420:43’ Kuntrus Likkutei Imrim 13 of Chofetz Chaim

[29] Beir Hagoleh C.M. 427; See also Chofetz Chaim in Kuntrus Likkutei Imrim chapter 13.

[30] Or Hachaim Hakadosh Shemos 31:13

[31] See Devar Avraham 1:37-25; Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1: Iyunim 3; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 2

[32] Implication of wording of Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 3 and Michaber C.M. 427:5 and Rambam Rotzeiach 11:4 who specify “Sakanas Nefashos”

[33] Implication of wording of Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 14 “One is obligated to beware of his body, to not cause it loss, destruction or injury.”; Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 546-547; Mabit in Kiryas Sefer Azhara 292; Semag L.S. 167; Sefer Yireim Amud Hayirah Mitzvah 44; Tosafos Shavuos 36a; Ben Ish Chaiy Pinchas 2:8; Divrei Malkiel 2:53; Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 427:6

[34] From some of the sources above it is implied that it is part of the biblical prohibition [i.e. Kiryas Sefer; Minchas Chinuch; Semag; Yireim; Aruch Hashulchan], while from other sources it can be understood that it is only rabbinical [i.e. Ben Ish Chaiy] As to the contradiction in Admur, perhaps one can answer that only actual danger of life is included in the biblical prohibition while damage to the body is part of the rabbinical prohibition.

^[35] So is proven from various examples brought below and so rules the Bircheiy Yosef on Yoreh Deah chapter 339.

[36] See Sefer Chinuch Mitzvah 546; Likkutei Sichos volume 30 Parshas Vayeishev page 297.

[37] See Chinuch ibid.

[38] Admur C.M. Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh 4; Michaber 427:9-10; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:5; Rama Y.D. 116:5 “All the matters to be listed are forbidden due to danger and one who guards his soul is to distance himself from it.”; Darkei Teshuvah Y.D. 116:57

[39] The scriptural basis: This Rabbinical prohibition is based on the verse “Hishamer Lecha, Ushemor Nafshecha Meod/Beware for yourself and guard your soul very much.” [Smeh C.M. 427:12; Imrei Yaakov 10:15; Omitted from Admur ibid] Seemingly, the sages learned from the word “Meod” that there are additional matters of safety that a person must be careful in, even though Biblically the percentage of danger is not high enough to include it in the Biblical prohibition of “Do not spill blood in your home.”

Is this prohibition Biblical or Rabbinical-Does one transgress a Biblical command on the matters listed by the Sages? Some Poskim rule that these matters are only Rabbinically mandated for one to beware from, and the above verse is a mere Asmachta. [Implication of wording of Admur and Michaber ibid as after mentioning the negative commands applicable by one who does not remove a hazard from his home he goes ahead and mentions all the matters which the Sages forbade, thus implying that these matters are merely Rabbinical, and so is also implied from the fact that only Makos Mardus is given; Beir Hagoleh 427 Ayin; Implication of Ben Ish Chaiy Pinchas 2] Other Poskim, however, rule it is a Biblical obligation based on the above verse that was revealed by the Sages, although only Rabbinical lashes are given being that it is Chatzi Shiur. [Tevuos Shur 13:2; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Avoda Zara 30a;] Practically, it all depends on the percentage of danger, as if the chance of danger is very high, such as one who walks on an unsteady bridge or ladder, then he Biblically transgresses and is liable for Biblical lashes, while if the level of danger is low, then it is only Rabbinically forbidden. [See Darkei Teshuvah 116:57 in name of Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27 that so is the intent of Admur here; Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 49; Igros Moshe C.M. 2:76; Yabia Omer 1 Y.D. 8; Betzeil Hachochmah 4:118; Shulchan Chaiy Pesicha; Yad Yitzchak 2:80] See Imrei Yaakov 10:15; See Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 1; See in length Encyclopedia Hilchatit Refuit Erech Berius Vol. 2 pp. 352-355

[40] Admur ibid; Michaber 427:9

[41] Admur ibid; Michaber 427:10

How many lashes are given by Malkus Mardus: Some say it consists of 13 lashes. [Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam] Others say it consists of 39 lashes, as the Biblical one’s [Tosafos and Rashba], and others rule that it is given in accordance to the estimate of the Beis Din of how many lashes he can handle. [Rabbeinu Yona; See M”B 496:3] See Sdei Chemed 5 p. 53; Imrei Yaakov 10:16

[42] Rama ibid

[43] Michaber ibid; Omitted from Admur ibid

[44] Nachalas Avos 28b; Soles Belula, brought in Kaf Hachaim 4:19, explains that all the above mentioned consequences of touching the body with impure hands refers to spiritual matters. Meaning if one touches his eyes or ears then on that day he will be blind or deaf to matters of Torah that he reads or hears.

[45] The Tzemach Tzedek once witnessed his helper going to eat food that was left under the bed. The helper said to the Tzemach Tzedek “Rebbe, I do not fear the evil spirit.” The Tzemach Tzedek replied “Fool, fool, Do you know what an evil spirit is? It causes you for three days to not want to learn or Daven.” [heard from Rav Eliyahu Landau Shlita]

[46] Makor Chaim of Chavos Yair 4:3

[47] See Ben Ish Chaiy Pinchas 2; Yabia Omer 1:8; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 5

[48] See Shabbos 146a.

[49] Ben Ish Chaiy ibid

[50] Avoda Zara 31b; Ben Ish Chaiy Pinchas 2.

