1. Must one abide by all the health directives and safety hazards recorded in the Talmud?^[1]

*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:^[2] There are many matters which the sages^[3] prohibited due to them potentially leading to danger of life^[4], 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.^[5] [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.^[6] One who is careful to beware of them, on him will befall a good blessing.^[7]]

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and Tur and Shulchan Aruch, seemingly implying that in their opinion, these restrictions which they have omitted are no longer applicable today.^[8] Indeed, many Poskim^[9] rule regarding dangers which are due to Ruach Ra’ah, or due to a specific nature, that they are no longer applicable today due to the nullification of this evil spirit or due to a change in the nature [i.e. Nishtaneh Hativim].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.^[10] 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.^[11] 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^[12] 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^[13] 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.

2. 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^[14] rule that one no longer needs to beware of dangers that are due to Ruach Ra’ah.^[15] Practically, however, the Poskim^[16] 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.^[17]]

B. The rule of Nishtaneh Hativim-Change of nature:^[18]

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.^[19] Other Poskim^[20], however, dissent this ruling, and so is proven from the many laws of Treifos by animals^[21] and dangers on Shabbos for which one may desecrate Shabbos on its behalf^[22], 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:^[23]

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.^[24] These Talmudic medical directives and cures, are no longer applicable today due to change in the nature of the human physique^[25], and are actually prohibited in being followed.^[26] 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.^[27]

D. The rule of Dashu Bah Rabim and Shomer Pesaim Hashem:^[28]

In Tehillim^[29] 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.^[30] This verse is recruited in the Talmud^[31] and Poskim^[32] 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.^[33]]

In which cases of danger may one apply this leniency? Some Poskim^[34] 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^[35] 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^[36], 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.^[37] 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.^[38] Likewise, it applies by a matter that is considered a very distant danger and is of low risk.^[39] This leniency applies to both Segula dangers and natural dangers.^[40] 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.^[41] 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.^[42]

How many people must be accustomed to being lenient to apply the leniency: Some Poskim^[43] 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^[44] 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:^[45] 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^[46] 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^[47] 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.^[48] 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.^[49] However, some are stringent even by Segula dangers.^[50]

E. Man Delo Kapid Lo Kapid Bahadaiyhu:^[51]

Understanding the rule: A concept that we find both in the Talmud^[52] and Poskim^[53] 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^[54] 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.^[55] Furthermore, some Poskim^[56] 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^[57] 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:^[58] 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.^[59] 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.^[60] 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.^[61]]

F. Warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid:^[62]

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.^[63] Now, regarding his other warnings: Some Poskim^[64] 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^[65] rule that many of the warnings never became accepted by the Jewish community, and others have been abolished. Other Poskim^[66] 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^[67] 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^[68], and some Poskim^[69] explain that the warnings were only meant for his children and not for future generations. However, other Poskim^[70] 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^[71] 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.^[72]

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.^[73] Some Poskim^[74] rule that one may be lenient in the warnings of Rav Yehuda Hachassid if he receives a Heter from three Rabbanim. Some Poskim^[75] rule that one may be lenient for the sake of the mitzvah, although other Poskim^[76] 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.^[77] 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.^[78] However, some say that the Tzemach Tzedek was later punished for doing so and he therefore retracted his lenient ruling and was stringent.^[79] The Rebbe Maharash^[80] was careful to abide by the warnings of Rebbe Yehuda Hachassid, as was the Rebbe Rashab^[81], and the Rebbe.^[82] However, in certain cases the Rebbe Rashab and Rebbe was lenient.^[83]

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:^[84]

*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^[85]” 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^[86], 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.^[87] Furthermore, some Poskim^[88] 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.^[89] 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.^[90] 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.^[91] 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.^[92]

J. Family traditions:^[93]

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.

_______________________________________________________

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

[2] 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

[3] 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

[4] Admur ibid; Michaber 427:9

[5] 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

[6] Rama ibid

[7] Michaber ibid; Omitted from Admur ibid.

[8] 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]

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

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

[11] Shem Aryeh Y.D. 27

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

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

[14] 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

[15] 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]

[16] 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.

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

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

[19] 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

[20] 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.

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

[22] 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

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

[24] See Rashba 1:413

[25] 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

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

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

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

[29] 116:6

[30] Metzudos Dovid ibid

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

[32] 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

[33] Igros Kodesh 2:143

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

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

[36] 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

[37] See sources in previous footnote.

[38] Koveitz Shiurim Kesubos 136

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

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

[41] Igros Kodesh 2:143

[42] Ashel Avraham 3

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

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

[45] Shulchan Menachem 2 p. 75

[46] 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

[47] 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

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

[49] Igros Kodesh 2:143

[50] 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

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

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

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

[54] Pesachim 110b

[55] 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]

[56] Mili Dechassidusa on Tzavah 50

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

[58] 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”;

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

[60] 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

[61] 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.”

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

[63] 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.

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

[65] Maharam Mintz 79

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

[67] 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

[68] 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

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

[70] Damesek Eliezer on Tzavah 5

[71] 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

[72] Divrei Chaim ibid

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

[74] 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

[75] 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

[76] 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

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

[78] Piskeiy Dinim Y.D. 116

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

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

[81] 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

[82] 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

[83] 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

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

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

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

[87] 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

[88] 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

[89] 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]

[90] 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.

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

[92] 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]

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

Bookmark