[51] Yabia Omer ibid

[52] Michaber O.C. 173:2; Rama Y.D. 116:5; Chulin 10a; Kitzur SHU”A 33:7; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 8

[53] Toras Chesed E.H. 5:5; Imrei Eish Y.D. 60; Tuv Taam Vadaas Telisa 2:198; Maharshag 2:240; Yabia Omer 1 Y.D. 9

[54] Chelkas Hasadeh 25 based on Birkeiy Yosef Y.D. 9; Shulchan Chaiy Pesicha 3 based on P”M O.C.4 A”A2; M”Z 7

[55] See Imreiy Yaakov 10 Biurim 6; Shemiras Hanefesh Kehilchasa Chapter 1:4 1; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 2:2

[56] Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10; Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27 ; See Admur 433:32 regarding that one must hire workers to search a mound for Chametz, and may not search with one’s hands being that there is danger of scorpions, even though it is a mere slight danger; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 2:2

[57] Implication of Admur, Tur, in 248 regarding traveling by ship for a Tiyul that only 3 days before Shabbos is there a restriction; Implication of Michaber 531:4 that it is permitted to travel in the Diaspora for Tiyul even from one country to another; Imreiy Yaakov 10 Biurim 6; Implication of Halacha of the four people who need to recite Hagomel, due to having been in areas of danger, hence implying that even initially one may make a dangerous tri that requires him to then say Hagomel; See P”M Pesicha of Hilchos Netilas Yadayim O.C. 157

[58] Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10; Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27 that so is proven from the law the four people who need to say Hagomel.

[59] Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10

^[60] Admur Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Halacha 4 “It is forbidden for one to hit one’s friend even if the friend gives him permission to hit him.  The reason for this is because a person does not have possession over his body at all to be allowed to hit it , or to embarrass it , or to pain it in any form of pain.  ”; Hilchos Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 14; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Chovel” pp. 681-682; See Likkutei Sichos Shoftim vol 34 p. 106

[61] Rama Y.D. 236:2; Shach 236:3; 215:11; Beis Yosef Y.D. 236; Rashba 616; Ran Shavuos 27a; 25; Sefer Chassidim 676; See Yabia Omer 1 Y.D. 38; Sefer Marcheshes 20; Shulchan Chaiy Pesicha; See Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 1:4; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that this prohibition is only Rabbinical. [Meiri Bava Kama 91a] See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid.

[62] Admur ibid and Hilchos Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 14; Rama Y.D. 236:2; Shach 236:3; Rambam Chovel 5:1 and Rotzeiach 1:4; Mishneh Bava Kama 90b; Radbaz Sanhedrin 18

[63] Admur ibid; Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama 8:59

^[64] Vetzaruch Iyun why this reason was not mentioned at all in the next chapter regarding why one must beware from danger.

[65] Admur ibid; Shut Harivash 484; See Tosafos Bava Kama 91b

[66] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 14

[67] See Admur Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Halacha 4; Torah Temima on verse ibid; Sefer Chassidim 675; Levush Y.D. 116:1; Shoel Umeishiv Tinyana 3:122; Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 116:1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Miabeid Atzmo Ladaas” Vol. 38

[68] Binyan Yehoshua on Avos Rebbe Nasan 3:4; Urim vetumim 27:1; Aruch Hashulchan C.M. 420:43’ Kuntrus Likkutei Imrim 13 of Chofetz Chaim

[69] Admur ibid and 155:1; Rambam Deios 3:1; Rivash 186; Rebbe Elazar Hakapar Bava Kama 91b; See Michaber 571:1 and M”A 571:1

[70] Admur ibid; M”A 571:1; Taz 571:1; Reishis Chochmah Shaar Ahava 11:77

[71] Admur ibid; Michaber 571:1; Taanis 11b; M”A 571:1; Tanya Igeres Hakodesh 3; See Likkutei Sichos 21:130 and 132; Vol. 2 p. 531

[72] Admur 155:1; Rambam Deios 2:2; Nedarim 13:23; Shemoneh Perakim 4

[73] Admur Hilchos Nizkeiy Guf Vinefesh Kuntrus Achron 2 who questions the ruling of the Rashal who prohibits it, based on Pesachim 113a and Yaakov Avinu of whom the Torah states that he made his body suffer in cold for the sake of making a living.

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that it is forbidden for one to shame himself, or damage his body, even for the sake of money. [Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama 8:59]

^[74] Rambam Hilchos Rotzeiach chapter 2 Halacha 2-4; Gemara Bava Kama 91b; Shach 345:1; See Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech “Miabeid Atzmo Ladaas” Vol. 38

[75] Bereishis 9:5

[76] Rabbeinu Bechaye on Bereishis ibid

[77] Pnei Yehoshua Bava Metziah 59a; Teshuvah Meahavah 3:409; Halef Lecha Shlomo Y.D. 321; Midrash Tehillim 120; Shaul Yosef Daas 345; See Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 93

[78] Bereishis Raba 34:13

[79] Beis Meir Y.D. 215:5

[80] Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 34:8

[81] Chasam Sofer Pesachim 53b; Igros Moshe C.M. 2:71; Sefarim in Encyclopedia Talmudit ibid footnote 18.

[82] Minchas Chinuch Mitzvah 34

[83] Admur O.C. 155:1; Tur 155; Rambam Deios 4:1; M”B 155:11; Kaf Hachaim 155:26; See Igros Kodesh 11:319

[84] Admur ibid and Hilchos Guf Vinefesh Halacha 4; Michaber 571:1 and M”A 571:1; Taanis 11a; Rambam Deios 4:1

[85] Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Halacha 14

[86] See in length Encyclopedia Hilchatit Refuit Erech Berius Vol. 2 p. 331

[87] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 17-19; Hakashrus page 433.

[88] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 2:4; Avos 3:8; Menachos 99b

[89] Mishneh Halachos 3:62 and 5:101; Sefer Zikaron 2 Hakdama, based on Sefer Chassidim 1008; Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 8; Taharas Hamayim Shin 14

[90] Setimas Kol Haposkim who record memory loss hazards; Reishis Chochmah Shaar Hakedusha 5; All Poskim in  next footnote.

[91] Hisorerus Teshuvah 1 and 367; Chesed Lealafim 157:6; Shem Mishimon Y.D. 17; Divrei Malkiel 4:1; Mili Deavos 5 Y.D. 5-3; Salmas Chaim 1:41; Likkutei Maharich; Teshuvos Vehanhagos 3 in name of Chazon Ish; Lehors Nasan 1:59

[92] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Hakdama 19

^[93] Magen Avraham 170:19 writes that although by olives those which have correct intentions do not need to beware from eating them, nevertheless regarding the heart he writes that all are to be stringent.

[94] See Sefer Chassidim 1008; P”M 72 A”A 7, brought in Darkei Teshuvah 72:5; See Chochmas Adam ibid that only the Midakdekin are careful in this; Tel Talpiyos 5:140-3; Vayitzbor Yosef 43; Yad Yitzchak 2:84-17; Givas Pinchas 65:11-44; Darkei Teshuvah 72:5; Kaf Hachaim O.C. 157:18; Y.D. 72:6; Sefer Zikaron 2 Hakdama; Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 8

[95] Chavas Daas Y.D. 72:2; Darkei Teshuvah 72:5; Givas Pinchas 65:11-44; Sefer Zikaron Hakdama 2

[96] Beis Lechem Yehuda 72:3; Kneses Hagedola; Mishmeres Shalom 72 S.D. 2; Ben Ish Chaiy Acharei 2:11

[97] Sefer Zechira Inyanei Zivug; Ben Ish Chaiy Acharei 2:11 regarding nursing

[98] Halichos Beisa 28 footnote 24; Kaf Hachaim [Falagi] 24:45 that a woman once ate an animal heart and got severely injured; Kaf Hachaim 157:18; Givas Pinchas 65:11-44 in answer of his brother in law in end of Sefer in name of Ruach Chaim and that so is implied in Mishnas Chassidim; Implication of Kaf Hachaim ibid who writes that the worry is not just to due memory loss, but also due to the Yetzer Hara; See Shulchan Chaiy 9 footnote 2

[99] Sefer Zikaron; See Hakashrus page 423.

[100] Eineiy Kol Chaiy Horiyos 13; Vayitzbor Yosef 42

[101] Shem Mishimon Y.D. 17

[102] Mili Dechassidusa 50

[103] See Likkutei Sichos Vol. 34 Parshas Vaeschanon; Divrei Avos 3:8 and Divrei David Avos 3 of Ashel Avraham of Butchach; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 17

[104] Avos 3:8

[105] Vaeschanon 4:9

[106] Menachos 99b

[107] See also Rambam Talmud Torah 1:10, 12, brought in Kuntrus Achron Talmud Torah 3

[108] In Hashmatos of Sefer Hamitzvos L.S. 2

[109] See Semag Lavin 13; Semak 15; Yireim 28

[110] Admur Hilchos Talmud Torah 2:4

[111] See Rabbeinu Yonah Avos ibid.

[112] Beginning of chapter 3

[113] Likkutei Sichos Vol. 34 Parshas Vaeschanon

[114] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 8

[115] Admur C.M. Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh 4; Michaber 427:9-10; Rambam Rotzeiach 11:5; Rama Y.D. 116:5 “All the matters to be listed are forbidden due to danger and one who guards his soul is to distance himself from it.”; Darkei Teshuvah Y.D. 116:57

[116] The scriptural basis: This Rabbinical prohibition is based on the verse “Hishamer Lecha, Ushemor Nafshecha Meod/Beware for yourself and guard your soul very much.” [Smeh C.M. 427:12; Imrei Yaakov 10:15; Omitted from Admur ibid] Seemingly, the sages learned from the word “Meod” that there are additional matters of safety that a person must be careful in, even though Biblically the percentage of danger is not high enough to include it in the Biblical prohibition of “Do not spill blood in your home.”

Is this prohibition Biblical or Rabbinical? Some Poskim rule that these matters are only Rabbinically mandated for one to beware from, and the above verse is a mere Asmachta. [Implication of wording of Admur and Michaber ibid and fact that only Makos Mardus is given; Beir Hagoleh 427 Ayin] Other Poskim, however, rule it is a Biblical obligation based on the above verse that was revealed by the Sages, although only Rabbinical lashes are given being that it is Chatzi Shiur. [Tevuos Shur 13:2; Chidushei Chasam Sofer Avoda Zara 30a;] Practically, it all depends on the percentage of danger, as if the chance of danger is very high, such as one who walks on an unsteady bridge or ladder, then he Biblically transgresses and is liable for Biblical lashes, while if the level of danger is low, then it is only Rabbinically forbidden. [See Darkei Teshuvah 116:57 in name of Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27 that so is the intent of Admur here; Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 49; Igros Moshe C.M. 2:76; Yabia Omer 1 Y.D. 8; Betzeil Hachochmah 4:118; Shulchan Chaiy Pesicha; Yad Yitzchak 2:80] See Imrei Yaakov 10:15; See Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 1

[117] Admur ibid; Michaber 427:9

[118] Admur ibid; Michaber 427:10

How many lashes are given by Malkus Mardus: Some say it consists of 13 lashes. [Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam] Others say it consists of 39 lashes, as the Biblical one’s [Tosafos and Rashba], and others rule that it is given in accordance to the estimate of the Beis Din of how many lashes he can handle. [Rabbeinu Yona; See M”B 496:3] See Sdei Chemed 5 p. 53; Imrei Yaakov 10:16

[119] Rama ibid

[120] Michaber ibid; Omitted from Admur ibid.

[121] Bechur Shur Shabbos 82a; Beis Shlomo Y.D. 1:189; Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27; See Rosh 13:8 for a similar argument regarding negating the status of Katlanis by a widower; Chasam Sofer E.H. 136; Galya Misechta E.H. 11; Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:20

Counterargument: See Derisha Y.D. 116 that the Tur and Shulchan Aruch only mentioned eating related restrictions in this chapter, and hence one cannot learn from here to other things; See Rama 116:5 “One must be careful in all matters that lead to danger,” hence perhaps hinting to all the Talmudic dangers not explicitly listed in the Shulchan Aruch. [Divrei Yatziv 2:16]

[122] See next Halacha in detail for all these cases of exception

[123] See Terumas Hadeshen 211; Mishneh Halachos 3:61

[124] Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27

[125] Kneses Hagedola  Y.D. 116:27 and onwards; Menoras Hamaor Ner 6

[126] Bechur Shur Shabbos 82a; Beis Shlomo Y.D. 1:189; M”B in Likkutei Halachos Niddah 17a; Salmas Chaim 4:4-8

[127] Implication of Rambam and Tur and Shulchan Aruch who omit many of the Talmudic restrictions [See Bechur Shur Shabbos 82a; Beis Shlomo Y.D. 1:189; Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27]; Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 173:1 regarding meat and fish that “it is possible that today there is no longer much danger involved in the above as we see that are a number of matters mentioned in the Talmud which were forbidden due to danger of the “evil spirit” and other matters and today they cause no damage.”; Hagahos Mordechai Miseches Shabbos Perek Hamotzi that the Talmudic danger of eating peeled garlic, onions, and eggs, no longer applies today; Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Chulin 88 that the Ruchos which the Talmudic sages warned about are no longer around today; Elya Raba 1:4 in name of Rashal; Machatzis Hashekel 4:1 in name of Rashal; Mahram Chaviv Yuma 44ba; Lechem Mishnah in his explanation of Rambam Hilchos Shevisas Asor 3:2; Tevuos Shur 6:14 that for this reason the Rambam omitted all of the Talmudic dangers of Ruach Ra’ah; Malbim in Artzos Hachaim 4:4 in great length that Rambam holds there is no Ruach Ra’ah today; Makor Chaim 4:3 that today people don’t get damaged by the Ruach Ra’ah being that together with the Yeridas Hadoros of Kedusha is also Yeridas Hadoros of Kelipa; See Admur 328:41 and Rama 328:35 that Ruach Ra’ah is not a danger or great pain; See Tosafos Chulin 107b; Yuma 77b that Shibsa is no longer around today; Abayey in Pesachim 112b that he banished all the Mazikin; Rav Poalim 2 Kuntrus Yesharim 9

[128] The reason: Some Poskim rule that today there is no more Ruach Raah and hence one is not required to wash his hands three times in the morning. [Poskim ibid]

[129] Setimas Kol Haposkim and Shulchan Aruch Michaber and Admur who bring many laws of Ruach Ra’ah dangers; Shvus Yaakov 3:70; Chasam Sofer Y.D. 101; Maharam Shick Y.D. 244; See Admur Shemiras Guf Vinefesh Kuntrus Achron 1 that possibly Abayey’s banishing was counterproductive and now we need to be even more careful.

[130] See Kaf Hachaim Y.D. 116:44

[131] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 6; Chapter 25 footnote 1.

[132] Implication of Rambam and Tur and Shulchan Aruch who omit many of the Talmudic restrictions [See Bechur Shur Shabbos 82a; Beis Shlomo Y.D. 1:189; Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27]; See Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 173:1 writes regarding meat and fish that “it is possible that today there is no longer much danger involved in the above as we see that are a number of matters mentioned in the Talmud which were forbidden due to danger of the “evil spirit” and other matters and today they cause no damage.” The reason for this change is because the natures of people have changed as well as that different lands have different natured people; M”A 179:8 and 202:4; M”A ibid in name of Bach;              M”B 173:3 and 179:18 in name of M”A ibid; Rama E.H. 156:4 regarding Leida Bemuktzain that Nishtaneh Hativim; Tosafos Moed Katan 11a; Avoda Zara 24b; Chulin 47a; Chavos Yair 234; Kesef Mishneh 4 Deios 18; Bris Olam on Sefer Chassidim 477; Metzudos David 32; Shearim Hametzuyanim 32; Mishneh Halachos 3:61

[133] Rashba 98; Terumas Hadeshen 271; Sdei Chemed Mareches Tes Kelal Hei; Shvus Yaakov 3:70; Maharam Shick Y.D. 244; See Rama Y.D. 57:18; Shach 57:88; Beir Moshe 6:160; see Hakashrus page 423.

[134] See Teshuvah Meahavah 3:325; Chazon Ish 5:3; Igros Moshe E.H. 2:3-2

[135] See Admur 328:3-9; and Michaber chapter 328; P”M 328 A”A 2 and M”Z 2; M”B 328:8; Minchas Shabbos 92:132; Sdei Chemed 9:5; Piskeiy Teshuvos 328:3

[136] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 6

[137] See Rashba 1:413

[138] 2nd opinion in Admur 288:7 “today the interpretation of dreams have changed from the times of the Talmud just as the medical treatment of back then has changed”; Malbushei Yom Tov; Elya Raba 288:12; All the Talmudic cures are omitted from the Rambam Hilchos Deios; Kesef Mishneh 4 Deios 18; Pilpula Charifta Avoda Zara 1:10; Bris Olam on Sefer Chassidim 477; Shearim Hametzuyanim Behalacha 32:2; Nishmas Avraham 14:4

[139] Tosafos Moed Katan 11a; Likkutei Maharil; Chidushei Rebbe Akiva Eiger Y.D. 336:1; Beis Lechem Yehuda 336:1; Chavos Yair 234

[140] Likkutei Maharil; Rashal in Yam Shel Shlomo Chulin Kol Habasar 12; Chidushei Rebbe Akiva Eiger Y.D. 336:1

[141] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 11; Shemiras Hanefesh chapter 12; Pilpul Hatemimim Kefar Chabad 20 p. 362

[142] 116:6

[143] Metzudos Dovid ibid

[144] Shabbos 129b regarding Erev Shabbos; Yevamos 12b [regarding Mishmaeish Bemoch] and 72a [regarding Yoma Deiba]; Kesubos 39a; Avoda Zara 30b; Niddah 45a; Sanhedrin 110

[145] All Poskim in coming footnotes; Custom recorded in Terumas Hadeshen 211 regarding Torah scholars marrying a Katlanis; Shut Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 11; Pilpula Charifta Avoda Zara 30:29; See Admur 477:11 that there is no issue with hanging meat and fish being that it is common for these foods to be hung, and Igros Kodesh 2:144 regarding Mayim Shelanu in metal; So rule regarding talking while eating: Perisha 170:1; Elya Raba 170; Shaareiy Teshuvah 170:1; So rule regarding food under bed: Chochmas Adam 68:63; Aruch Hashulchan 116:11; Kaf Hachaim 116:40; So rule regarding peeled garlic: Kav Hazahav 12 [14]; So rule regarding drinking in the dark on Tuesday and Friday night: Peri Chadash 116; Imrei Yaakov 10:19; So rule regarding raising a calf born to one’s animal: Kaf Hachaim 116:116; So rule regarding not isolating by an epidemic: Rav Avraham Azulaiy writes in Chesed Leavraham Mayan Chamishi Eiyn Mishpat Nehar 28; So rule regarding day 90 of pregnancy: M”A 240:5; Abayey in Niddah 31a; So rule regarding auspicious and non-auspicious days of the month to move: See Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 44; So rule regarding Marrying a Kohenes: Tzemach Tzedek Even Haezer 11; Likkutei Sichos 19:509; Igros Kodesh 11:115; So rule regarding not talking to a Niddah: Divrei Malkiel 5:103; Igros Kodesh 3:374 ; So rule regarding walking between two people of the opposite gender: Tav Yehoshua 2:12

[146] Igros Kodesh 2:143

[147] Chaim Shoel 59; Divrei Yatziv 2:33; Chelkas Yaakov 4:12

[148] Zecher Yosef O.C. 28; Negated by Yabia Omer 3:7

[149] See Ashel Avraham 3 that one can apply the rule of Shomer Pesaim Hashem in all cases of doubt even those not explicitly stated; Toras Menachem 5743 1:382 regarding wet feet; Igros Kodesh 2:143 regarding Mayim Shelanu Bekli Matchos

[150] See sources in previous footnote.

[151] Koveitz Shiurim Kesubos 136

[152] Mishneh Halachos 5:234; See Igros Moshe C.M. 2:76

[153] Ben Poras 11; So rule regarding talking while eating: Perisha 170:1; Elya Raba 170; Shaareiy Teshuvah 170:1

[154] Igros Kodesh 2:143

[155] Ashel Avraham 3

[156] Tiferes Tzvi 91; See Toras Menachem 5743 1:382 that even “Torah scholars are lenient”

[157] Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 11:8; 89

[158] Shulchan Menachem 2 p. 75

[159] Terumas Hadeshen 211, brought in Beis Yosef E.H. 9, that he is unsure if a Torah scholar may even initially rely on Shomer Pesaim; Yosef Ometz 49, brought in Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 11; Daas Torah O.C. 455:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek Y.D. 116:77; Peri Hasadeh 3:159; Ben Ish Chaiy Pinchas 2; Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 7; 3 Y.D. 7; See Beis Yosef Y.D. 262 in name of Ritva on Yevamos 72a in name of Ra’ah that one may be stringent not to trust Shomer Pesaim Hashem

[160] Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 11:8; 8; Implication of Gemara in Yevamos 12b regarding Mishmaeish Bemoch; 72a regarding Yoma Deiba; Terumas Hadeshen 211, brought in Beis Yosef E.H. 9, regarding the custom of Torah scholars marrying a Katlanis; Ben Porat 2:11; Shevet Meyehuda Shaar Harishon 19; Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27; Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchasa 33 footnote 2; See Igros Kodesh 2:143; 3:374; 6:196; Toras Menachem 5743 1:382

[161] Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 11:8; 89; Igros Kodesh 2:143; 3:24; 3:374; 6:196; 9:79; Toras Menachem 5743 1:382

[162] Igros Kodesh 2:143

[163] Daas Torah O.C. 455:1; Yosef Ometz 37:1; Zivcheiy Tzedek Y.D. 116:77; Peri Hasadeh 3:159; Yabia Omer 2 Y.D. 7; 3 Y.D. 7

[164] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 14

[165] Pesachim 110b regarding Zugos; Yerushalmi Shabbos 6:9

[166] Nimukei Yosef end of Moed Katan regarding Leich Beshalom, brought in Darkei Moshe Y.D. 402; Sefer Chassidim 459; Chasam Sofer E.H. 116

[167] Pesachim 110b

[168] Pesachim ibid and Rashbam on Pesachim ibid; Shivim Temarim Kapos Temarim 4

Other opinions: Some Poskim rule that one who ignores the danger is completely safe from it occurring to him. [Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27]

[169] Mili Dechassidusa on Tzavah 50

[170] Admur C.M. Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh 4; Michaber 427:10

[171] Igros Moshe 3:26 “Ayin Hara is certainly a matter to suspect for, however on these matters the rule is not to contemplate it, as one is not particular on it, Hashem is not particular on him.”; Igros Kodesh 8:154 “One who is not particular, it is not particular with him”; 13:94 “The complete removal of one’s mind from it nullifies it”;

[172] Igros Kodesh ibid; See Heichal Menachem 2 p. 91; Hiskashrus 903

[173] See Birkeiy Yosef 141:6 and Yad Ahron 141 that even if one is not Makpid, Ayin Hara still exists; We also Daven every day to save us from Ayin Hara

[174] The Rebbe discussed the concept of Ayin Hara and its power on various occasions: See Toras Menachem 2:187 that it does not have power on concealed miracles; Igros Kodesh 10:280; 18:38; Toras Menachem Reshimos Hayoman p. 316 that the tzemach tzedek wore glasses on his forehead to protect him from Ayin Hara; On various occasions the Rebbe said “Bli Ayin Hara.”

[175] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 15

[176] See Admur 260:1 regarding cutting hair on Rosh Chodesh; Michaber 362:6 regarding not burying two corpses together; Michaber 363:2; Rama Y.D. 11:4 regarding Shechita in Teves; Rama 179:3 regarding a chicken who crowed like a rooster; Rama 265:11 regarding not being Sandek twice.

[177] Rebbe Moshe Proventzal 9; Chasam Sofer Y.D. 138; See also Terumas Hadeshen 211

[178] Maharam Mintz 79

[179] Chasam Sofer E.H. 116; Devar Moshe Kama 58; Avnei Tzedek E.H. 10; Igros Moshe E.H. 1:4; Igros Kodesh 14:399

[180] See Shev Yaakov 23; Noda Beyehuda Tinyana E.H. 79, brought in Igros Kodesh Rebbe Maharash p. 45; Shut Ramatz Y.D. 87; Yad Yitzchak 3:109; Shemiras Hanefesh 85; Shemira Meialya 53; Kaf Hachaim 116:130; Chasam Sofer in Igeres Sofrim 2:25; Igros Kodesh 9:262

[181] Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27 that the Maharsha was a descendent of his and nonetheless his name was Shmuel and his father’s name was Judah, contrary to the warning of Rav Yehuda Hachassid

[182] Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27; Beis Shearim Y.D. 196

[183] Damesek Eliezer on Tzavah 5

[184] See Divrei Chaim 1 E.H. 8 who vehemently negates the ruling of the Noda Beyehuda and says that “Shaareiy Leih Mareiy” to the Noda Beyehuda; Shivim Temarim Kuntrus Shiva Eiynayim Ayin 2; Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27; Chaim Veshalom 2:13; Rabbeinu Yerucham in Nesiv 28; Rokeiach 316; Tashbeitz 555; Orchos Chaim 2 Hilchos Avel 31; Maharil 111; Terumas Hadeshen 131; Beis Yosef 179; Kneses Hagedola E.H. 62:4; Yosef Ometz 37; Zohar Chaiy Mishpatim p. 133; Shulchan Hatahor 260:4; Yifei Laleiv 3 Y.D. 240; Nishmas Kol Chaiy Y.D. 42; Chaim Bayad 24; Keser Torah Eitz Chaim 9; Mili Dechassidusa Tzavah 50; Igros Kodesh 11:296

[185] Divrei Chaim ibid

[186] See Igros Kodesh Rebbe Maharash p. 47; Imrei Eish Y.D. 60; Avnei Tzedek E.H. 11; Betzel Hachochmah 3:42

[187] Avnei Tzedek Y.D. 46 and 142; E.H. 10-11; Levushei Mordechai 4:25; Yad Yitzchak 3:109; Maharsham 6:145; Hagahos Maharsham on Tzavah 19; Kinyan Torah 1:39

[188] Noda Beyehuda Tinyana E.H. 79; So rule regarding destroying an oven for the sake of a Yeshiva: Beis Dovid Y.D. 56; Shem Aryeh; Ben Porat 2:11; Maharam Brisk 1:29; Shivim Temarim on Tzavah Ayin Hei, mentioned in Igros Kodesh 4:55; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] 220:10; See Toras Shalom of Rashab 36 who mentions the stringent opinion and brings argument to be lenient

[189] Yosef Ometz 37:1 in name of Tzeror Hakesef 6; Ikarei Hadat Y.D. 14:2; Zechor Leavraham 3:189; Shulchan Gavoa 116:119; Zechor Leavraham; Nishmas Kol Chaiy 42; Hagahos Maharsham on Tzavah; Kaf Hachaim 116:121

[190] Tzemach Tzedek E.H. 143 and Piskeiy Dinim Y.D. 116 that the Alter Rebbe was very stringent with this Tzavah

[191] Piskeiy Dinim Y.D. 116

[192] Shivim Temarim ibid writes that the Tzemach Tzedek was punished for being lenient in this

[193] Igros Kodesh Rebbe Maharash p. 45 regarding building a private Mikveh at home

[194] Toras Shalom of Rashab 36-38 regarding destroying an oven; Igros Kodesh Rebbe Rashab 1:159 and 174 [printed in Shut Toras Shalom Halacha 36-37] regarding closing up windows

[195] Igros Kodesh 12:444 regarding being Sandek twice; Igros Kodesh 18:136; Igros Kodesh 13:296; 15:346 [printed in Shulchan Menachem 4:27-29]; See Shulchan Menachem 4:14 in length for many letters of the Rebbe on the subject

[196] Igros Kodesh Rashab 2:923 and Igros Kodesh 3:182; 195; 6:190 regarding brother marrying two sisters; See Shulchan Menachem 4:14 for other cases of leniency

[197] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 16; Darkei Teshuvah 179:23 in name of Shaar Shlomo 47

[198] See Taz Y.D. 116:4 and Darkei Moshe 116:9 regarding the Tekufa “Sichos Hazekeinos”

[199] See Michaber Y.D. 178-179; Rambam Avoda Zara 11; Sanhedrin 65a; Encyclopedia Talmudit Erech Darkei Haemori Vol. 7

[200] See Admur 180:6 [not covering knife on Shabbos]; 432:11 [scattering 10 pieces of bread]; 452:4 [Hagalah]; 494:16 [Dairy on Shavuos]; M”A 494:6; Tosafus Menachos 20b; See Chasam Sofer 51; Maharam Padvah 78; Ginas Veradim O.C. 2:28; Sdei Chemed Chasan Vekallah 21 and Mareches Mem 37-38

[201] Shiltei Hagiborim Avoda Zara 9a, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah 179:3; See Yerushalmi Terumos 8:3, brought in Beis Yosef Y.D. 116 and Rosh 13 and Hagahos Maimanis Retzicha 12:2, that one needs to suspect for that which people worry of danger; Sefer Chassidim 261 that there is danger involved in matters that people believe to be dangerous; Divrei Torah Mahadurah Daled 112; Minchas Yitzchak 9:8; Shemiras Hanefesh ibid in name of Rav Chaim Kanievsky that one should follow all the Hazards accepted by the populace

[202] Such as not buying items for a child before he is born, or for a child not to look at a mirror until his teeth have grown, or not to step over a child lest he not grow anymore, or not eating the ends of the bread. [See Teshuvos Beir Moshe; Minchas Yitzchak 9:8]

[203] Darkei Teshuvah Y.D. 116:143 “certainly there’s no need to beware of hazards that are based on rumors that women spread and are not found in the words of the sages or writings of the Arizal”; Rav Eliyahu Landau wrote to me regarding purchasing baby items prior to birth, and that on this it states, “One who is not Makpid -Lo Kapdinan”, and that so is the custom that he witnessed.

[204] See Hiskashrus 857 that the Rebbe vehemently opposed the custom of the red string against Ayin Hara as transgressing Darkei Emori

[205] This follows the famous ruling of the Rashba that the Minhag of women is holy and is to be abided. [See Rashba 1:9 and 413; Chavos Yair 134; Heishiv Moshe 13; Aryeh Dbei Ilai Y.D. 19; Darkei Teshuvah 179:23 in name of Shaar Shlomo 47; Beis Avi 2:78; Minchas Yitzchak 9:8; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 16:2; Heard from Rav Leibel Groner; See Beir Moshe 8:36 [regarding a) baby in front of mirror; b) stepping over a child c) wearing a red string]; Minchas Yitzchak 9:8]

[206] See Darkei Teshuvah 179:23 in name of Shaar Shlomo 47; See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 16:4

[207] Admur 433:32; See Sdei Chemed Mareches Lamed 141; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo 12

[208] Koheles 8:5

[209] Admur 206:14 “Furthermore, even according to those opinions who rule that the danger of drinking water that was around during the Tekufa continues to apply even after the Tekufa passes, so long as a piece of metal was not inside the water during the Tekufa, nonetheless, one who guards a Mitzvah will know no evil.”; Admur 455:15 “One who has drawn water in his home, which was drawn for the sake of kneading the Matzos, and the Tekufa then arrived either by night or by day, nevertheless, one is not required to spill out these waters, as the verse states “One who guards a Mitzvah will know no evil.” Admur 433:32 “However here regarding this case of scorpions in the mound, the danger is not common, as perhaps there is no scorpion at all in the mound, and even if there is, perhaps he will not touch it with his hands while he is checking and searching for the chametz, and even if he will touch it, perhaps it will not hurt him being that the scorpion is hidden under the mound, and thus there remains only a mere suspicion of danger, and we are thus not worried about this while one is in middle of doing a Mitzvah.”; See Eruvim 21 regarding Rebbe Akiva using his drinking water for washing for bread; Pischeiy Teshuvah Y.D. 157:3 in name of Tiferes Yisrael on Brachos 1:3; Imrei Yaakov 10:23

The reason: As one who does a mitzvah is not injured in the process and hence, we do not suspect for danger while the person is doing the mitzvah. [Admur 433:32]

[210] Admur 433:32 “The reason for why earlier by the case of a hole with a wall which one side lives a Jew and the other a gentile, [we ruled that it should not be checked at night because] of danger [that the gentile will think the Jew is doing magic], [and we do not apply the rule that one who is doing a mitzvah is protected during the mitzvah, as explained here, is because this protection only applies when the potential danger is not common, however] when the potential danger is common we do not rely on miracles even if one is doing a command of G-d. This is learned from the verse “And Shmuel responded how can I go, Shaul will hear about it and kill me, and G-d then said take with you a wagon of cattle…” [Meaning that even though G-d had commanded Shmuel to go crown the son of Yishai as king, Shmuel was afraid of the danger involved, and G-d then agreed with Shmuel’s concern and said that for that reason he should try to avoid the danger by taking with him a wagon of cattle.] ; Imrei Yaakov 10:23

[211] Even Haroshe 14; Drakei Horah 2:75; Tiferes Tzvi 91; Beis Shearim Y.D. 344; 350; Divrei Malkiel 2:53; Marcheshes 1:20-13; Mishneh Halachos 4:190

[212] Tiferes Tzvi 91; See Sefer Shulchan Chaiy 1 footnote 4; Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh 1:6 footnote 8

[213] Yeshuos Yaakov Y.D. 116:3; Mishmeres Shalom

[214] Admur 206:14; M”B 206:26

[215] Admur 455:15; M”A 455:7; Taz 455:3; Levush 455:6; Rebbe Yehuda Hachassid

[216] Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10

[217] Noda Beyehuda Tinyana Y.D. 10

[218] See Smeh C.M. 426:2; Imrei Yaakov 10 Likkutim 10

[219] Admur 329:8 “Although every individual is obligated to even desecrate Shabbos in order to save the life of another Jew, even if there is doubt as to whether they will be saved, nevertheless, if there is danger [involved in trying to save the Jew] one may not endanger himself in order to save his friend because [in the meantime] he is not within the range of danger. [This applies] even if one is witnessing the death of his friend and even if his danger [in trying to save him] is doubtful while his friend’s is certain, nevertheless [he is not to put himself in danger to save him].”; 2^nd opinion in Admur Choshen Mishpat Hilchos Nizkeiy Haguf Vihanefesh Halacha 7 in parentheses; Issur Viheter 59:38; Elya Zuta 329:4; Smeh C.M. 426:2 based on omission of all Rishonim and Poskim [Rif, Rambam, etc.]; Agudas Eizov brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah C.M. 426, as the Bavli argues on the Yerushalmi in this; Radbaz 3:627, brought in Pischeiy Teshuvah C.M. 426; M”B 329:19

[220] The reason: The reason for this is as the verse states, “You shall live by them” and not that one should come into doubt of death through fulfilling the Mitzvah of “Do not stand by the blood of your friend.” [Admur ibid]

[221] 1^st opinion in Admur Choshen Mishpat Hilchos Nizkeiy Haguf Vihanefesh Halacha 7 “One who sees a friend drowning in the sea or that murderers are coming upon him and he is able to personally save him or to hire someone to help save him, then he is obligated to trouble himself to hire others to save him, and he then returns and collects the money from the victim if the victim has the money, and if not then he may not refrain from [paying to help save him], and if he does refrain from doing so then he transgresses the command of “do not idle while your friends blood is being spilled. Even to enter oneself into a questionable case of danger there are opinions who say that one must do in order to help save his friend from definite death.” [Omitted from Admur Hilchos Shabbos ibid; This difference of ruling as well as the parentheses given by Admur in Nizkeiy Haguf is discussed by the Rebbe in Likkutei Sichos 28 p. 153 footnote 19. The Rebbe does not give any concluding stance on this subject.]; Hagahos Maimanis Rotzeiach 1:14 in name of Yerushalmi; Radbaz Leshonos Harambam 1582; Smeh C.M. 426:2 based on Yerushalmi.

[222] Conclusion of Admur in Choshen Mishpat Hilchos Nizkeiy Haguf Vihanefesh Halacha 7 in parentheses

[223] Choshen Mishpat 426:2; M”B 328:19; Shevet Halevi 8:87; See Piskeiy Teshuvos 329:9

[224] Admur 181:2; Rambam Brachos 6:2; 11:4; Rashba Toras Habayis Bayis 6 Shaar 5; M”A 4:13; Peri Megadim 4 A”A 13; 157 Pesicha; Elya Raba 4:8; Likkutei Sichos Vol. 2 Parshas Ki Seitzei; Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] 218:3; Mavo Chapter 4

Custom of Tzanzer Rebbe: See Sefer Hoil Moshe Teshuvos 9 and Taamei Haminhagim that the Tzanzer Rebbe once said a blessing of Vinishmartem upon not eating Maror one Pesach Seder due to doctors’ orders, however, many have recounted this as false, including the Tzanzer Rebbe of today [See Sefer Shemiras Haguf ibid p. 47]

[225] The reason: The reason that a blessing is said upon building a fence to prevent danger, despite the ruling that a blessing is never made over an action done to prevent danger, is because the Mitzvah of making a fence is in addition to the Mitzvah of preventing blood from spilling in one’s home, and hence it deserves its own blessing. The command to make a fence is in addition to the command to remove danger from one’s home, as one can remove the danger through other ways such as by elevating the ground so the roof is not 10 Tefach high, or by making the roof be in a slanted form of which is not obligated in a fence. Thus, from the fact that nevertheless the command is to specifically make a fence we see that the fence is additional aspect to that of the danger, and in fact its reason has nothing to do with danger, and rather the aspect of danger is commanded in the negative command of “do not spill blood in your house”. A proof to this differentiation is that the Rambam rules that a Mitzvah and its reasoning are never counted as two different Mitzvos, and thus from the fact that both avoiding danger and making fence are counted as two different Mitzvos proves that the reasoning behind making a fence is not because of danger. [Rebbe Likkutei Sichos Ki Seitzei 2 p. 89 and Vol 9 footnote 28 and Vol. 19 footnote 48; See Minchas Chinuch 546:2; Chayeh Adam 15:24; Emek Sheila Eikev Sheilasa 145:17; Peri Megadim 4 A”A 13; 157 Pesicha]

[226] See Sefer Shemiras Haguf Vihanefesh [Lerner] Mavo Chapter 10

[227] Admur 196:1; 5; 204:15; Seder Birchas Hanehnin 7:9: Michaber 204:9; Piskeiy Dinim Tzemach Tzedek 7a

[228] Michaber 202:4; Admur 202:10; Seder Birchas Hanehnin 7:11; Luach 10:11; Brachos 35b

Bookmark